GreenIsTheNewRed.com» Legal Issues

Grad Student Indicted on Terrorism Charges

Will Potter — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:20:33 +0000

As a follow up to David Pellow’s guest post, “My Student is a Sociologist, Not a Terrorist,” here is an update from his grad student facing terrorism charges, Scott DeMuth.

DeMuth has been indicted for conspiracy to commit “animal enterprise terrorism” in relation to the unsolved Animal Liberation Front raid at the University of Iowa. The government has argued that DeMuth is an anarchist, and “therefore, he is a domestic terrorist.”

This is an excerpt from a public statement by DeMuth:

…I believe I was targeted by this grand jury because of my involvement in doing prisoner support as a part of EWOK! (Earth Warriors are OK!). Further, as a part of my academic career, I have been involved in researching the animal rights and environmental movements and interviewing participants of those movements. The identity and contents of interviews are protected by confidentiality agreements, and I have an obligation to this confidentiality as outlined by the Institutional Review Board and American Sociological Association guidelines.

Because of the grand jury’s use in investigating social movements, I refused to cooperate and testify in the proceedings. Additionally, because grand jury proceedings are held in secret, there is no real way to verify if I had only given my name or if I had given away the identity and contents of each interview I have done. Therefore, if for no other reason, I believed that my participation would violate the trust and confidentiality of those who I have interviewed. I went to Davenport on November 17th, knowing that I could be jailed for contempt of court, and I was willing to deal with whatever legal consequences came with that decision.

As expected, I was jailed for contempt of court. However, two days later, I was unexpectedly charged with “conspiracy with unknown persons” under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA). As evidenced by the vagueness of the charge and its filing a day before the statute of limitations expired, I believe that this charge is being used punitively against me because of my non-cooperation with the grand jury. Additionally, it seems that this charge is a last-ditch effort by the prosecution eager to get a conviction in a failed investigation…

Under the AETA (and its predecessor the AEPA), the ever-expanding definition of terrorism has included everything from the ALF to PETA, even going as far as charging people who chalk on sidewalks as “terrorists.” Regardless of the many laws that exist to charge illegal activities, laws such as the AETA are written specifically to charge political ideologies and those who support them.

But this expanding definition of terrorism does not just affect animal rights activists, to which my case should attest. The government makes broad and dangerous generalizations across the board, conflating ideologies from all sides of the political spectrum with terrorism (e.g. anti-abortion activists, gun-rights advocates, environmentalists, and anarchists). Not only does the government target political activity, but it also uses the guise of the “war on terror” to target entire communities based on religion, ethnicity, national origin, and immigrant status. We must ask ourselves, “Who will be next?”

It is not just animal rights activists and anarchists who have a stake in this case, in the abolition of the AETA, and in the overall “terrorizing” of political dissent, but everyone who lives within America, everyone who values our inalienable rights and liberties, and everyone who seeks a better way of living than the one we have been given.

My Student is a Sociologist, Not a Terrorist

Will Potter — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 12:00:04 +0000

The following is a guest essay written by David Naguib Pellow, a Professor of Sociology at the University of Minnesota and faculty advisor of Scott DeMuth:

On November 17, 2009, Scott DeMuth was jailed for contempt of court, since he refused to answer questions posed to him by a federal grand jury in Davenport, Iowa. They were interested in questioning him about his knowledge of an unsolved Animal Liberation Front action in 2004 at the University of Iowa. Scott is a University of Minnesota graduate student and Dakota language student. Scott took a principled stand against the grand jury and paid for it with a contempt charge and, two days later, a charge of conspiracy to commit “animal enterprise terrorism.”

As a sociologist and Scott’s faculty advisor at the University of Minnesota, I am concerned about this case for many reasons. Scott is being targeted because he is a scholar who does research on some of the most important social movement struggles in our society and because of his affiliations with many such activists. In his work, he has researched and/or interviewed numerous activists from Native American struggles for sovereignty and land, and environmental and animal liberation movements in the U.S. Unfortunately, Scott is only the most recent scholar facing state repression whose research focuses on peoples’ movements. The U.S. boasts a long and shameful history of silencing and disciplining academics whose research and teaching emphasize the importance of collective efforts to effect radical social change. In recent years, professors studying various peoples’ movements (including the ones Scott focuses on) have been censored, demoted, fired, and jailed here in the U.S. This is an issue of academic freedom and I believe we should support scholars like Scott because of the importance of this kind of work for rethinking our history and for reimagining what kind of futures we can create for ourselves.

My own research on movements for racial justice, labor rights, environmental justice, and animal and earth liberation suggests quite clearly that the state and corporations spare no expense and rarely hesitate to engage in surveillance, infiltration, and other efforts to neutralize the power and reach of these groups. As a publicly outspoken scholar and activist, Scott DeMuth is at the center of these dynamics and is quickly becoming a force for common ground among people across various movements, organizations, and universities who believe that government power should always be checked and that scholars, citizens, activists, and ordinary folks must enjoy basic rights and freedom from coercion and repression. Support Scott, protect academic freedom, and let’s work to abolish the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act!

Sign a petition supporting Scott Demuth and academic freedom.

David Naguib Pellow is a Professor of Sociology at the University of Minnesota where he teaches courses on social movements, environmental justice, globalization, immigration, and race and ethnicity. His books include: The Treadmill of Production: Injustice and Unsustainability in the Global Economy, Resisting Global Toxics: Transnational Movements for Environmental Justice, and Garbage Wars.

Scott Demuth Free Despite Emergency Government Motion Labeling Him an “Anarchist”

Will Potter — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 13:00:28 +0000

The government filed an emergency motion to keep an activist in jail because he is an “anarchist” and “domestic terrorist” who associates with a “subversive,” but in a response issued Monday, an Iowa district court didn’t buy it. Scott Demuth will be released pending his trial.

Demuth has been indicted on animal enterprise terrorism charges for alleged “conspiracy” as part of the 2005 Animal Liberation Front raid at the University of Iowa that rescued more than 300 animals.

He and another Minneapolis activist, Carrie Feldman, had been targeted by a grand jury focused on the ALF raid. Both Demuth and Feldman refused to testify on the grounds that the grand jury was a political witch hunt pressuring activists to speak, without an attorney present, about their political beliefs and political associations.

When Demuth was indicted, Judge Thomas Shields ruled that he could be released pending trial as long as he wore a GPS monitoring device and adhered to other criteria. Assistant U.S. Attorney Clifford Cronk filed an emergency motion to keep Demuth behind bars, arguing:

Defendant’s writings, literature, and conduct suggest that he is an anarchist and associated with the ALF movement. Therefore, he is a domestic terrorist.

Yes, you read that correctly. The government is arguing that First Amendment activity–writings, literature–and political beliefs are enough to make someone a terrorist.

Among the other reasons given to keep Demuth, a graduate student in the sociology department at the University of Minnesota, behind bars:

He has political friends. According to the motion, he is an “associate” of Peter Young, “an outspoken and subversive animal rights activist who has been prosecuted for ALF activities and, after being indicted for animal enterprise terrorism, was a fugitive from justice for several years.”
He protests. Demuth “participated in an anti-government demonstration in front of the courthouse” prior to the grand jury hearing.
He has a network of support. There were individuals in the courtroom who supported him, Cronk argued, and many people had called into the U.S. attorney’s office opposing the grand jury “based upon their belief that the use of the grand jury was abusive and unconstitutional.”

[Here is the full motion.]

This is not an isolated incident. It is becoming increasingly common to see this kind of inflammatory, unfounded rhetoric coming from prosecutors who hope to smear activists as terrorists before they even stand trial.

For instance, in Hugh Farrell’s motion for bond, the government said he “has been observed advocating literature and materials which advocate anarchy.”

Stephanie Ernst summed up the threat of this pretty well in her comments over at change.org:

Wow. WOW. He’s suspected of being involved in a raid that involved vandalism and rescue, and he’s an anarchist, so “therefore, he is a domestic terrorist.” Forget the trial, folks! Verdict is in! How many people would be “domestic terrorists” if these were the criteria?

ELF Fugitive Sentenced for Drug Charges in China

Will Potter — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:18:52 +0000

Justin Solondz, an environmental activist who was wanted by the FBI for “eco-terrorism” charges tied to the Earth Liberation Front, has been sentenced to 3 years in a Chinese prison for manufacturing drugs. Back in June I reported on his arrest via Twitter, and now much more details have emerged about his life overseas and his sentencing.

The New York Times reports:

The story of Mr. Solondz’s life on the lam spanned three continents, involved at least two aliases and ended in a smoky bar in one of the world’s most authoritarian countries…

According to his father, Paul Solondz, the Dali police said they discovered 33 pounds of marijuana buried in the courtyard of the house that the younger Mr. Solondz rented, as well as what the prosecutor described as a drug laboratory inside the house.

Friends of Mr. Solondz in Dali said he went by the name Isaac Cox and was a familiar figure who favored black clothing, had a dog and rode a bicycle through the stone streets of Dali’s old section. (His mother, however, said court documents said he used the name David Isaac Hart.)

“He looked like a man on the run,” said a man who knew Mr. Solondz and did not give his name for fear of retribution from authorities and fellow foreigners. “Everyone who comes to this town is running away from something, some more than others.”

After serving his prison time in China, Solondz will be extradited to the United States where faces charges for his alleged involvement in the ELF arson of a horticulture center at the University of Washington in 2001.

As his father told the Times:

“Compared to those horrible people who want to kill as many people as possible in the name of religion, the avowed mission of this organization is to not harm any people or animals,” he said. “This should not even be called terrorism.”

Grad Student Indicted on Terrorism Charges

Minneapolis Activist Indicted for Conspiracy to Violate Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act

Will Potter — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:06:09 +0000

Scott DeMuth, a Minneapolis activist, has been indicted for conspiracy to violate the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, apparently in relation to a 2004 Animal Liberation Front raid at the University of Iowa. He faces up to 5 years in prison. His indictment marks a continued expansion of the scope of the new terrorism law, which has already been used to target activists who release mink from fur farms, and the AETA4, who are accused of protesting and chalking on public sidewalks.

The indictment comes after DeMuth and another local activist, Carrie Feldman, were found to be in contempt of court refusing to cooperate with a federal grand jury investigated that ALF burglary and vandalism. They were handcuffed and taken to jail for refusing to testify about their political beliefs and political associations.

I have written previously about Feldman’s refusal, and her statement to the grand jury (Activist to Iowa Grand Jury: “We will not be intimidated. We will not cooperate.”).

In a statement prepared prior to the grand jury hearing, DeMuth said:

“Grand juries can be very disempowering for us all, and especially for those targeted by them. We face questioning without legal counsel present or a right to remain silent. We can be threatened, coerced, and jailed. However, no punishment could be worse than surrendering our values. “

There has been some speculation about what, exactly, DeMuth’s conspiracy charges entail. Is the indictment for conspiracy to damage property? Or is it for conspiracy to instill a “reasonable fear”?

The truth: neither.

Bear with me for a moment. The indictment lists sections 43(a) and 43(b)(2) of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, and says the conspiracy was to commit economic damage in the amount exceeding $10,000. Section 43(a) is simply the offense section. Section 43(b)(2) spells out penalties for damages exceeding $10,000. The indictment does not specify whether the charges are for violating
43(a)(2)(A) (damaging property) or 43(a)(2)(B) (instilling fear). Does that make sense? I know it’s a little tedious, but I think it’s important to clear up. (I just spoke with Matthew Strugar, who was quoted on Peter Young’s blog, and he agreed.)

Local press has been speculating. But regardless of what, specifically, DeMuth is charged with conspiring to do, one thing is clear: conspiracy charges have been used throughout U.S. history as a catch-all when prosecutors can’t get anything else to stick. That’s exactly what happened in the case of the SHAC 7, under the previous version of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.

I have personally met both Scott DeMuth and Carrie Feldman, on multiple occasions. They were involved in organizing a Green Scare speaking event in Minneapolis. They are both incredibly kind, passionate, activists who are involved in a variety of local issues, including organizing public lectures and supporting the RNC 8. They are lawful, above-ground activists who have organized against the Green Scare. Now they, themselves, have become targets, and they need your support.

You can write letters to Carrie Feldman and Scott DeMuth, and email them to: davenportgrandjury@riseup.net. You can also donate to their legal support at http://davenportgrandjury.wordpress.com/

Ag Industry Calls for Prosecutions of Undercover Animal Activists

Will Potter — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:00:12 +0000

After being repeatedly exposed for serious, systemic animal cruelty, and now facing a media nightmare, animal agriculture corporations are firing back by calling for the prosecution of undercover activists who expose the abuses.

The Animal Agriculture Alliance says:

As these videos achieve the publicity sought by the groups, the Alliance is concerned that the activist employees providing the tapes are not held accountable for their failure to follow company animal care policies and their failure to immediately report mistreatment to the farm owners or managers.

There have been a slew of investigations in the last several years that have gained international attention. Two recent examples include the Mercy For Animals investigation of an egg hatchery and the Peta investigation of cows at Land O’ Lakes supplier facility.

Rather than stepping up and addressing these abuses, the industry is now arguing that it is the activists who should be punished for bringing them to light.

When I testified before Congress about the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, one of the concerns I raised is that the vague and overly broad law could be used to target whistleblowers and undercover investigators as “terrorists” for causing a loss of profits.

Those concerns were dismissed, just as lawmakers dismissed my concerns that the law would be used to target First Amendment activity (concerns that have unfortunately been proven true with the case of the AETA 4).

These investigations pose a serious, continued threat to the animal agriculture industry. The writing is on the wall, and they know it. They need to do everything in their power to make sure that people are not exposed to the realities of factory farms, even if that means utterly absurd campaigns like this one to arrest the activists who expose abuses.

Make no mistake: if these investigations continue, and they will, these corporations will escalate their tactics by campaigning for the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act to be used against them.

Activist to Iowa Grand Jury: “We will not be intimidated. We will not cooperate.”

Will Potter — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:00:20 +0000

Carrie Feldman, a 20-year-old woman from Minneapolis, has been subpoenaed to a federal grand jury in Iowa in what appears to be yet another attempt to harass and intimidate political activists. She faces up to a year in jail if held in contempt for refusing to cooperate with the grand jury.

As you can see in Feldman’s grand jury subpoena, the government provides few details about what is actually being investigated. That’s no accident: grand juries, by design, are secretive and conducted outside of public scrutiny in a legal void where basic Fifth and First Amendment rights do not apply. [Here is a handy booklet on grand juries with much more information.] If activists refuse to participate in the political witch-hunt, they can face serious jail time. Jordan Halliday has done exactly that with a Utah Grand Jury, and he is facing federal criminal contempt charges.

There’s a very good chance the grand jury is investigating a 2004 Animal Liberation Front raid at the University of Iowa (video of the raid is embedded here), for a few reasons. It was a very high profile crime at the time, and both the university and the FBI have indicated it is a top priority. Also, at the preliminary hearing by the grand jury, a witness asked a question that Feldman says related to that investigation.

After that raid, the University of Iowa announced that its new, $11.2 million animal experimentation facility would be underground. As an anonymous activist wrote on the TwinCities Indymedia page:

“Like the torture of animals, grand juries, too, are only at their most effective when done as intended, in secret.”

If the new underground lab at the University of Iowa is intended to deter both legal and illegal animal rights activity, that’s not going to happen. When I sent around a news article about that on Twitter a while back, an aboveground activist responded in a way that I think reflects the mentality of many people in the animal rights and environmental movements: “They’re building their labs underground now? I guess we’ll just have to get shovels.”

And if this new grand jury is intended to harass and intimidate political activists… well, I think they picked the wrong activist and the wrong community to target. Carrie Feldman is active with EWOK (Earth Warriors are OK), which has been active on local Green Scare issues. She also works with the Coldsnap Legal Collective and the RNC 8 support committee, experience that is clearly reflected in her statement to the grand jury:

First of all, I would like to state, unequivocally and most certainly for the record, that I have no intention of testifying before this grand jury. Based on information from the prosecutor indicating that I may be a target of this investigation, I am invoking my Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. But beyond that, I am refusing to cooperate based on a sincere belief that to do so would run counter to my deeply held convictions and values.

Grand juries were originally created to prevent arbitrary indictments, but are now used as a tool of the prosecution to gather information. Grand juries undercut basic rights supposedly granted in the Constitution by denying access to counsel and coercing testimony. They are now, and have been for some time, used to investigate and intimidate those who would express dissent.

This is only effective when we are complicit, when we are frightened, when we are divided. Today my voice may waver, as I stand alone in this room. But I know I speak with the voice of every one of my friends, loved ones, and comrades when I say this: We will not be intimidated. We will not cooperate. I have nothing more to say to you.

Carrie Feldman’s support website:
http://supportcarrie.wordpress.com/

Appellate Court: Encouraging Civil Disobedience is Not Protected Speech

Will Potter — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 23:15:06 +0000

The conviction of the SHAC 7–animal rights activists hit with “terrorism” charges for publishing a website and vocally, unapologetically supporting direct action–has been upheld by a U.S. appellate court. It is a landmark free speech ruling that lowers the threshold of what types of conduct are protected by the First Amendment, and upholds a law that is so broad that it targets civil disobedience as “terrorism.”

As a brief introduction: The “SHAC 7” of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty ran an effective campaign that had the sole purpose of putting Huntingdon Life Sciences, a notorious animal testing company, out of business. The campaign pressured corporations to sever ties with the lab. The SHAC 7 were never accused of breaking windows or releasing animals from labs, but they supported those who did. They published a website which posted news of both legal and illegal tactics, and supported all of it. The website had also posted names and addresses of individuals connected to the corporations targeted.

The ruling was issued today and, although there are many aspects that deserve attention, I want to walk through what I think are by far the most dangerous and troubling implications of this ruling–those related to the First Amendment:

[PDF of the SHAC appeal ruling]

Supporting and facilitating non-violent civil disobedience is not protected speech.

As part of their campaign, SHAC supporters were emailed about “electronic civil disobedience.” The email and message board posts included instructions on how electronically “sit in” on corporate web sites through emails, faxes and phone calls.

Now, one of the benchmarks in First Amendment law is what is called the Brandenburg standard. It holds that even the most controversial and inflammatory speech is protected as long as it not likely to incite “imminent and lawless action.” That is a very high threshold. In this court ruling—which, to the best of my knowledge and the attorneys I have spoken with is the first of its kind—the written word can be construed as promoting, or resulting in, imminent and lawless action.

To put it more plainly: Vocally supporting civil disobedience, explaining what it involves, and encouraging/facilitating people to take part is not protected speech.

This is so important let me say it again, another way: People who write about civil disobedience and encourage people to take part can be found convicted of a crime even if they do not take part in the civil disobedience.

This has dangerous implications far beyond this case. For instance, I wrote about the recent call by mainstream environmental groups for massive non-violent civil disobedience in defense of the environment. Under this reasoning, organizers of that event who published a website aren’t protected by the First Amendment.

[UPDATE: One person had this question, so others might as well: I am not at all saying that simply endorsing civil disobedience is now not protected speech. However, doing so and also facilitating civil disobedience is what the court ruled is not protected. So in the example above, the organizers promoted civil disobedience, encouraged it, set up a website telling people where to go and when, and there were people involved to specifically support those arrested. I think there is a very real danger of that type of conduct being affected by the reasoning presented in this ruling. That is what I had meant by the headline and preceding points.]

Fiery rhetoric is a “true threat” when illegal conduct has taken place in the same campaign.

Another measurement of whether speech is protected by the First Amendment is whether it is a true threat. Throughout the appellate court ruling, the court argued that SHAC’s speech did, in fact, constitute a true threat.

SHAC pressured corporations to divest and sever ties with HLS and “used past incidents to instill fear in future targets” (by publicizing illegal conduct, supporting that conduct). “In this regard, their actions meet the standard of a “true threat” as articulated in Watts, because viewed in context, the speeches, protests, and web postings, were all tools to further their effort.”

The court’s reasoning goes something like this: SHAC wants to close HLS, SHAC supports legal and illegal activity, therefore when SHAC targets a new corporation there is a true threat that the company will be the victim of illegal activity. So SHAC’s speech is not protected.

There are two huge problems with this. The first is that social movements throughout history have had both legal and illegal components. I have interviewed countless activists who only take part in legal protest, but vocally and unequivocally support illegal tactics, and recognize their role in the broader movement. The court argues that it doesn’t matter if you are not breaking the law; if you support illegal tactics, note their efficacy, and believe they play a role in the broader movement and your own campaigning, it is tantamount to a “true threat.”

The second problem is that no action by animal rights or environmental activists in the United States has ever resulted in physical injury or death. Not one. That’s by the admission of the FBI and DHS, along with groups that track animal rights crimes, like the Southern Poverty Law Center. It defies logic how even the most outlandish rhetoric can be construed as a “true threat” that places someone in reasonable fear of physical violence, when the movement has never engaged in physical violence.

The Animal Enterprise Protection Act and “animal enterprise terrorism” charges can be applied to First Amendment activity.

The court ruled that the defendants were guilty of “conspiracy” to commit animal enterprise terrorism because of:

Speech

Running a website

Protest

Computer encryption

This Ruling is Bigger than the SHAC 7

This ruling is disappointing, to put it mildly, for the SHAC 7 defendants still behind bars. They will serve the remainder of their sentence in prison and, if this appellate court decision stands, be forever marked as “terrorists.”

But this case is much bigger than the SHAC 7, and it is bigger than the animal rights movement. The AETA 4 are facing terrorism charges for chalking slogans and protesting with masks. Climate groups are organizing massive civil disobedience campaigns. These movements continue to grow, and so does the crackdown against them.

This is critical time in American history. Corporations, working alongside ambitious prosecutors, are radically expanding cultural and legal conceptions of “terrorism” in order to push a political agenda. Mainstream animal and environmental groups, the press, civil liberties groups, they have all largely remained silent on this historic case. As a result, this appellate court has issued its sweeping ruling with impunity.

It is all too easy to weaken the First Amendment when it comes to the rights of “radicals” and “extremists.” It is even easier when no one is paying attention.

Breaking: SHAC 7 Conviction Upheld

Will Potter — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:11:03 +0000

Judgement in the SHAC 7 appeal has just been filed, convictions have been upheld and so has the constitutionality of the Animal Enterprise Protection Act. Reading it now and will post more soon…

Jordan Halliday Faces Trial on Contempt Charges for Resisting Grand Jury

Will Potter — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:00:28 +0000

A Utah animal rights activist has been indicted by a federal grand jury on felony contempt charges for asserting his First and Fifth Amendment rights, and refusing to cooperate with the “animal rights terrorism” witch hunt. His trial is scheduled to begin on November 2.

The grand jury is investigating the release of thousands of mink from Utah ranches. Jordan Halliday has already served several months in jail for contempt of court for refusing to testify, and now the grand jury is going after him again.

Grand juries can compel people to testify without representation by an attorney. They are conducted in secret, and exist as a legal vacuum where First and Fifth Amendment rights can be deemed by a judge to no longer apply.

[Here's a "Grand Jury 101 from the Rockford Files."]

Halliday has a federal public defender in this case, but still needs to raise about $600 to pay his previous attorney; if you would like to make a donation, please visit his support website, www.SupportJordan.com.