«
»

Mafia Law Used Against Environmentalists for Tree Sits, Civil Disobedience, Blog Post

Apr 29th, 2009 by Will Potter

i69_tree_sitTwo environmental activists in Bloomington, Ind., have been charged with racketeering–charges originally intended to target the mob–for allegedly “conspiring” to engage in tree sits, participate in non-violent civil disobedience, and make an inflammatory blog post.

Hugh Farrell and Gina “Tiga” Wertz are organizers in the campaign to halt expansion of the I-69 NAFTA superhighway. They were arrested on Friday, April 24th, and they’re each facing five charges that carry a maximum of eight years in prison.

Four of the charges are misdemeanors for “intimidation” and “conversion” (treating someone else’s property as your own). All four misdemeanors are related to a civil disobedience stunt where some activists removed the furniture from an I-69 project office, occupied the space, and posted an eviction notice. The government says the civil disobedience stunt was intended to place Ronnie Wilson in fear, and subject him to “contempt or ridicule.”

The felony charge is for corrupt business influence, or racketeering. The government isn’t arguing that these activists were actually engaged in racketeering, but that they are part of Roadblock EarthFirst (described as a criminal enterprise) and “conspired” to do so. According to their arrest warrants, Farrell and Wertz:

  • “Conspired” to remove office furniture from I-69 project offices as part of eviction notice stunts.
  • “Conspired” to post an “internet blog on two publicly accessed website stating ‘you will suffer the consequences’ and ‘perhaps we’ll go to your homes, children’s daycare, churches or wherever else you happen to turn your back.” The blog posts were made after the violent removal of activists from a tree sit.
  • “Conspired” to commit “theft” when six individuals blocked the entrance to Gohmann Asphalt and Construction Company using non-violent civil disobedience and caused a loss of profits.
  • “Conspired” to commit “theft” by “taking unauthorized control of trees” and “depriving lawful owners of use and/or value of the said trees.” (Note: the last two bullets are only in Wertz’s arrest warrant.)

Racketeering laws are intended to combat organized crime, such as the mafia, and include crimes like extortion, bribery and money laundering. Although ambitious prosecutors have tried to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to target anti-abortion activists, animal rights activists, and the Hells Angels, the purpose of the law has always been to go after illegal business activity.

But these activists, and others like them, are not protesting this superhighway to make money. They’re not doing it for personal gain. Halting this environmental destruction will not financially benefit them in any way.

Then why use mob laws against them? Because of their beliefs.

Tree sits, office takeovers and road blockades are against the law, and the government has the tools and resources to prosecute those crimes.

But because of the politics of the alleged crimes, prosecutors are reaching for more. Civil disobedience has become “theft.” Tree sits have become “unauthorized control of trees.” These trumped-up charges are a way to take what are, at the very worst, misdemeanor crimes and turn them into federal crimes. It’s an attack on individuals perceived as being leaders in the movement for the sole purpose of stamping out dissent.

A support website for Hugh Farrell and Gina “Tiga” Wertz has been set up at http://mostlyeverything.net.

Related posts:

Tags: , , , , , ,

Posted in Activists Arrested, Legal Issues

  • DUDE
    Masonry nails work wonders on chainsaw blades and sawmills!!!
  • I feel dizzy. Sit-ins past swirl in my memory. All felonies?

    I remember once, in the early 1990s, a coalition of activists from different student organizations "occupied" the University of Michigan Regents meeting. Just as the meeting was about to begin, we all filed in and took their seats. We then conducted the meeting, pretending to be them. (They fled, mistakenly thinking this would keep the media from covering the event.) I played the bellicose homophobic Regent who was locally famous for his regularly inane and offensive remarks. It was great fun. We also got lots of publicity for our viewpoints while demonstrating our solidarity across movements. All of our concerns were taken a lot more seriously by the University thereafter, as they knew that we were working together.

    Kind of like... the mafia?

    Seriously, this is scary.
  • Great story, pattrice! I love it. I bet you gave an Oscar-worthy performance.

    When I saw this I immediately thoughts of campus occupations as well, including the recent NYU and New School campaigns.
  • Raven
    What if counter complaints were made that the "lawful owners" of said trees are UNLAWFULLY depriving OUR oxygen that would have been produced by said trees? Just a thought...
  • Raven: that would never work. for one, there's no law that says you can't chop down trees because of the oxygen impact. Or that anyone "owns" oxygen in the legal sense. There would also be no way to demonstrate actual, definite harm to the complainants as a result.

    I think a better approach would be to argue that some of the laws they're using to charge them are not applicable. RICO? Seriously? It's laughable. I hope that part of it gets tossed out. Apparently the industry hasn't got the environmental equivalent to the AETA though, so they're grasping at straws.
  • banu
    there is also a mention of "truck hijackings" in one of the warrants - that refers to a lockdown to a truck at gohmann asphalt.
  • dut
    @hexalm, or go further and argue that if it is tossed out, the "Conspiracy to Deprive Citizens of their Rights under Color of Authority" actually means the protesters can file RICO charges against the police & prosecutors who came up with the ignorant idea in the first place...
  • Raises the issue of how a superstate that seeks to categorize and punish individuals claims that it is a nation "for the people."
  • sad
    Martin Luther King:
    I say to you, this morning, that if you have never found something so dear and precious to you that you will die for it, then you aren’t fit to live.You may be 38 years old, as I happen to be, and one day, some great opportunity stands before you and calls upon you to stand for some great principle, some great issue, some great cause. And you refuse to do it because you are afraid.
    You refuse to do it because you want to live longer. You’re afraid that you will lose your job, or you are afraid that you will be criticized or that you will lose your popularity, or you’re afraid that somebody will stab or shoot or bomb your house. So you refuse to take a stand.
    Well, you may go on and live until you are ninety, but you are just as dead at 38 as you would be at ninety.
    And the cessation of breathing in your life is but the belated announcement of an earlier death of the spirit.
    You died when you refused to stand up for right.
    You died when you refused to stand up for truth.
    You died when you refused to stand up for justice.”
  • Emma
    We need more autonomy, more strategy, and less tongue wagging in the anarchist movement!
  • rose
    Once again, this is just messed up. This whole green scare stuff is really starting to get to me, because of my involvement with Earth First! and other such 'organizations.'
    The possibility that I could get charged with terrorism charges for standing up for what I believe in is just straight up scary. My mom is starting to make jokes with me saying that I'll be put on the no-fly list, but I think she's starting to get serious.
    I recently wrote a paper for an English class and this is what my last few sentences basically said:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    We are in a time that free speech is limited to what is socially acceptable and doesn’t affect the corporate world. I mean, there is so much work going into creating the crime of ‘eco-terrorism’ that we end up losing track of the supposed foundation of this country, and that is the constitution. We must remember that the First Amendment lives today, and should be defended, even if the ideas we hear are not those which we like.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This is seriously getting out of hand, and there's pretty much nothing we can really do about it, as long as the government maintains control.
  • CCR
    Rights Attorneys File Motion Saying AETA Indictment In Violation of First Amendment

    May 21, 2009, New York, NY – Today, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the Civil Liberties Defense Center (CLDC) joined in defense attorneys’ motion to dismiss the U.S. government’s indictment of four animal rights activists under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA).

    “To characterize protest and speech as terrorist activities is ludicrous,” said CCR cooperating attorney Matthew Strugar. “And it is not just animal rights activists who are in danger here. The AETA is so broad and unclear it could be used to suppress lawful protests and boycotts by any activists across the spectrum, no matter what the issue. The law must be struck down.”

    The activists, Joseph Buddenberg, Maryam Khajavi, Nathan Pope and Adriana Stumpo, referred to as the AETA 4, were indicted for alleged conspiracy to commit “animal enterprise terrorism” as a result of their alleged participation in conduct including protesting, writing with chalk on the sidewalk, chanting, leafleting, and the use of “the Internet to find information on bio-medical researchers.” These activities are protected by the First Amendment.

    Passed by Congress towards the end of the Bush administration, the AETA makes activities such as protests, boycotts, picketing and whistleblowing crimes. Though the AETA targets animal rights activists, lawyers say its language is so broad and vague that it could be easily used to prosecute any activists who might engage in peaceful activities such as a labor group picketing or organizing a boycott. For this reason, CCR has joined with the AETA 4 to ask the court to strike down the law as unconstitutional.

    The case of the AETA 4 is the first use of the AETA since it was signed into law – it is clear that the law can and will be used against lawful activists. Attorneys say it is of critical importance that the case against the AETA 4 be dropped in order to protect our Constitutional right to dissent.

    “These activists are peaceable individuals exercising their rights as guaranteed by the United States,” said volunteer attorney for the AETA 4 Bob Bloom. “This law is a blatant attempt to silence peaceful political dissent and fundamental rights in the interests of industries that abuse our natural resources.”

    The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) is a non-profit legal and educational organization dedicated to protecting and advancing the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. CCR is committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change and uses litigation to empower poor communities and communities of color, to guarantee the rights of those with the fewest protections and least access to legal resources, to train the next generation of constitutional and human rights attorneys, and to strengthen the broader movement for constitutional and human rights. Visit http://www.CCRjustice.org

    The Civil Liberties Defense Center is a nonprofit organization focused on defending and upholding civil liberties through education, outreach, litigation, legal support and assistance. The Civil Liberties Defense Center strives to preserve the strength and vitality of the Bill of Rights and the U.S. and state constitutions, as well as to protect freedom of expression. Visit http://www.cldc.org.
  • rooster
    when you break the law you accept the penalty. these people broke the law.
blog comments powered by Disqus