Scott DeMuth pleaded guilty today to a misdemeanor conspiracy charge for releasing ferrets from a Minnesota farm. As part of the deal, he will no longer be charged with conspiracy to commit “animal enterprise terrorism” in relation to a University of Iowa Animal Liberation Front raid.

DeMuth had previously resisted a grand jury fishing expedition, and been labeled an “anarchist” and “domestic terrorist” by the government. His faculty advisor at the University of Minnesota has also been harassed by the FBI.

As part of the deal, he will not be forced to cooperate with the government. He faces approximately six months in prison for the misdemeanor charge.

The plea agreement comes as DeMuth was set to begin trial Tuesday. From the start, DeMuth has maintained his innocence in relation to the University of Iowa case. Prosecutor Cliff Cronk has re-indicted DeMuth twice, in response to arguments by defense attorneys that the government’s case is thin and vindictive: the second superseding indictment added an allegation of a raid at Lakeside Ferret, in Minnesota.

The government seems to have taken whatever it can get in this case: a lesser charge in lieu of “terrorism” charges, which fell apart. The terrorism investigation of the University of Iowa ALF raid, is likely not over, however. Recent FBI raids in other states have been part of that investigation, as have visits by FBI agents to local activists.

B.J. Viehl has changed his plea to guilty and admitted releasing hundreds of mink from a Utah fur farm as part of an Animal Liberation Front raid. Viehl and his codefendant, Alex Hall, were charged under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.

He now faces up to 5 years in prison.

Alex Hall is still taking his case to trial. Viehl’s supporters put up a message from him on his MySpace page saying that Viehl has not agreed to cooperate, in any way, with prosecutors. Here is his part of his explanation of his decision:

Utah is a very conservative and religiously controlled state, and cases like mine are almost always guilty until proven innocent. Having a politically and religiously biased jury deciding my fate will not be of my best interest. The change of plea hearing will be on September 2nd, 2009. and will basically consist of me admitting guilt and accepting responsibility. This, however, WILL NOT affect Alex negatively in any way. What ever Alex chooses to do with his case, he will have my love and respect.

Meanwhile, the case of another group of activists charged with “animal enterprise terrorism” is moving forward in California. The “AETA 4″–and Alex Hall, in Utah–need your support as they move forward with their legal defense.

Careless talk costs lives.

Let’s look at this case from another perspective, though. Perhaps the activists arrested were never the intended targets.

I’ve written about the government’s seven-step process for convicting environmentalists as terrorists in property crimes cases. The recent Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act arrests are different from Earth Liberation Front or Animal Liberation Front arrests, though. These are above-ground and lawful—yet controversial–activists. However, I think the same model is being used.

The critical step in this process is for law enforcement to use what little evidence they have to scare the living hell out of those arrested. They use threats of outlandish prison sentences and terrorism rhetoric in order to create government informants, or snitches. They then continue that pattern of threats and fear-mongering with each subsequent arrestee, until they have enough to move forward with a case. This snitch-based model of police work (as opposed to gathering evidence, witnesses and leads) is notoriously unreliable and often illegal.

As this case moves forward, I have no doubt that federal prosecutors and law enforcement will, if they haven’t already, offer some kind of a plea agreement in exchange for cooperation. They’ll say something like: “We can offer you a way out of all this. Look, you’re facing prison time as a terrorist. And once you get out, you’ll always be a terrorist. We know you have good intentions, and you’re just worried about the animals. If you help us, maybe by wearing a wire, or offering up some names of others in this campaign, we can make it all go away.”

The FBI has shown it is completely inept at tracking down underground groups, including the people behind the destruction of vans at the University of California, and the incendiary devices left at a researcher’s home (which has been recklessly attributed to animal rights activists). So the feds go on snitch hunts.

That’s why it’s absolutely critical to not be intimidated into silence by these arrests. These activists need to know they have a strong community of people who support them, will look after them, and will not be afraid to speak up. The government relies on fear to create informants and snitches, and with a strong community of vocal supporters, it’s easier for activists to confront this fear head on. These activists, and all others, need to know that there is a way out of all of this, and it’s not by naming names or pledging loyalty oaths, it’s by organizing and fighting back.

Poster by Just Seeds Collective, justseeds.org

The cops in The Wire are methodical. They can’t go straight after Avon Barksdale (the kingpin). They must pick off henchmen, build priors (to up the stakes), threaten heavier sentences in order to turn snitches, use snitches to tighten the screws on others, and keep going onward and upward to the top.

This made me think about the application of a similar methodology to the cases against alleged members of the Earth Liberation Front, Animal Liberation Front, and others labeled “eco-terrorists” for property crimes. [For this, I'm looking just at the property crimes cases, not pure First Amendment cases like the SHAC 7.] Based on my reporting of the “Green Scare” cases, the government’s seven-step process for turning non-violent activists into imprisoned terrorists goes something like this:

1. Use the T-word early. As soon as there’s a crime that might be attributable to environmentalists, the government steps in and labels it terrorism. A case study of this is the recent arsons in Seattle. There was no claim of responsibility by the ELF, but the FBI rushed to label it “eco-terrorism.” Likewise, in California there were incendiary devices left at the home of animal researchers. Again, there was no claim of responsibility, but the government, the university, and even other animal groups rushed to label it “animal rights terrorism.” In short, this step is much like that Chicagoan political mantra: Label them early and label them often.
2. Luck out. There has to be some kind of lucky break for cops to get things moving in the case. In one case, a business owner in Michigan found boxes of maps and M-80s while dumpster-diving and called the cops. In another case, a career-oriented 20-something named “Anna” infilitrated lawful protest groups. These leads aren’t enough to build a case, but they’re a start.
3. Make an informant or “snitch.” This third step is absolutely critical to the entire process. No major investigation of ELF or ALF activity has been possible without it. The government must pick a weak link. In Michigan, it was Frank Ambrose, the environmentalist who carelessly threw out boxes of personal items. In the Operation Backfire cases, it was Jacob Ferguson, a drug addict. The government searches for a weakness and begins to tighten the screws until they turn informant.
4. Breed more informants. The FBI then uses this information to harass and intimidate other activists. The government makes the activists feel like they have no option, no hope. Agents say that unless they cooperate, they’ll spend their lives in prison, and in prison they’ll be thrown in with the worst of the worst, the murderers, the terrorists. The government makes the activists feel like their only option is to turn on their friends.

   The catch here is that each successive informant must offer new information and new names. As a result, the government’s net grows and snares people that had little or no involvement in any crime. Some activists may be hauled before grand juries, where this “snitch farming” continues. Others may be hauled into court. (A perfect example of this is Briana Waters. Her friend Lacey Phillabaum turned informant and because Lacey was one of the last to do so, she had to name someone new—and Briana was implicated).

5. Push a plea. The government doesn’t want to take anything to trial. It costs money. It’s could be a media circus. It reduces the chances of scoring a victory in the War on Terrorism. Instead, the government offers reduced sentences if the defendants take a plea. Prosecutors tell them it’s their only option, that all their friends and co-defendants are against them. Prosecutors tell them there is no hope, and that this is the only way out.
6. Play the terrorism card at sentencing. That word, terrorism, is used extensively in the press throughout this process. For the most, though, it isn’t allowed into the courtroom. Once the defendants accept a plea agreement, though, prosecutors push for “terrorism enhancement” penalties. If the defendant has already accepted a plea agreement, it’s significantly harder to fight back against this label. The terrorism label has been used since day one, and now it’s official.
7. Start the PR machine back up. The government labels the conviction and the “terrorism enhancement” a victory in the so-called War on Terrorism. Federal agents use it to prove their worth and request additional resources and support. This, in turn, leads to more surveillance, more harassment, more arrests, more snitches, and more fear. [Repeat with step one.]

There’s nothing inevitable about this process, though. The government’s methodology is formulaic, but activists can break that mold. At every step of this process, there is room for resistance (for instance, Operation Backfire defendants Daniel McGowan, Jonathan Paul, Joyanna Zacher and Nathan Block pushed for non-cooperating plea agreements somewhere near step five).

But the best defense, as the cliché goes, is a good offense. The best response is stopping this process before it begins–refusing to allow the government to initiate step one.

That means resisting this scare-mongering each and every time it appears in the press. Refusing to label non-violent property destruction as “terrorism.” And building strong communities that can support defendants each and every step of the way.

Marie Mason

At a press conference announcing her arrest, an FBI agent said “domestic terrorism is a top priority of the FBI.” A police chief called the 1999 Earth Liberation Front arson at the Michigan State University campus, targeting genetic-engineering research, a “significant act of domestic terrorism,” though no one had been injured. And taking things even further, MSU President Simon argued that these “terrorists” were attacking freedom itself.

As a mother of two and a longtime community organizer, Mason had a lot to lose. Still, she stood her ground.

Soon, news broke that her former husband, Frank Ambrose, had worn a wire to entrap his friends and spy on lawful environmental gatherings.

Ambrose had made the mistake of throwing away personal records in a dumpster. According to a search warrant, a dumpster-diver found boxes that contained Earth First! magazines, maps of Michigan with the location of an ELF attack highlighted, an M-80 explosive device, a block of candle wax, and even a gas mask labeled “Frank’s Gas Mask.”

The dumpster-diver called the cops. In the words of a retired FBI agent who was involved in the case, “There’s no question that the discovery in the dumpster was the catalyst that caused this thing to move forward.”

The FBI easily traced the materials to Ambrose, and promised to soften his punishment if he cooperated. According to the government, Ambrose went above and beyond what was expected by the FBI. His cooperation “has been nothing short of remarkable, both in terms of the time and effort he put into it and in terms of its value to federal law enforcement,” said Assistant U.S. Attorney Hagen Frank.

He recorded 178 conversations with a variety of “targets,” traveling out of state seven times. The government credits him with bringing “long-stymied eco-terror investigations back to life.” After turning on his former wife, and violating the trust and confidence of untold numbers of activists, Ambrose would have his sentence reduced to nine years in prison.

Still, Mason stood her ground. The government offered her 15-20 years in prison if she agreed to name names; otherwise, prosecutors said they would push for life in prison. Mason said she would accept a non-cooperating plea agreement similar to those in the Operation Backfire cases, but she refused to become a government informant.

It looked like the case would head to trial. And then, just two hours before the deadline for the agreement expired, the government relented and offered a new deal. Mason would have to name Frank Ambrose (who had already named himself and become an informant) but she would not have to provide any additional testimony or debriefings.

“Because of the cooperation of her former husband Ambrose, there is no expectation that Mason would win a jury trial,” Marie Mason’s support committee said. “Part of this decision is also the long sentences handed to the very few Green Scare arrestees who have gone to trail, such as Eric McDavid, as is the intense financial and emotional strain that this process is taking on Mason’s immediate family.”

The government labeled Mason’s arrest and plea a victory in the “War on Terrorism,” but they still wanted more.

Mason had a history of resisting government intimidation. In 2002, she and Ambrose fought a grand jury subpoena investigating sabotage at an Ice Mountain water bottling plant. In an ominous message at that time, Ambrose told No Compromise: “The FBI’s unwelcome visits are meant to serve as a distraction and a deterrent to citizens’ ability to express their discontent with government policies. They want people to be afraid to get involved, for fear of being harassed by the FBI.”

Ambrose would later turn his back on such convictions. But Mason refused, and that didn’t sit well with the government.

In court filings, prosecutors argued that Mason’s refusal to cooperate has elevated her “to the status of movement heroine” among environmentalists.

That’s a striking insight into one of the reasons environmentalists and animal rights activists are labeled the “number one domestic terrorism threat.” Why is it such a government concern that, as one prosecutor said, “She has become a figure of admiration to that community”?

Because when people refuse to buy into the scare-mongering, when they refuse to name names even at great personal cost, when they take principled stands even as the full weight of the government is bearing down upon them, it shakes the very foundations of the “Green Scare.” It challenges the power of fear, and sends a message that others can do the same.

What do you think? What is the government’s motivation behind proposing such disproportionate sentences?

Blessings to all of you.

Perhaps you’ve heard that I’m set to take a plea bargain on June 3rd. In the aftermath of Briana Waters’ and Eric McDavid’s trials, I have weighed the options and decided that i don’t want to take the risk of potentially being convicted and spending the rest of my life in prison.

That’s how Tre Arrow began a recent message to supporters, announcing a plea agreement with prosecutors that ends a long legal battle with prosecutors who have relentlessly labeled him an “eco-terrorist.” Arrow pled guilty to two counts of arson, for sabotaging cement trucks and logging trucks in 2001. He’ll receive credit for his four years in prison Canada, and have two more years to go.

It’s a non-cooperating plea agreement, similar to the deal reached for some of the defendants in the Operation Backfire cases. Like those non-cooperating defendants, Arrow will not have to provide information to the government and incriminate others in exchange for a reduced sentence (which is part of the reason he has ended up in this situation, with Jacob Sherman pointing a finger at Arrow in exchange for leniency).

So what does all this mean? Is the guilty plea of a long-time, prominent environmental activist—held up on a pedestal by many for his refusal to cooperate—a blow to the environmental community? Is it a victory for Arrow, escaping the rest of his life in prison?

The short answer is: I have no idea. It may be either, or both, or something else entirely.

Because if there’s one thing that has become increasingly clear in this “Green Scare,” there are no easy decisions. As I wrote after the Operation Backfire non-cooperating plea agreements, “…legal decisions in court cases are often made for pragmatic reasons, not factual reasons: the criminal justice system is often about evaluating options in light of other options, taking the lesser of two evils.”

I spoke with James Pitkin, a reporter at Willamette Week. Here’s an excerpt from his story:

Critics say all three cases are examples of a vicious crackdown on environmental dissent by the feds. In all three cases, investigators pressured informants to turn on other defendants, who were in turn accused of domestic terrorism.

Will Potter, a freelance reporter in Washington, D.C., who covers environmental activists, says Arrow’s supporters will likely sympathize with his guilty plea. Arrow faced life in prison if he’d gone to trial.

“You just have to make the best decision you can, considering that you’ve been labeled a terrorist and you have the entire weight of the U.S. government coming to bear on you,” Potter says. “You really can’t point fingers.”

To clarify, though, I think you CAN point fingers. You can point them at FBI agents hiring provocateurs to coax “eco-terrorists” into action. You can point them at Feds who consider infilitarting vegan potlucks a national security priority. And you can point them top level officials in the government who, by labeling nonviolent crimes as the number one domestic terrorism threat, force people into a situation where they must decide between taking a plea deal—whether or not they committed the crime—or spending the rest of their lives in a concrete cell.

Those are the decisions Arrow, 34, faced. And he came to the conclusion that “they offered me a deal I couldn’t refuse.”

The May issue of Elle has an article on how the FBI paid a young woman, known as “Anna,” to befriend activists and pressure them into illegal activity. Now, some of those she befriended and entrapped, including environmentalist Eric McDavid, are going to prison as terrorists.

“For two years now, a young woman in camo pants, black sweatshirt, military boots and pink hair, known to both her fellow eco-activists and FBI employers as ‘Anna,’ had been crashing the party.”

Unfortunately Andrea Todd’s article misses the big picture—questioning the relentless push to label non-violent activists as “terrorists,” and the sleazy methods used to do that– for the sake of glamming up an interesting spy story.

She falls head-over-heels for the sexiness of the story—shadowy activists in love out to save the world—and swallows a series of absurdities provided by the FBI. Rather than pick apart every paragraph, I wanted to highlight a few good points buried within the sensationalism:

• Eric McDavid, Lauren Weiner and Zachary Jenson are accused of plotting to sabotage a U.S. Forest Service genetics tree lab and the Nimbus Dam. U.S. Attorney McGregor Scott has claimed that damage to the dam would have made “what happened in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina look like a Sunday pancake breakfast.” Todd reports that Jeff McCracken, a spokesperson for the dam, says the water would just “trickle.” (p. 323)This is an important point when we’re talking about labeling people as “terrorists” who endangered human life. It’s a good example of how the government has consistently twisted the truth in the hopes of chalking up a victory in the “War on Terrorism.”
• The FBI supplied Anna with a ’96 Chevy Lumina, and gas money, and food money, to drive Jenson and Weiner across the country and meet McDavid. There, the FBI paid for a cabin. And on top of that, the FBI supplied bomb-making recipes and materials.All that was needed was a little encouragement. And the FBI supplied that, too.

  At one point when tensions were very high, McDavid tried to calm Anna and Weiner down, saying “relax and chill out and maybe come back and chitchat later.” Weiner agreed, offering to make pasta. Anna flipped out.

  Anna: Tomorrow, what are we planning on doing tomorrow? Are we still planning on doing anything tomorrow? Or should I just stop talking about plans?
  McDavid: Hmmm.
  Weiner: I would love it if you stopped talking.
  Anna: I would love it if you guys followed a plan! How about that! (p. 324)

  This is a critical exchange, because Jenson’s attorneys argued that his client was “entrapped.” In other words, the three were not likely going to commit these crimes, and Anna was trying to push them down that path, in the hopes of getting a big gold star from the FBI.

• “Under cross-examination by Reichel [Jenson’s attorney], Torres [FBI] admitted he hadn’t read all of the literature on informants; nor could he recall any specifics about the Attorney General’s guidelines regarding political protests.” (p. 324)Anna infiltrated lawful gatherings, like a CrimethInc convergence and G8 protests. Todd says that they were secretive and require a special eco-terrorist invitation. In reality, they’re posted widely on the Internet. The danger of tactics like this, beyond ruining the lives of those entrapped and watering down public faith in the criminal justice system, is that basic First Amendment rights are a casualty as well.
• During Jenson’s trial, prosecutors went to great lengths to conceal Anna’s identity, even from the attorneys. Part of the justification was that Anna could be a target for retaliation, retaliation by environmentalists who have yet to harm anyone. If environmentalists are such a threat, why is Anna posing glamour-shot-style in the world’s largest fashion magazine?
• Perhaps the most disturbing piece in all of this is the final section of the article, where Todd interviewed one of the jurors, Diane Bennett.“I said the FBI was an embarrassment,” she says, as other jurors scrambled to unload similar opinions. “I hope he gets a new trial. I’m not happy with the one he got.”

  Bennett said that the foreman “teared up” when he delivered the guilty verdict. But the judge’s instructions were confusing, she said, and “people were tired… we wanted to go home.”

The piece could have been much worse. As someone posted anonymously on Indymedia in Portland: “Perhaps Andrea Todd deserves a little credit. She was, after all, attempting to write an article about someone who lies for a living.”

In light of that, has Elle issued a retraction? These stickers have mysteriously appeared in copies of the magazine on newsstands around the country.

They read, in part:

Following consultation with federal agencies, we at Elle wish to retract this article. Not because of the stream of factual inaccuracies beginning in the second sentence (there has never been a CrimethInc. convergence in Athens, Georgia), but because in the current political climate it is irresponsible to even pretend to give a fair hearing to radical anti-capitalists. Even if Anna’s story is a cut-and-dried case of entrapment, we have to understand this as a necessary defense of our free market freedoms.

Darren Thurston’s support committee has posted an open letter responding to what seems to be widespread condemnation by other activists that Thurston and others “snitched,” or cooperated with the government (as opposed to the non-cooperating defendants), in hopes of receiving reduced sentences in the Operation Backfire cases. Here’s an excerpt, or also take a look at the full letter for yourself.

As many of you reading know, Darren decided to co-operate with the FBI investigation into his case in May of 2006 after being incarcerated for almost six months. He based his decision on the information that besides his charges in Oregon he would face additional charges in California of handling an incendiary device (albeit by conspiracy) at the Lichtfield action, which would carry a *mandatory minimum* sentence of 30 years on top of the 5-10 he was already facing. He was further made aware of the fact that three people with whom he had done the Lichtfield action had already agreed to testify against him, and that he would face the further charges in California alone (the other three indicted separately in Lichtfield were Rebecca Rubin, Joe Dibbee and Justin Solondz – all currently missing and considered fugitives by the US Government).

To put it simply, Darren was facing 35 years to life in prison and was set up for his most contentious trial entirely alone with an array of people lined up to testify against him. He had no way of winning his case, and he knew it. What he also knew when he co-operated was that eight other people had already provided information before him and so he would be providing very little (if any) new information. In this context he agreed to meet with the FBI and the US prosecutor’s office. After a lifetime of eschewing the state and decrying movement “snitches”, he did not take this decision lightly. But it is true that in making his plea agreement Darren met with the FBI and prosecutors on several occasions for debriefing sessions during which he gave information about his action at Lichtfield, additional sites he reconnoitered with others and described the activities he and Chelsea engaged in during their years underground together (2002-2005). And it is also true that he named some of the people he worked with – all of whom were already known to the FBI and most of whom were in custody.

It’s a rather long letter, and you should read it for yourself, but it seems that two points resurface throughout:

*Even though Thurston “named names,” his supporters say he didn’t give the government anything they didn’t already know.

*People should ask themselves what they would do facing similar, seemingly overhwhelming circumstances, and “act out of love for the world and out of forgiveness for myself and others in every way that I can.”

What do you think?

Two more Green Scare defendants pleaded guilty this week to involvement in property crimes claimed by the Earth Liberation Front, including a 2001 arson at the University of Washington’s Center for Urban Horticulture. In return for the pleas, and for cooperating with the Feds in a broader investigation, Lacey Phillabaum and Jennifer Kolar received significantly reduced sentences. According to Hal Bernton and Christine Clarridge of The Seattle Times:

…prosecutors will recommend that Kolar, 33, of Seattle, receive a federal prison sentence of five-to-seven years, and a three-to-five-year term for Phillabaum, 31, of Spokane…

Both women faced a minimum of 30 years in prison if they had gone to trial and been convicted of all counts listed in their plea agreements.

One of the defendants in the case, Briana Waters, has not accepted any plea bargains, and is not cooperating with the government.

So what do these pleas mean for Briana and other “Operation Backfire” defendants, like Daniel McGowan, who maintain their innocence?

It certainly doesn’t help their case, and if anything takes their situations from bad to worse. The mainstream press has largely bought the government line that it’s a wrap: the Feds caught the “terrorists,” these pleas confirm that, and it’s only a matter of time before the others cave and admit their guilt.

But it’s not that simple. We need to remember, in all of these cases, that the acceptance of plea bargains doesn’t necessarily mean the defendants committed these crimes, and it certainly doesn’t convict the other defendants.

Yes, yes, I know they pleaded guilty. But legal decisions in court cases are often made for pragmatic reasons, not factual reasons: the criminal justice system is often about evaluating options in light of other options, taking the lesser of two evils.

That’s especially the case now, in this Green Scare. These activists were rounded up as part of the sweeping “Operation Backfire,” charged with serious federal crimes, and repeatedly referenced in the press as “eco-terrorists” (or, at best, “alleged eco-terrorists”). Meanwhile, Congress is considering legislation that would wrap up non-violent crimes as “terrorism” simply because of their political motive, the FBI labels saboteurs the number one domestic terrorist threat, and grand jury witch hunts around the country are targeting well-known activists.

The War on Terrorism has come home, and these activists know it. They’ve felt it. They could spend the rest of their lives in cages because of it.

I’m tempted to use a David versus Goliath analogy here, but these Davids are facing the biggest, wealthiest, most powerful Goliaths the world has ever known and they don’t even have a slingshot.

In this political context, it’s certainly reasonable to think that these defendants chose to plead guilty not because they hope to atone for their sins but because they convinced themselves it is a reasonable path, if not the only path, out of the fire.

Some of these defendants, though, haven’t chosen that path. They’re facing the same fear, the same Goliaths, and they refuse to bow out. In this Green Scare they’re guilty until proven innocent and deserve, at bare minimum, that we give them the benefit of the doubt and a critical evaluation of these guilty pleas.

Bargaining hasn’t eased these burdens–it has only unloaded them onto other shoulders.