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.

David Pellow, a Professor of Sociology at the University of Minnesota, has been outspoken against the government’s attempts to label his student, Scott DeMuth, a terrorist. A few months back he authored a guest post for GreenIsTheNewRed.com, and he has worked with students, professors and the media to raise awareness about how the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is threatening academic freedom.

FBI harassment campaigns are about instilling fear in the activist community, and agents have demonstrated they are not below bringing respected faculty advisors into the witch hunt. Because there have been other FBI visits in the Twin Cities regarding this case, I wanted to share this story.

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

Scott DeMuth is one of my advisees here at the University of Minnesota. He is a bright, hard working graduate student who has become ensnared in a federal investigation that has left him with the possibility of facing several years in jail related to conspiracy and terrorism charges (his trial begins this summer). The federal government is building a case against him because they believe he has knowledge of at least two Animal Liberation Front actions that occurred in Iowa and Minnesota in 2004 and 2006, respectively.

The U.S. Attorney prosecuting the case has also made it clear that he believes Scott is guilty because he is an anarchist and is believed to be associated with activists who are earth and animal liberation advocates. Scott has indeed worked to educate the public about issues concerning eco-prisoners and other political prisoners in the United States. He has also worked for years advocating for the rights of Dakota peoples, who have been dispossessed of their homelands by military force. And he has done impressive sociological research on these social movements and presented his work at professional conferences. He and I have recently begun collaborating on a research project that focuses on many of these issues. So when the government came knocking on my door I took notice.

Monday April 6, 2010: This morning when I arrived at my place of employment—the University of Minnesota—I went straight to my mailbox. There was the usual pile of academic junk mail—catalogues from publishers, invitations to receptions, etc. But there was something else this time: a business card with a post-it attached to it that read: “re: student, Pellow, 04/06/10, 9:15am.” The business card was for a Steve Molesky, Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Minneapolis Division. He also left a voice message for me in my office that stated that he wanted to “interview” me in the next day or so. He didn’t say about what, but the post-it from the receptionist offered an indication (“re: student”).

I immediately called several trusted lawyer colleagues, read the NLG’s “Operation Backfire” guide, and spoke with activists here in the Twin Cities community, all of whom suggested I not talk to the feds. My view on the matter is that I am Scott’s advisor and as such, I should be looking out for him and advocating for him, so talking to people who are trying to build a case against him is probably not in his best interest.

One person also pointed out that given Assistant U.S. Attorney Clifford Cronk’s characterization of me during Scott DeMuth’s arraignment in November 2009 as someone who left him a voice mail message protesting Scott’s detention and criticizing grand juries, it’s likely that they already have formed a certain opinion of me. One of my lawyer colleagues told me that by law I have the right not to talk to the FBI, but if I do then be courteous. My own attorney added that if they persist then I might ask them to send me their questions in written form and that I would run them by counsel.

Wednesday, April 8, 2010: Agent Molesky called my home phone today and left a message that clearly was directed toward asking questions about Scott’s research and my own research. He stated: “I’d like to ask you a couple of questions about one of your students you are the advisor for at the University, Scott DeMuth. I’d like to ask you a couple of questions about the research that you do and the research that he does for you.” I then followed up with a request for a detailed list of questions.

Thursday, April 9, 2010: Agent Molesky replied, “I recognize and understand your request, however, I will probably be unable to satisfy it; not because I don’t want to but because I cannot. I have been asked to interview you by our office in Cedar Rapids, IA. With their request they did not include a specific list of questions. When we conduct interviews, it is more an art than a science, meaning that except for a few questions, I never have scripted questions for an interview–the answers, demeanor, and posture of the interviewee normally dictate the questions I ask and the direction in which the interview moves.” He continued, “I will be asking you about any human research studies that you are conducting in which Scott Demuth may be participating as study personnel. I will also be querying you on your contacts and relationship with Peter Young that may be relevant to the Demuth investigation.”

After receiving Agent Steven Molesky’s email message today, I spoke with my attorney and we decided that Molesky was firmly within the realm of infringing upon academic freedom. Thus I have decided not to grant the interview request. To speak to Agent Molesky about my research at the level of detail indicated above would very likely violate the American Sociological Association’s Code of Ethics, which states: “Sociologists have an obligation to protect confidential information and not allow information gained in confidence from being used in ways that would unfairly compromise research participants, students, employees, clients, or others.” “Confidential information provided by research participants, students, employees, clients, or others is treated as such by sociologists even if there is no legal protection or privilege to do so.” (Section 11.01). The Code of Ethics also states, “Sociologists do not disclose confidential, personally identifiable information concerning their research participants, other recipients of their service which is obtained during the course of their work.” (Section 11.06).

I appreciate Agent Molesky’s polite and cordial approach to this process, but I cannot and will not violate the trust relationship that I have with my advisee and colleague Scott DeMuth and with the participants in my research study.

-David N. Pellow
Professor of Sociology
University of Minnesota

An FBI affidavit has just been released in the investigation of the 2004 Animal Liberation Front break-in at the University of Iowa. It shows the stream-of-consciousness approach the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force took to the investigation, including surfing MySpace and Facebook and using an informant to identify activists on YouTube.

The affidavit from October, 2009, also shows the shaky pretext used to justify charging Scott DeMuth with Animal Enterprise Terrorism, jailing Carrie Feldman in a grand jury witch hunt, and raiding the home of Peter Young.

For example:

• A confidential informant was used to identify individuals in a YouTube spoof video created prior to the Republican National Convention in the Twin Cities. The video, like many others that have been made for mass protests, shows faux “Black Bloc” activists getting ready for the RNC. (The joke is that they are sipping coffee and reading the newspaper while wearing black masks.) The informant reportedly identified Carrie Feldman and Scott DeMuth as cast members in the skit.

  When the video came out, I posted about it on this site, and jokingly called it a “Homegrown Terrorist” training video. Months later, the government is calling it exactly that.

• The government says Scott DeMuth wrote in his diary about the ongoing political crackdown on environmental activists. For example, one alleged entry includes, “Fuck the Feds” and “Turns out the Feds have shit on P” (who the government claims is Peter Young). DeMuth also allegedly wrote “It’s almost been a year since Iowa,” which the FBI agents typed in bold font, implying that DeMuth must have been involved in the ALF raid.

  DeMuth allegedly wrote, “And the ABC [Anarchist Black Cross, a group that supports political prisoners] has gotten a fair amount of attention from the FBI. I don’t think I am at too much risk.”

• DeMuth’s Facebook, Livejournal and Myspace all “identify him with his interests of animal rights, anarchy and ecological extremist groups,” the FBI says.
• An FBI agent reviewed a MySpace photo of Carrie Feldman, posing with a white rat on her shoulder. Rats were removed during the Animal Liberation Front raid at the University of Iowa.
• Activists organized a Dangerous Media Tour, also known as “The Steal This Film Fest.” This public event, open to everyone (including the FBI, who were there taking photos) included information on making free phone calls and other hacks to resist “corporate rule.” The affidavit paints this is a covert terrorist gathering, but to anyone familiar with CrimethInc., Evasion, and the like, there is an entire punk subculture built up around similar petty scams.

I spoke with Lauren Regan of the Civil Liberties Defense Center to help me put this affidavit in context. “This is just an incredible example of how extremely flimsy the actual fact evidence is in these cases,” she said. “If they had stronger evidence against this kid [DeMuth], they would have used it.”

It doesn’t seem that the government has anything else to go on. When prosecutors filed an emergency motion to keep DeMuth locked up, they based it on labeling him an anarchist.

This is an important point to underscore. The date of this affidavit, October, 2009, places it before the Utah raid of Peter Young’s home, and before the grand jury. In other words, it is very likely that the entire case for the indictment of Scott DeMuth was based on this flimsy string of information, including lawful speaking events, Facebook, and YouTube.

Peter Young’s home was raided the FBI this week, and the search warrant repeatedly mentions his name in relation to “animal enterprise terrorism.” In the last article we looked at how this Utah raid is, ostensibly, related to the investigation of an Animal Liberation Front raid at the University of Iowa.

As with all of these cases, though, it’s important to put this in a bigger political context. Few attempts have been made to connect Young to Iowa (the government argued in court that Young was an “associate” of Scott DeMuth, the defendant in the Iowa case, because DeMuth identified someone in his journal as ‘P’).
Young says he has never met DeMuth, a graduate student whose research has included radical social movements.

However, attempts have been made to repeatedly label Young a “terrorist” not for underground crimes like raiding fur farms (which he was convicted of years ago) but for lawful, aboveground, First Amendment activity. For instance, he published The Blueprint, a listing of fur farms in the United States.

Young wrote in the introduction:

While past fur industry investigations focused on the treatment of animals, this one sought something else: names and addresses. Of all forms of animal rights outreach, the dissemination of “names and addresses” is at once among the most overlooked, and most potent…

The fur industry is among the most vulnerable targets in our sights. We rented a car, and set out to create the roadmap to its collapse.

Fur farmers responded by labeling this document, which is listing of public information obtained lawfully and disseminated lawfully, a “terrorist handbook.”

Multiple newspapers in Utah and Wisconsin published stories with industry soundbites along these lines. The Park Record in Utah reported:

“‘The Blueprint’ is a little disturbing. Basically, what ‘The Blueprint’ is, is a terrorist handbook,” a mink rancher in Coalville told The Park Record on Wednesday.

The man, who is in his 20s, spoke to the newspaper at his ranch on the condition of anonymity.

“All this is is domestic terrorism, and I have a target on my back,” he said in the interview. “They’re out there calling death threats in to ranchers. We spend many sleepless nights on the ranch.”

Most times he is armed, the rancher added.

All of this has the effect of increasing fear of animal rights activists as “terrorists,” and legitimizing any subsequent actions such as FBI raids of activists’ homes. As in all of these Green Scare cases, these media campaigns and this raid are, above all else, about instilling fear.

FBI raid of Salt Lake City house of animal rights activists. Photo by Jordan Halliday.

FBI agents and law enforcement from multiple agencies have raided a well-known activist group house in Salt Lake City, Utah, today in connection with an investigation of Animal Liberation Front crimes in Iowa.

I just got off the phone with multiple housemates who were there witnessing the raid, and who were able to read the warrant. Details about all of this are still emerging, but at this point it is clear that the warrant was issued by the Southern District of Iowa, and authorizes the seizure of any books, pamphlets, computers and other materials tied to “animal enterprise terrorism.” [UPDATE: Here is copy of the warrant.]

Some background: In Minnesota, a graduate student named Scott DeMuth has been indicted on conspiracy charges under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. The charges are related to a 2004 raid by the Animal Liberation Front at the University of Iowa.

Another Minnesota activist, Carrie Feldman, has been jailed for refusing to testify about her political beliefs and political associations before a grand jury. Feldman was a teenager at the time of the ALF crime, and says the grand jury is clearly an attempt to harass and intimidate the activist community.

So how did the FBI end up in Utah? One of the housemates, Peter Young, is repeatedly mentioned by name in the warrant. Young was one of the first people prosecuted for “animal enterprise terrorism” in connection to fur farm raids in the late 90s. (His co-defendant Justin Samuel is also mentioned in the warrant). He served two years in prison, and has been living in Salt Lake City, speaking at colleges, and writing on his website, Voice of the Voiceless. He is among the most vocal, public supporters of the ALF and direct action.

The only connection I can decipher between Young and the Iowa investigation is this: in an emergency motion filed against Scott DeMuth, to keep him in jail, the government calls DeMuth an “anarchist” and “domestic terrorist.” As evidence of this, they say he is an “associate” of Peter Young. As DeMuth’s faculty advisor has publicly explained, this is tied to his research as a graduate student.

There are about nine people living at the activist group house in Salt Lake. At least 15 computers were taken by the FBI, along with boxes of documents, notebooks, files, and address books. The house is well-known in the area as a gathering space for animal rights and other activists. No arrests have been made, and at this point it seems Iowa is being used as a pretext for a continued campaign of harassment and intimidation.

Among the items taken from the FBI’s terrorism raid: a postcard for Iowa 80, “the world’s largest truck stop.”

I’ll continue to update as this story develops. In the meantime, this is a good opportunity to plug the National Lawyers Guild hotline, 1-888-NLG-ECOL. Also, please write Carrie Feldman a letter as she continues to resist the grand jury witch hunt. Carolyn Feldman,
770 Iowa St., Dubuque, IA 52001.

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.

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.

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?

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/