Battle Of the Beagles
International protest in the UK against Huntingdon Life Sciences —photo from www.indymedia.org.uk
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Why People Hate Cops
an essay by Derrick Jensen
Insurgent American is happy to publish Derrick Jensen’s latest reflection on the relationship between the people who work for the state: those of us who support it with obedience and taxes, and those who are employed by the state to exercise its “legal monopoly on violence.”
I’m scared to write this essay, scared to have it published, scared it will be read by police officers or customs agents, scared that the next time I’m stopped for some traffic violation or the next time I try to cross a border, some police officer or customs agent will remember this article, and will make me pay for having written it.
I know what at least some police do to those they don’t like. I know what at least some police do to those who question their authority. I know what at least some police do with the power they have over our lives. This is what makes me afraid.
#
Pretend you see a cop. Pretend you’re doing nothing illegal. Pretend you don’t need police protection. You’re minding your own business, and BAM, you see a cop. What do you feel? Right then. In your gut. On a scale from minus five (fear or loathing) to zero (nothing) to plus five (warmth, comfort, safety).
For more than a decade I’ve asked hundreds or even thousands of people this question, and the long-term average is about minus three. The only profession I know that consistently rates worse is parking patrol, at a near unanimous minus five. Politicians and CEOs rate about the same as police. In the cases of politicians, CEOS, and parking patrol, the hostility is almost entirely loathing, and not much fear. In the case of police, it’s both loathing and fear, in roughly equal measures.
This average doesn’t come about merely because my friends are anti-authoritarian. I’ve asked people of all ages, all economic classes, all political and religious beliefs. Even many of the police I’ve asked don’t have good feelings when they see police they don’t know. Nearly all of the police I’ve talked to feel the same about FBI agents as normal people do about police officers.
In other words, this abysmal public perception of police officers doesn’t come from a skewed sample. And if the people I’ve asked in any way resemble a cross-section of people in the United States and Canada, this means a good portion of the people in these two countries viscerally hate and/or fear the police.
Why is that? What are the personal and social implications?
Cop shows, politicians, corporate media, and many cops tell us more or less incessantly that the police are heroes here to protect us. We hear also that hatred or fear of police is misplaced, and that police are an easy target onto whom otherwise powerless people too often blame their misery. I just got a very intelligent email from a cop commenting on a sentence from my book Endgame. The sentence was “A primary purpose of the police is to enforce the delusions of those with lots of pieces of green paper.” He wrote, “I agree for the most part. Yes, police are protecting the status quo, but they also protect poor people from gangs, thugs, and sociopaths who prey on people in lower socio-economic situations.”
I responded, “I don’t disagree with you. I think most of what individual policemen and policewomen do is exactly what you’re saying. That’s a hugely important function. And if that was all that police did I don’t think we’d be having this conversation.”
I continued, “I used to teach creative writing at Pelican Bay, which is a supermax. Some of my students were, I really think, okay guys who never caught a break. Some of them were okay guys who would be great neighbors if you kept them off drugs. But some of them, honestly, were sociopaths who need to be removed from society to protect others (I believe, as I say in The Culture of Make Believe, that there are things people can do that cause them to be removed from society—whether that removal is through segregating or killing them—but it’s also clear to me that the current system of so-called justice is deeply racist and classist: a not-very funny joke I tell in that book consists of two riddles: ‘Q: What do you get when you combine a long drug habit, a quick temper, and a gun? A: Two life terms for murder, earliest release date 2026. Now, Q: What do you get when you combine a large corporation, two nation states, 40 tons of poison, and at least 10,000 dead human beings? A: Retirement with full pay and benefits (Warren Anderson, CEO of Union Carbide, culpable for Bhopal’)). In no way do I romanticize ‘lawbreakers.’ Just as in other categories of people, some are good, some are mediocre, and some are scum. And to the degree that police or anyone else protect me or those I love from sociopaths, I’m grateful.
“But police also break strikes and protect politicians, CEOs, and WTO representatives who sell out the people (and who, even from a straight-up, patriotic, ninth-grade civics perspective, are arguably committing treason, and should be hanged for their crimes). Why are police never sent in to force capitalists to come to terms with strikers? That’s a huge problem (and not a rhetorical question). The sociopaths the police arrest are for the most part sociopaths with no power, and especially with no political power. The sociopaths who cause the most harm are almost never arrested, and are certainly never imprisoned or otherwise punished commensurate with the harm they cause, in great measure because these most dangerous sociopaths run governments and corporations, with the direct assistance of the police. That’s another huge problem (or more accurately the same huge problem, restated).”
I continued, “I’ve known and been friends with really good policemen and policewomen. I was good friends with a parole officer in Spokane, who always said the big difference between him and the people whose parole he oversaw was that he grew up before he got caught doing stupid shit.
“My problem is not with police protecting individuals from harm by anti-social types. My problem is with police who blindly support the status quo, and who protect corporations which are killing the planet, killing communities, killing all of us. Why aren’t CEOs arrested? Why aren’t CEOs executed for murder? It is insane and despicable that they are not. That is my problem with police.
“And of course that doesn’t just apply to the police. I also object to writers who blindly support the status quo: I hate them, I really do, especially as a writer myself. I object to scientists who blindly support the status quo. I object to technicians who blindly support the status quo. I object to judges who blindly support the status quo. And so on.”
He also wrote, “Perhaps besides instigating and enabling an oppressive system one of the primary purposes of police is to serve as scapegoats, something to waste your energy on hating while the true perpetrators of misery continue to spread a corrosive civilization unscathed.”
He’s got a point. Cops have far less power than CEOs and politicians, and by themselves cause far less damage. But they’re still functionally separate parts of the same machine, ultimately serving the same ends. And part of the reason that cops are often more openly hated than CEOs and politicians is that police more visibly and directly have power over us than do CEOs and politicians—CEOs and politicians don’t normally walk around with guns, tasers, and nightsticks telling us what we may and may not do. Another way to say this is that CEOs and politicians wreak their damage indirectly, from a distance. CEOs and politicians don’t generally have the power to personally beat or arrest you. CEOs and politicians almost never harm you personally. Even the CEOs of the most polluting companies don’t personally poison you: they merely run these corporations, and then the activities of these corporations poison the air you breathe, the water you drink, the food you eat. And ultimately these activities poison you. But the CEOs don’t poison you directly (much like a shotcaller for a criminal organization—or rather, for a different sort of criminal organization—who never bloodies his own hands, no matter how many deaths he orders). Instead CEOs pay politicians to pass laws making it legal for these corporations to poison the air, the water, the food, and you. Then when those being poisoned protest, police are sent to protect those who are poisoning us all. Given that CEOs and politicians hide behind the police—yet another way to say this is that the police do their dirty work; and yet one more way to say this is that police are the public face for the whole structure of state repression, but not where the real power lies—it’s no wonder that cops sometimes feel scapegoated for the activities of those they protect. I’m not, of course, saying that cops share no culpability; they could choose to not protect (but instead to bring to justice) the large-scale sociopaths who are poisoning us (and them, for that matter), but they do not do this.
I ended my response to his letter with: “The question becomes: if you and I agree on at least some of who are the true perpetrators of misery, what do we do about that? How do we work together?”
I never heard back, which in a sense didn’t surprise me: his note felt more like a defense of police with an acknowledgment of the obvious (that they support the status quo) than a real effort to reach out to form an alliance to stop the “true perpetrators of misery.”
All of this political analysis is important, but it neither explains nor deeply explores the visceral response of so many people to the police. Sure, I can philosophically hate them for protecting capitalists and for bashing the heads of protesters, and sure, I can philosophically hate them for what my (mainly but not exclusively non-white) friends have told me about how they’ve been treated, but none of it explains why my stomach knots up when I see a cop.
Now, finally, I have an answer. It’s a testament to the color of my skin that it took me this long to understand why I feel the way I do. I’ve known many African-Americans, Chicanos and Chicanas, Filipinos, Vietnamese, and so on who merely because of the color of their skin learned this lesson far more dramatically and painfully than I. I’ve known many very financially poor people who have learned this lesson more quickly and at greater loss than I. But I learned it. I finally learned it.
Oh sure, I’ve encountered asshole cops on power trips before. I don’t know anyone who hasn’t. Like the time I rolled through a stop sign at a lonely country intersection in the middle of the night, with only one set of headlights visible in any direction, and those just barely, only to have that car follow me for miles and finally flash red and blue lights and give me a ticket. Or the guards at the prison who yelled at me just like they yelled at prisoners (and like I’m guessing they yell at their wives and children). Or the airport security officer who stuck her hand down my pants, and when I complained told me that if I really wanted to I could tell it to the nearby cops—clearly her friends—and go ahead and miss my flight. Or dozens of other stories like that. I’ve known people who’ve been beaten or killed by cops. Worse (if possible), I know very few people who don’t have story after story of police using their power to intimidate, humiliate, terrorize, threaten, or beat them.
Here is my most recent story, a story in many ways not extreme at all. But for me, this is the moment when I finally understood why so many people hate cops.
#
First the background. I was returning from Canada. The trip had been terrible in almost every way, starting with my flight out of Crescent City, which was delayed long enough that I missed my connection. Twenty-three hours later I finally arrived in Montreal. Unfortunately, my luggage never did.
That night I gave a talk. The audience was great (except one guy in the third row who kept shouting incomprehensible things like “Do you know Guy?” and “Talk about Africa”: after a few of these comments I started looking around to see if Eva Marie Saint was squirming uncomfortably next to James Mason and Martin Landau), and including Q and A we talked for four and a quarter hours.
At eleven the next morning I returned to the airport, to fly to Toronto for my next event. Unfortunately the crew failed to show, and so the flight was delayed. No matter, I thought, we’ve got plenty of time. The plane eventually took off, but as we began our descent we had to turn back to Montreal, because in the time it had taken the crew to arrive a storm had moved in.
Had they canceled the flight before take-off, I could have rented a car. But it was too late for that, which meant not only did I not get to do that talk, but I also obviously was not going to get paid for it.
I tried to fly home. No. Partway? No. Every flight to anywhere was sold out. I got a flight at 6:45 the next morning that, with several connections, would get me home. I got to the airport at 3:30 to find five hundred people ahead of me in line. Air Canada had only three stations open: one for the plebes and two for the ten people with business-class tickets. Finally my turn came, and I ran as fast as I could to customs, then security, then the plane. I made it. They were about to push back, but then canceled the flight because of snow. I returned through customs, called the airline, and found there was nothing available out of Montreal for three days. I asked if there were flights out of Toronto, and she booked me on one that night.
I rented a car—$400 one-way!—and arrived six hours early for my flight. This was good, because there were five hundred more people in line.
Several hours later, I got my boarding pass, and proceeded to customs.
This is when my trip to Canada took a bad turn.
#
I got pulled aside for a random check. The customs agent started rummaging through my backpack. No big deal, right? In the words of those who rationalize the Panopticon as well as any and all state repression: If I’ve got nothing to hide, I’ve got nothing to fear. Right? Right? The agent pulled my wallet from my backpack. Once again, no big deal. I kept repeating this to myself—This is no big deal, no big deal—in the hope that I might believe it. She pulled out my roll of toilet paper, and asked why I had that. I told her I have Crohn’s disease, an incurable, progressive disease that causes more or less incessant diarrhea, among many other health problems. She nodded sympathetically, then asked me to pull my dirty socks and underwear from my backpack (Where else was I supposed to put them? I’d been wearing the same clothes for several days, but had purchased some socks and underwear).
Then she found a small ziplock baggie of pills. The baggie had a faint label on it. She asked what those pills were.
That’s when I made my big mistake. I told a cop the truth (perhaps because I was sleep-deprived, perhaps because I’m too slow-witted to make up a convincing lie on the spot, perhaps because I’m fundamentally honest and expect the same from those around me): “I don’t know.”
“Where did you get them?”
“I don’t remember.” Truly, if I’d have remembered where I got them, I’d have remembered what they were.
The agent freaked out. She called other agents, who also freaked out. They collectively called their supervisor, who almost immediately started yelling at me: “You did something really stupid.”
“I didn’t do anything at all.”
Still shouting: “You’re going down for a long time.”
“For what?”
“You’re facing prison for smuggling heroin or cocaine.”
Of course I knew it wasn’t heroin or cocaine. I’ve never even seen heroin or cocaine.
But wait! Maybe. . . . Maybe the decision to search me wasn’t so random as I thought. What if they chose me because of my politics? What if the agent had used sleight of hand to slip this baggie into my backpack? What if someone snuck it into my pack when I was doing the talk? What if. . . . I’ve known people to whom this sort of thing has happened.
I started to get scared.
The movie reference that kept coming to me was Midnight Express.
The agents left to test the pills. Lots more cops arrived. They began Interrogation 101, saying things like, “Why do you have an American passport if you’re a Canadian citizen?”
“I’m not a Canadian citizen.”
“Then why did you tell the other agent that that you are?”
“I didn’t.”
“He says you did. He wouldn’t lie. Why did you?”
“I didn’t.”
“Are you calling him a liar?”
“I’m saying I never said that.”
“Where do you live?” she asked, holding my driver’s license and passport in her hand.
I had to tell her my address three or four times.
She turned on my computer, looked at documents, emails, photographs. She asked trick questions. She asked when was my last time in Canada. I told her the year before. She looked more on my computer, said, “Who’s this person? Did you meet him in Toronto last month?”
“I wasn’t in Toronto last month.”
“Then where did you meet him?”
“Maine.”
“Maine, United States; or Maine, Canada?”
I never even knew there was a Maine, Canada.
And on and on.
Yet another cop arrived. She led me to an interrogation room. She was nice, not like the other cops. She didn’t yell at me. She told me that everyone else was quite concerned about the pills, but that she wasn’t worried at all. She said she was sure that with my help we’d be able to clear things up very quickly. And the best way to clear things up, she said, is to cooperate.
I said sure.
She said, “And the best place to start is for you to try to see this from our perspective.”
Her voice was soft, inviting.
She said, kindly, gently, “You have some unidentified pills. . . .”
I saw it. I saw it from their perspective. Yes. I was unshaven, disheveled. I had some pills in a baggie. When I looked at it their way, it did seem pretty suspicious. I wished I knew what the pills were, so I could just tell her, and she could clear this all up. She seemed nice enough that even if the pills were illegal, I’m sure she’d help me minimize the damage. Talking to her made the whole thing seem so easy. I just needed to do my part.
She said, “They’ve determined that the pills weren’t narcotics.”
She was kind enough to tell me how they did the test. One agent put some on his finger (and no, they don’t taste it like in the movies), then watched to see if it melted. Evidently narcotics melt with the moisture of your skin.
She hadn’t needed to tell me any of that: she was clearly on my side. She asked where I got the pills.
This gave me an idea. I told her that sometimes I carry pills for my mom, and sometimes my mom gives me some of her painkillers or sleeping pills. I suggested she call my mom. She might know what they were.
She made the call.
I was glad. This woman seemed nice, but that supervisor still scared me. Now someone would know where I was, and if my mom didn’t hear from me again soon I knew she had phone numbers of people in Toronto she could call to get me an attorney. Or if I disappeared altogether at least she would know where I was last seen.
I feel weird including that last sentence, but the current political climate makes it a very real concern. It also makes me glad I’m not of Middle Eastern descent, or it would be of even greater concern.
I heard only the Toronto end of the conversation. The policewoman began by reassuring my mom that I was fine—wasn’t that nice of her?—but that I was in custody at customs because of some unidentified medicine. She asked if my mom had given me any tablets.
“They were capsules,” I said.
She waved me off, said into the phone, “Did you give him any blue tablets?”
“They were white capsules.”
She frowned at me, mouthed I know.
Why was she trying to trick my mom?
The cop wrote down all the pills my mom has. Nothing matched.
Evidently my mom asked what this was all about, because the policewoman said, “We were concerned at first that it might be heroin or cocaine, but now we know it’s not.”
Something on the other end.
Then she said, “Now we’re concerned it might be anthrax.”
More on the other end.
The policewoman: “Anthrax is nothing to laugh at, Mrs. Jensen.”
They spoke a while longer. At one point the policewoman said that none of this would have happened had the pills been in a normal bottle. It occurred to me that the only drug or anthrax smugglers they must catch are the ones too stupid to put the pills in regulation bottles, and too stupid to have backstories concocted as to what the pills are.
She got off the phone. We were no closer to figuring out what was going on than before the call. Except that someone now knew where I was.
She said to me, again and again, “Can’t you see this from our perspective?” This was her soft, inviting mantra. She started asking me if I had various medical conditions.
I said yes to the ones I have, and no to the ones I don’t. When I told her I have Crohn’s, she said she has relatives with that, and that I didn’t need to explain it.
Then she began listing drugs, saying about each one, “If that’s all it is, just tell us. It will be okay.”
I wanted to tell her it was one of those drugs. Then everything would be fine. But I didn’t want to lie. I also noticed that some of the drugs she mentioned were illegal. I began to wonder if she were trying to trick me, as she’d tried to trick my mom.
She kept pushing, however softly.
I stuck to my story, because it was true.
As I said yet again that I didn’t know where I got the pills, she rolled her eyes at me.
I said, “That’s not helpful. I’m being honest with you, and it doesn’t help for you to make gestures like that.”
Her response was interesting: “I’m trying to help you remember, and if rolling my eyes makes you angry enough to remember, then I’m going to do that.”
That was the point her good cop routine fell apart for me. She was admitting that she was consciously manipulating me (although I don’t believe to help me remember, but rather to get me to admit to something illegal).
Finally I said, “Why don’t you read the label on the baggie and see what it says?”
“It has a label?”
She left the room. Finally she came back. She asked, “What conditions does your mother have?”
I listed them.
She left again.
After five minutes she came back, said, “The label says ‘Generic Bextra’. We looked it up on the internet and it’s used for arthritis. Do you know anyone with arthritis?”
“I’ve got bad arthritis.”
“Why didn’t you tell us this before?”
“When I started to explain what Crohn’s disease is, you stopped me. My arthritis is a side-effect of Crohn’s, and since you know the disease, I figured you’d know about the arthritis.”
She rolled her eyes again, shook her head, and said to the other cops who had gathered, “Let him go.”
The supervisor—the one who yelled at me—was nowhere to be seen. Someone went to pass the bad news to him that his drug bust was a bust. The good cop suggested I get rid of the pills—which I now vaguely remembered as having been given to me by a friend months before; and I also remembered that they hadn’t helped me so I’d forgotten about them—so nobody else gets mad at me for them. At that point they could have been made of gold and diamonds and I would have flushed them down the toilet.
Another cop came up to me and said, “You’re lucky this happened in this country. In some countries they’d have locked you up and done the test in a year.”
I thought, but of course didn’t say, “In some countries they might believe someone when he says he doesn’t know what the pills are, and in some countries they might actually read the label, and then ask if he has arthritis.” Had I said this, I would now be sitting in a jail in Toronto.
Someone found the supervisor, talked to him, came back, said, “We can’t release him. He needs to be interrogated more.”
So I sat there waiting. A customs agents who’d been nice—honestly nice, not good cop nice: she’d come up to me early on and whispered when no one was looking, “Don’t worry about it. It’s not going to be a big deal”—came back in the room, and said to someone, “Why is he still here?” They said something I didn’t hear, and she said, “I’m going to go talk to him.” She left the room to find the supervisor. Finally she returned, and this time wouldn’t look at me.
Still I sat.
Finally a bunch of other cops came in. They started talking, occasionally looking at me. They continued to chat and laugh for another half hour, until they decided that their power trip had gone on long enough: they couldn’t of course, just let me leave when they found out they’d been wrong: they had to keep me there another hour so they could win. They sauntered over to me (corncobs up their butts) and told me I could go. I made my flight by about five minutes.
#
On the flight I started to get angry. I can’t blame them for wanting to figure out what the pills were, but they could have done so respectfully. They could have read the label. They could have done the narcotics test without yelling at me, without intimidating me, without manipulating me, without lying to me. But they immediately presumed I was guilty, and worse, presumed it’s okay to manipulate someone they presume is guilty.
And that’s what they do.
This leads to the reason I got so angry that night on the plane. It has to do with the good cop’s mantra: can’t you see this from our perspective?
While of course that phrase can be used sincerely, it is also the mantra of all abusers, all exploiters. In order for any oppressive or exploitative situation to sustain over the long term, it’s imperative that oppressors get the oppressed to see things from the oppressor’s (warped) perspective. Sure, oppressors—including individual bullies, abusers, capitalists, the civilized, most males within a patriarchy, or any other oppressors—can and do simply use violence to take whatever it is to which they feel entitled, and sure, the threat of violence always underlies oppressors’ every action (had a normal person started yelling at me because I couldn’t identify a baggie of pills in my backpack, I would have briefly stared in disbelief before walking away shaking my head: of course had I done that in this circumstance the cops would have physically assaulted me to hold me in place), but oppression always flows more smoothly when the oppressed police themselves, or even better, agree with the oppressors and need no policing at all. It’s as Steven Biko said, “The most powerful tool in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.”
And that’s why I got so pissed off. Because the truth is that unless you’re really paranoid and hostile and abusive, the situation at customs looked like what it was: someone who had spent 48 of the last 90 hours in airports; someone who was sleep-deprived; someone with an incurable, progressive disease who has to take more pills than he can keep straight; someone who simply got confused.
The truth is that the perspective the police wanted me to take on—the perspective they themselves evidently had—is really fucked up. Combine their paranoid, hostile perspective with the fact that they do not mind intentionally, consciously manipulating those with whom they come into contact—indeed, they are trained to intentionally, consciously manipulate those with whom they come into contact—and combine all of that with the fact that they have guns and we generally do not, and combine that with the fact that they have the full power of the state behind them to use those guns in ways that would cause the rest of us to be killed or imprisoned forever, and it becomes pretty damn clear why so many people hate cops: it’s not very fun to have someone hold power over you, especially when that person quite possibly does not have your best interests at heart, when that person has been trained to manipulate you, when that person can detain you or worse over misunderstandings, when that person, in larger cases, can destroy your life.
#
It’s a month later. I’ve shared my story with a number of friends, shared with them my realizations about the oppressed taking on the oppressors’ perspective, shared with them my understanding about why so many people hate cops.
My friends make appropriately disgusted sounds at appropriate moments in the story. They tell me that my experience and analysis matches their own. And most important, they tell me stories from their own lives of why they hate the police.
A deaf woman tells me that someone attempting to harass her called a suicide hotline pretending to be her. A fully-armored SWAT team burst into her home and held her at gunpoint (Feeling a little depressed? A little down? How’s this for a pick-me-up: have a bunch of angry cops point guns at you. Just what the doctor ordered). She said to me: “If hearing people have it hard communicating with cops, imagine how hard it is for someone who is Deaf. This immense cop—he’s probably six feet five inches—demanded to know if I lipread. I signed ‘I am Deaf, please write.’ He yelled at me again, as though the louder he yelled the better I’d understand. I gestured wait and turned around to get paper and pen. They all lurched forward simultaneously yelling NO! and pointing the rifles in my face. I almost peed in my pants with fright and shock. Again the idiot barked lipread? Lipread? Finally one of them whipped out a pen, and we could communicate. They grilled me as to whether I wanted to commit suicide. I told them no. They didn’t believe me. As if they know better than I whether I’m suicidal. Finally I convinced them that someone had made a harassing call about me, and do you know how they responded? They started to laugh at me. When they were done laughing they gestured that I could go back to my evening. They left, giving me no apology, no explanation, nothing.”
Another friend says, “Two people I’ve known have been killed by cops. One was a promising artist named Jim. We participated together in an anti-war art show, and he made the music for my student film. He was so excited about his first solo art exhibit. He was beaten to death by an off-duty cop when he got into an argument about traffic. The other was a Puerto Rican gang leader in Florida named Carlos. I was working with him to organize an anti-police-brutality event in his neighborhood when he was shot by a cop who’d terrorized his family for years: the cop had chained Carlos’s father to a radiator and raped his mother while Carlos, a child then, hid in the bathroom. That same cop continued to patrol their neighborhood—and continued to terrorize their family—in all the years until he killed Carlos. Both of those men—Jim and Carlos—had difficult lives but were using their anger and political consciousness to fight back, and then they were murdered.”
A third friend tells me, “We’re having another scandal right now in Junction City, just like the one in Eugene a few years ago where the two cops raped more than twenty women. In that case, if you recall, Eugene hired an ‘independent’ firm (and paid so much money it seemed more a bribe than a bill) to do an analysis and make up a formal report. The findings were—no big surprise—that the department had acted appropriately by not investigating the allegations of so many women (as well as female officers) for so long because the charges were—I shit you not—so ‘unbelievable’ it was determined they simply couldn’t be valid.”
“What’s happening in Junction City?”
“A friend’s daughter is the key witness. She’s a female officer, which means maybe ‘whistleblower’ is the correct term. She’s been harassed and threatened by the other officers, even the ones who didn’t rape anyone. It’s another cop rape spree. I swear, I’m more likely to get raped if I call the cops than if I leave my doors unlocked.”
A fourth friend says he has a good friend whose brother is training to be a cop. “As you might imagine,” he says, “my friend and his brother often disagree. The surprising thing is that his brother used to be more ‘liberal’ in his views, but after he began the indoctrination to be a cop, his views became much more severe and legalistic. For example, before, he might occasionally smoke marijuana, but now he berates anyone who doesn’t agree that marijuana is 100 percent evil and that anyone who smokes it should receive a long prison sentence.”
He continues, “My friend’s brother wanted to be a cop for altruistic reasons, but once you start the training there’s only one way to think and act. The One Cop Way. So, you have this impressionable young man confronted with men he wishes to be like. They in turn exploit both his ego and insecurities and create another clone.”
Story after story after story they come in.
I talk to yet another friend, who also has stories of her own. I tell her about the One Cop Way.
She says, “I used to think that the police are basically a big gang—the most violent gang around, certainly.”
I respond, “I know in the United States, between four and six people die every day because they encounter police. That’s through beatings, shootings, high speed chases, and medical neglect in jails and prisons.”
She continues, “But I’m not sure that’s what I think anymore.”
“Oh?”
“Now I think they’re a cult.”
“Cult?” I’m not sure I’m ready to go that far.
She says, “Think about the One Cop Way. And think about some of the major characteristics of cults.”
We’re on the phone. I hear her shuffling through some papers.
She says, “It’s interesting you bring this up right now. I’ve just been writing an essay on cults, and I hadn’t thought to talk about the police, but now I will.” More shuffling, and then she says, “Ah, my list of characteristics, modified from one I found on the Internet. Ready?”
I nod, but of course she can’t see that.
She says, “The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.”
I interrupt: “Who is the leader?”
“That’s one of the brilliant things about this particular cult: not only is the word of the leader seen as law, but the leader is not even a person, the leader is the law itself, or I suppose we should say the capital L Law. But the real point is that what any cop says, that becomes the law, merely by the cop saying it.”
I start to object.
She says, “The cop says you’re smuggling: you’re treated as a smuggler. How much were your words worth in that exchange?”
I don’t say anything.
She says, “Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.”
We don’t need to talk about that one. We all know about the infamous police code of silence. We know what happens to people like Serpico, to people like the whistleblower in Junction City.
She says, “Next, the group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leaders, and members. Do we need to talk about that one?”
I don’t say anything.
She says, “The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which can cause conflict with the larger society.”
“Jesus,” I say.
“No,” she says. “They don’t need Jesus. They’re already cops. That’s good enough, close enough to being a god right there.”
Silence.
She continues, “The leader is not accountable.”
I respond, “That one is true for all cops.”
She says, “The group teaches or implies that its ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group.”
I say, “Like manipulating people they don’t know.”
She responds, “Like killing people.”
I take a deep breath, say, “That’s really it, isn’t it?”
She doesn’t say anything for a very long time. At last she says, “But I think in some ways your question—why do so many people hate the police—is much simpler than either you or I are saying.”
“How so?”
“I think a lot of people hate the police because the police hate us first.”
“I don’t understand.”
“Think about the stories you just told me. Think about how the cops treated you. Think about their perspective on you that they kept trying to get you to see? What is it about that perspective? What are they feeling toward you? Think about all the cop shows you see. What do the cops feel toward those they encounter? Contempt, at best. More likely hatred. Think about the looks on cops’ faces when they walk up to give you a ticket. Think about all the stories you have ever heard about the police. Yes, we all have a good story here or there involving police treating us well, but think about your experience and the experiences of those you know. What do all of those stories have in common? Think about the question you asked: why do so many people hate the police? I think the answer is staring us in the face, especially when it is cops who are doing the staring. I think a lot of people hate the police because the police hate us first.”
I think a moment, and sadly, find I cannot disagree.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Darren Thurston Sentencing Report
by Gumby Cascadia
5/29/07
Darren Thurston Sentencing
Government Arguments
Darren plead guilt to one count of Conspiracy in Oregon,
and one count of Arson in the Eastern District of
California for the Litchfield Wild Horse Corral action.
Asst. US Atty Stephen Peiffer opened the government's
arguments by recalling Thurston's history as a radical
environmentalist, saying that at age 20 he became involved
in the radical animal rights movement and remained active
till his arrest at age 36. Pieffer said that in 1991, he
was involved in the burning of three trucks at a fish
company, and a cat liberation (with David Barbarash) at the
U. of Alberta. Pieffer said that in 1994, he went illegally
to an Earth First! gathering in California where he met
Jonathan Paul and Kevin Tubbs, and that in 1996 he met with
Paul at an anti-fur protest in Seattle. He said that during
that time, he also met Gina Lynn, whom he called an "animal
rights extremist", and that the two did reconnaissance on
fur farms in Oregon, Washington and California. That year,
Thurston also published the first edition of "The Final
Nail" , which Pieffer referred to as the "Bible" for animal
rights "extremists", (which Thurston said he'd researched
for 500 hours to produce) and which listed fur farms in the
US and Canada. He said that Thurston also posted
instructions for incendiary devices on the internet and
updated the site with new fur farms, with help from Joseph
Dibee.
Pieffer went on to say that Thurston did recon and planning
for the 1997 BioDevices beagle liberation in Orange,
California, and helped plan an arson at a San Diego
taxidermist and meat company that was called off because
the team was sighted by a homeless person. In 1998,
Thurston was arrested and deported to Canada. In 1999, he
became official spokesman for the Animal Liberation Front,
where, until he passed the job on in 2001, he publicized
100-200 communiques which Peiffer said was relevant to his
conspiracy charge.
He said in 2005, Thurston hosted a website on security and
"dead drops" (the sharing of unsent emails through a common
account), and that he authored "ALF: A Guide to Direct
Action and the ALF" and "Arson Around with Auntie ALF", a
manual on how to commit arson, which he distributed widely
and posted on the internet, encouraging future arsons.
Thurston began planning arsons with Craig Rosebraugh,
including US Forest Industries, and worked together to
finalize the press release on the Vail action. Pieffer said
Thurston mediated the dispute over the Jefferson Poplar
communique, and met Chelsea Gerlach at that time (see
Chelsea's sentencing notes for details).
As to Thurston's role in the Litchfield arson, Peiffer said
that Joseph Dibee contacted Thurston and Rebecca Rubin
about the action. He said that Thurston was also interested
in Chelsea Gerlach, and thought maybe they'd meet again for
the action. Thurston and Rubin illegally crossed the border
and were picked up by Jennifer Kolar and brought to meet
with Dibee to discuss the arson. Thurston expressed that he
only wanted to be involved in the horse releases, and not
the arsons themselves. He helped prepare for the action,
setting up clean rooms to do so, and during the act itself,
cut the fences and tried the herd the horses outside the
fence, but had difficulty getting them to leave the corral.
Peiffer said that Thurston aided and abetted the arson, and
that the communique was coercive toward the BLM, and so the
government was seeking the terrorism enhancement for the
crime.
In 2005, he was arrested with Gerlach, with whom he was
"romantically and criminally" involved. Pieffer said that
he had been involved in numerous crimes prior to his
arrest: selling drugs, illegal border crossings and
illegally dwelling in the US. He said the Thurston and
Gerlach had lived in San Francisco and Portland together,
and that Gerlach had purchased firearms for Thurston at gun
shows. He acquired fraudulent IDs from Tubbs and lived
under the name Ian Holiday, and used a stolen credit card
to purchase a computer. In 2003, he helped plan an action
against a predator research center in Utah, and buried a
cache of weapons with Gerlach. Pieffer then recounted how
Thurston had been involved in demonstrating the use of HMTD
(explosive) to a representative of the Zapatistas in
Redway, CA.
Peiffer then said the government was asking for Thurston to
he sentenced to 37 months, after conferring with the
District of California prosecutor in the Ted Kaczinski case
who agreed that the sentence, although appearing low, was
just in a case where the defendant had cooperated so
extensively. He said that Thurston was offered a
substantial reduction for his minor role, and because he
was only interested in releasing horses and being there for
Chelsea. He said that Thurston had provided information
about a "whole array of activities and other people",
beyond what was called for in this investigation. The
government's sentencing recommendation offered a 4 point
downward departure for "minimum role". Judge Aiken
interjected that Peiffer didn't need to argue that the
sentence was just... that Thurston was lucky it did not
depart upwards. Pretrial had asked that Thurston only be
offered a downward departure of 2 points for "minor role",
instead of the 4 point downward the government had
recommended.
Defense Arguments
Defense attorney Dan Feiner started his argument by asking
the court to remove the government's categorization of
Thurston as a "white supremacist", mistakenly added by the
government who do not know the distinction between Aryans
and Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice, of which Thurston
had been a part during a protest against Aryan Nation
founder Metzger. The judge ruled that she would take it
under advisement with regards to the sentencing
recommendation.
Feiner argued against the terrorism enhancement as ex post
facto (that the enhancement was amended with the predicate
crimes after the date of the conspiracy in 2001). He showed
a photo of the Litchfield corral, that was really no more
than "a hay barn in the desert" and pointed out where
Thurston had cut the fences. He then addressed why Darren
took a little while to cooperate, and explained that at the
time of his arrest, he was only charged with INS
violations, and didn't know if he was being charged with
Litchfield. When Gerlach began cooperating and informed
Thurston that she had spilled the beans on him, Thurston
asked his attorney to pass along the message to Gerlach
through her attorney that he understood and was okay with
it even though it was detrimental to him. Feiner went on to
describe the "moving" meeting between Gerlach and Thurston,
who were never allowed a private conversation but were able
to hold hands. Feiner said that Gerlach's urging him
doesn't negate Thurston's decision to cooperate. He said
the decision was drastic change of life for Thurston, that
he had removed himself from all ties with the ALF/ELF, and
would never be allowed to reintegrate because of his
cooperation. Fiener said Thurston's role as "senior
statesman" for the movement was over, and that he had
withdrawn and resigned in all ways. He described Thurston's
lawful activist roles, citing his involvement with Bear
Watch in Canada, his teaching of computer skills to
children, and his part in The Compassion Club in British
Columbia working with terminally ill people. He said that
since his arrest, Thurston has been studying for a vocation
and wants to give back what he took from society. He looks
forward to returning to Canada.
Feiner then read a letter from supporter Elaine Budlong who
has been a weekly visitor of Thurston's since his arrest.
In it, she wrote about how age makes you see things in
other than "black and white". Feiner ended by saying that
he wouldn't ask for a further reduction in sentence than
the government's recommended 37 months, and that his client
had been treated with respect.
Thurston then read his statement to the court, in which he
commented to the judge that she had often used the phrase
"actions speak louder than words" in these hearings, which
was an axiom he had "lived by" for many years. He said that
he did not blame others for his actions, and that all his
actions had always been informed by the belief that all
life is sacred. He said he realized arson created a danger
for firefighters and that he has resigned from the ALF/ELF
with no intent to ever go back in the future. He described
his life experience: creating programs for kids, being a
librarian, working on behalf of dolphins, and against
trophy hunting and poaching. He said he had worked on
behalf of the forests, against racism and bigotry, and on
behalf of the poor and terminally ill. He said that his
actions with the ALF/ELF had diminished all the positive
work he had done. He promised that when released from
prison, he would continue to act for social change, but in
legal ways.
Judge Aiken responded by saying that no words he could say
would change the agreed upon resolution. She said he was
"gifted and bright", but that he had "squandered his impact
as a leader". She said he had been sidetracked and "lured"
into other activities, that he didn't pursue his education.
She referred to the letter from Elaine Budlong, agreeing
with her assessment that the world is much more complicated
in the full context. She then said, "You're a CANADIAN.
Aren't there any problems up there? Why come here to start
problems? Take care of your OWN place, first. Don't be
coming down here to start problems in OUR neck of the
woods." She said "you're getting a sweet deal" and she
hopes he gets a "do-over". She then read a passage from
Thurgood Marshall's "A Defiant Life", whose message was
that we are a "nation of laws" and that if laws are unjust,
in a democracy there are legal means to go about changing
them. She bemoaned the use of the Boston Tea Party as an
analogy to the crimes of property destruction, asserting
that the Boston Tea Party was about "taxation without
REPRESENTATION" and said, "Ya'll HAD representation and
could have worked through the government. None of you
bothered to study this. While you were out releasing
animals, Marshall was out freeing humans," she said. [No
mention of the Underground Railroad... I'm just sayin'...]
She said she would hold him accountable for all his
unlawful actions to date, and that it was tragic to hold
Thurston as "anything but a courageous person". As to his
cooperation, she said that "those who truly love you will
be there when you get out", and that it took time for him
to cooperate because he had a lot of "terrible family
secrets" to let go of. She then listed the sentencing
calculations and said that she would entertain no downward
departures because of his "scary past".
Judge Aiken sentenced Darren Thurston to 37 months, and did
not apply the terrorism enhancement due to the remote
location of the horse corral.
Canadian sentenced to 37 months for burning wild horse corrals
May 29, 2007
The Associated Press
ProLibertad/Jericho Events
The ProLibertad Freedom Campaign
http://www.ProLibertadWeb.com
ProLibertad@hotmail.com and ProLibertad.Campaign@gmail.com
ProLibertad Hotline: 718-601-4751
_______________________________________________________________________________
DESPIERTA BORICUA!! GETTING BACK TO OUR ROOTS!!
ProLibertad is calling on all our allies to join us ‘Rican Weekend (June
9th-10th) as we hand out literature on Puerto Rico and the Puerto Rican
Political Prisoners!!
Thousands of Boricuas are waiting to learn more about the Puerto Rican
Indpendence movement!!
JOIN US AS WE GET BACK TO OUR ROOTS!!
SATURDAY June 9th, 2007 at 10am El Barrio Festival Meet
ProLibertad at 339 e116th St.
(btwn. 1st-2nd Aves.) Light Blue Building
SUNDAY June 10th, 2007 at 10am
National Puerto Rican Day Parade
Meet us on the corner of e45th St. and 3rd Avenue. Look for the ProLibertad
Banner
LET US KNOW IF YOU ARE GOING TO JOIN US: Call ProLibertad at 718-601-4751 or
email: ProLibertad@hotmail.com
_______________________________________________________________________________
FREE PUERTO RICO: End Colonialism NOW!!
Thurs. June 14, 2007 at 6:30pm at Hunter College West Building 2nd Floor
Room 217
E68th St. and Lexington Avenue (Take the #6 train to E68th St.)
Donation: $10 or your best offer (no one will be turned away)
Join the ProLibertad Freedom Campaign for our annual Reception/Forum for the
Puerto Rico Delegation of the United Nations De-Colonization Committee
Hearings!!
Every year a Delegation from Puerto Rico comes to the United Nations to
testify to the U.N. De-Colonization Committee; to make the case for the
liberation of Puerto Rico, Vieques and the release of the Puerto Rican
Political Prisoners and Prisoners of War.
This delegation is made up of various activists from the different
organizations throughout Puerto Rico that fight for the independence of
Puerto Rico.
This reception/forum is an opportunity for allies of the Puerto Rican
independence movement in NYC to converse with activists from Puerto Rico!!
Come hear updates on: Economic Crisis in Puerto Rico, Labor Struggle in
Puerto Rico, FBI Repression of the Independence Movement
The following organizations and individuals are invited: El Frente
Socialista, The Island of Vieques, ProLibertad, El Partido Nacionalista
Puertorriqueño, and many other organizations from New York and Puerto
Rico...
______________________________________________________________________________
Join NYC Jericho & Friends for an evening dedicated to Struggles for the
Land at The Brecht Forum 451 West Street (West Side Highway, between Bank &
Bethune Streets)
Friday, June 15, 2007
7 to 10 p.m.
Screening of the film
Un Granito de Arena (A Grain of Sand)
For over 20 years, global economic forces have been dismantling public
education in Mexico, but always in the constant shadow of popular
resistance. Granito de Arena is the story of that resistance, the story of
hundreds of thousands of public schoolteachers whose grassroots, non-violent
movement took Mexico by surprise, and who have endured brutal repression and
incarceration in their 25-year struggle for social and economic justice in
Mexico’s public schools.
Speakers will include:
Ismael Guadalupe Ortiz
Vieques Land Struggle Activist
Report from Chiapas
Invited speakers on the Oaxaca struggle
Light refreshments will be served
For more information, call the Brecht Forum at (212) 242-4201 or
NYC Jericho at (718) 853-0893
A, C, E or L to 14th Street & 8th Ave, walk down 8th Ave. to Bethune, turn
right, walk west to the river, turn left. 1, 2, 3 or 9 to 14th Street & 7th
Ave, get off at south end of station, walk west on 12th Street to 8th Ave,
left to Bethune, turn right, walk west to the river, turn left. PATH Train
to Christopher Street, north on Greenwich St to Bank Street, left to the
river.
Sponsored by NYC Jericho: www.jerichony.org; nycjericho@riseup.net.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Update on sentencings in Daniel McGowan's case
Family + Friends of Daniel McG May 28, 2007
Friends,
This past week, three people indicted along with Daniel have been sentenced. There has been a plethora of media coverage.
Below are some links to these articles as well as well written opinion pieces. Many have written asking us what they can do in light of these decisions and we have asked that people engage their community and write letters and opinion pieces to the media. We have provided more information on this below.
Thank you everyone for checking in and seeing how we are doing. Daniel will be sentenced on June 4th. More on that coming soon.
Family and Friends of Daniel McGowan
Weigh in on the Register Guard blog entry entitled "Eco-sabotage: Terrorism or activism"
www.registerguard.com/blogs/index.php/talk/comments/eco_sabotage_terrorism_or_activism/
U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken has begun sentencing 10 environmental activists involved in arsons and other acts of sabotage that spanned several years. Operation Backfire is the largest ever prosecution of radical underground environmental activists in the U.S. So far, federal prosecutors have successfully argued that the “terrorism” label should apply to at least some of the actions.
Do you agree? Is this terrorism? Activism run amok? Vandalism? What is an appropriate punishment for those involved?
Recent sentencing articles:
Chelsea Gerlach's sentencing
Earth Liberation Front arsonist sentenced to nine years
By Jeff Barnard, The Associated Press, 5/25/2007
Kevin Tubbs' sentencing:
Second arsonist labeled `terrorist', By Bill Bishop, The Register-Guard,5/25/07
Stanislas Meyerhoff's sentencing
Arson attacks ruled terrorism, By Bill Bishop, The Register-Guard, 5/24/07
Opinion pieces
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-paul24may24,1,6114701.story?track=rss
My brother, the 'terrorist': The government is distorting the word to get more notches in its gun. By Caroline Paul, Los Angeles Times, May 24, 2007
http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1179960926146910.xml&coll=7
For justice, the label must befit the crime, by Bron Taylor, The Oregonian,Thursday, May 24, 2007
Write letters to the editors
If you would like to write letters to the editors, we have compiled contact information below.
News Publications:
The Oregonian:
We invite your letters to the editor. Send them to: Letters to the editor, The Oregonian, 1320 S.W. Broadway, Portland, Or., 97201, or letters@news.oregonian.com They may also be faxed to (503)294-4193.Please limit letters to 150 words. Please include your full address and daytime phone number, for verification only. Letters may be edited for length and clarity.
Register Guard
PO Box 10188, Eugene, OR 97440-2188. rgletters@guardnet.com
The Register-Guard welcomes letters on topics of general interest. Our length limit is 250 words; all letters are subject to condensation. Writers are limited to one letter per calendar month.
Eugene Weekly
1251 Lincoln, Eugene OR 97401. editor@eugeneweekly.com
Letters to the Editor (to be published in the paper) should be clearly labeled as such, be no more than 250 words and must include your full name, address and phone number.
Seattle times
Letters, not exceeding 200 words, must include your full name, address and telephone numbers for verification. Letters become the property of The Times and may be edited for publication. High volume prevents our acknowledging receipt of submissions. Email to opinion@seattletimes.com
Letters Editor, The Seattle Times, P.O. Box 70, Seattle, WA 98111 , Fax: (206) 382-6760
Portland Mercury
605 NE 21st Avenue, Suite 200, Portland, OR 97232. mercuryeditorial@portlandmercury.com
Salem Statesmen Journal
Letters to the Editor are a popular feature of the Statesman Journal. Letters should be 200 words or fewer. All submissions are subject to editing, including for clarity, accuracy, grammar, length and libel concerns. The form below requires you to input your name, address, and day and evening telephone numbers. The addresses and telephone numbers are for verifying the letters; we will publish your name and town.
http://community.statesmanjournal.com/tools/sendmailforms/letters_to_the_editor.php
Willamette Week
822 SW 10th Avenue, Portland, OR 97205. mzusman@wweek.com
Previous letters to the Editor
Terrorist terminology will have bad outcome
May 20, 2007
The attempt of the prosecution in the trial of the Earth Liberation Front defendants to classify them as terrorists will have a telling effect on what remains of "justice" for the people of the U.S. in the future.
The guilt of the defendants is not an issue here. But, if they are classified as "terrorists," this case will be used as a legal precedent for any type of corporatist/ government legal or military action against any type of protest or gathering that they are afraid of and/or deem against their interests.
Since the Reagan presidency, the strategy of the corporatists (Republicans and Democrats alike) has been an incremental chipping away of people's rights and establishing a basis (in law) for suppression of dissent and population control.
This case represents a very large step in the direction of totalitarian corporate control. It has been under-reported by the media (only 88 hits on Google).
When will the population at large wake up and see that they are being turned into steaks on the table by choice and consent? If we have the power to choose -- then they have a menu for us. Put on the feedbag -- all work and no play make for a strong, healthy economy.
-- Michael Anderson, Salem
Punishment shows values
Thursday, May 24, 2007
The comparison between radical environmental/animal rights activists and the Ku Klux Klan made by prosecutors in the "Operation Backfire" case ("Sentencing hinges on defining terror," May 16) is appalling and stupid.
The fact that Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front are considered the nation's top domestic terrorist threat when they have never injured a single person is just one more example of how the government has its priorities wrong.
Resources have been diverted away from investigating right-wing terrorists, al-Qaida and corporate criminals -- all who have the blood of innocents on their hands -- and instead used to go after misguided idealists who destroy the property of companies that are poisoning and destroying the natural environment we all depend on for our survival.
When Jeff Luers was sentenced to 22-plus years in prison for burning three sport utility vehicles, the message I got was that local authorities are more concerned with activists destroying property than criminals harming people. Why else would they give somebody a prison sentence longer than most rapists, child molesters and other violent offenders?
RONNIE LEE
Eugene
============
Arson is a reprehensible and inexcusable act, and the people who commit it should be dealt with harshly. Your editorial about the so-called "eco-saboteurs" ("Spreading fear with fire," May 23) hammers that point home.
On page C4, however, there was a small story about Matthew Jay Stutzman, who was sentenced to two years in prison for causing the death of a man he knew had a bad heart ("Beaverton man gets two years in fatal fistfight," May 23).
I'm not saying the arsonists should be treated lightly, but perhaps our justice system should value the life of humans at least as much as a car lot of sport utility vehicles.
BILL DANT
Southwest Portland
PAY LYNNE STEWART PLEASE
Support Cuban 5!!
FORWARD OUT AND SUPPORT CUBA!!
The Popular Education Project to Free the Cuban 5
http://www.freethecuban5.com
freethecubanfive@hotmail.com, freethecuban5@gmail.com
Free the Cuban 5 Hotline: 718-601-4751
_______________________________________________________________________________
THE NEW YORK TIMES STILL HASN'T PUBLISHED AN ARTICLE ON THE CUBAN 5!!
PICKET THE NEW YORK TIMES!!
Wed. May 30th, 2007 at 5pm
The New York Times Building
229 West 43rd St.
(btwn. Broadway and 8th Ave.)
THE RAIN CANCELED OUR LAST PICKET, BUT WE ARE COMING BACK STRONG IN MAY!!
We CANNOT allow the New York Times to CONTINUE to ignore the Cuban 5!!
Over 650 people have signed petitions and sent letters demanding that the
New York Times publish an article on the Cuban 5, yet we have seen nothing!!
We have picketed and protested and have been ignored!! It is time to go back
downtown and knock on their doors AGAIN!!
WE WILL NOT REST UNTIL WE SEE AN ARTICLE PUBLISHED ON THE CUBAN 5!!
If the Washington Post, USA Today, The LA Times and the Daily News can cover
the Cuban 5, then so can they!!
For more info. contact The Popular Education Project to Free the Cuban 5:
718-601-4751 or freethecubanfive@hotmail.com For more information on the
project visit our website: www.freethecuban5.com
_______________________________________________________________________________
PRIDE IN SOLIDARITY WITH THE CUBAN 5
Saturday June 2nd, 2007 1-3 pm
Lesbian Gay Bisexual & Transgender Community Center
208 West 13th Street Manhattan
More than 1,000 lesbian, gay, bi, trans (LGBT) and other activists fighting
oppression based on sex, gender and sexuality have already signed on to the
call for Rainbow Solidarity for the Cuban Five.
These U.S.-held political prisoners, in the order they appear above—Fernando
González, Ramón Labañino, Antonio Guerrero, Gerardo Hernández and René
González—were jailed merely for having infi ltrated CIA-backed right-wing
terrorist commando organizations to monitor and stop attacks on Cuba from
U.S. soil.
The struggle to win their freedom has galvanized a broad united front among
those who battle oppression based on their gender expression and/or sex and
who they love. Individuals and organizations have signed on from 45
countries, from every continent and from virtually every state in the
continental U.S. For more information, visit: www.freethefiveny.org or
contact rainbowsolidarity4cuban5@gmail.com.
Speakers will include; Teresa Gutierrez, Joan Gibbs, Leslie Feinberg and
others!!
Signers include:
Angela Davis, Audre Lorde Project, FIERCE!, Pro-Gay Philippines, Leslie
Cagan, Barbara Smith, Margo Okazawa-Rey, Imani Henry, LeiLani Dowell,
Stephen Funk, Alison Bechdel, Holly Hughes, QUIT!(Queers Undermining Israeli
Terrorism), Trans Action Canada, LAGAI-Queer Insurrection, Stonewall
Warriors, Boston, Queers Without Borders, Bev Tang, Lani Ka'ahumanu, BiNET
USA, Moonhawk River Stone, Jesse Lokahi Heiwa, Minnie Bruce Pratt, Sarah
Schulman, Laura Whitehorn, Linda Evans
For complete list, see: www.freethefiveny.org
To add your name and/or the name of your organization to the call for
Rainbow Solidarity, and for more information, visit:
http://freethefiveny.org/rainbow.shtml
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Activists Demand Action from Al Gore for Jeff Luers - Imprisoned Climate Activist
May 26, 2007 Portland Indymedia
Activists attending Gore's book-signing held a banner and distributed fliers to call attention to climate change and the incarceration of a young activist, Jeffrey Luers. Hundreds of Al Gore fans lined up at Barnes & Nobles in Manhattan to hear the former Vice President speak out against the growing detachment of American culture.
All attendees of the events learned about Jeffrey Luers, the incarcerated climate activist. In June 2001, the 23 year-old forest defense activist was sentenced to 22 years and 8 months in prison for actions in Eugene, Oregon. His stated purpose was to raise awareness about global warming and the role that SUVs play in that process. No one was hurt in this action nor was that the intent. However, despite the fact that this action hurt no one, Jeff was sent to prison for a sentence considerably longer than those convicted of murder, kidnapping and rape in Oregon state. Even the City Human Rights Commission stated "...We found that similar crimes have not been met with such harsh sentences, and we are concerned about the length of Mr. Luers' sentence".
Reminder: June 9, 2007 is the International DAY OF SOLIDARITY With JEFFREY LUERS.
Derrick Jensen's letter printed in Oregonian
June 14th-Free Puerto Rico UN Reception
The ProLibertad Freedom Campaign
http://www.ProLibertadWeb.com
ProLibertad@hotmail.com and ProLibertad.Campaign@gmail.com
ProLibertad Hotline: 718-601-4751
_______________________________________________________________________________
DESPIERTA BORICUA!! GETTING BACK TO OUR ROOTS!!
ProLibertad is calling on all our allies to join us ‘Rican Weekend (June
9th-10th) as we hand out literature on Puerto Rico and the Puerto Rican
Political Prisoners!!
Thousands of Boricuas are waiting to learn more about the Puerto Rican
Indpendence movement!!
JOIN US AS WE GET BACK TO OUR ROOTS!!
SATURDAY June 9th, 2007 at 10am El Barrio Festival Meet
ProLibertad at 339 e116th St.
(btwn. 1st-2nd Aves.) Light Blue Building
SUNDAY June 10th, 2007 at 10am
National Puerto Rican Day Parade
Meet us on the corner of e45th St. and 3rd Avenue. Look for the ProLibertad
Banner
LET US KNOW IF YOU ARE GOING TO JOIN US: Call ProLibertad at 718-601-4751 or
email: ProLibertad@hotmail.com
_______________________________________________________________________________
FREE PUERTO RICO: End Colonialism NOW!!
Thurs. June 14, 2007 at 6:30pm at Hunter College West Building 2nd
Floor Room 217
E68th St. and Lexington Avenue (Take the #6 train to E68th St.)
Donation: $10 or your best offer (no one will be turned away)
Join the ProLibertad Freedom Campaign for our annual Reception/Forum
for the Puerto Rico Delegation of the United Nations De-Colonization
Committee Hearings!!
Every year a Delegation from Puerto Rico comes to the United Nations
to testify to the U.N. De-Colonization Committee; to make the case
for the liberation of Puerto Rico, Vieques and the release of the
Puerto Rican Political Prisoners and Prisoners of War.
This delegation is made up of various activists from the different
organizations throughout Puerto Rico that fight for the independence
of Puerto Rico.
This reception/forum is an opportunity for allies of the Puerto Rican
independence movement in NYC to converse with activists from Puerto
Rico!!
Come hear updates on: Economic Crisis in Puerto Rico, Labor Struggle
in Puerto Rico, FBI Repression of the Independence Movement
The following organizations and individuals are invited: El Frente
Socialista, The Island of Vieques, ProLibertad, El Partido
Nacionalista Puertorriqueño, and many other organizations from New
York and Puerto Rico...
Eugene, OR: "Green is the New Red" Event June 1st
The Government's Attack on the Environmental Movement and Your Civil Rights
On the 10th Anniversary of the 1997 Broadway-Charnelton Pepper Spraying
Incident
Speakers: Will Potter, Lauren Regan and Jim Flynn
Featuring: Video footage of June 1 EPD brutality and citizen resistance
Will Potter is an award-winning journalist based in Washington, D.C.,
who focuses on how the War on Terrorism affects civil liberties.
Lauren Regan is the executive director of the Civil Liberties Defense
Center and an outspoken civil rights attorney.
Jim Flynn is one the people who were pepper sprayed and arrested on June
1, 1997, for attempting to stop the removal of 40 heritage trees downtown.
The event is being held at the Wandering Goat Coffee Co. at 268 Madison
in Eugene. The presentation is FREE and will start at 7 pm.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
The World says: “Hands Off John Bowden!”
26th May 2007
Friday 25th May marked the first International Day of Solidarity in
support of John Bowden and in defence of the ABC. John is a long-term
prison resister, who has spent more than a quarter of a Century fighting
for prisoners’ rights, and is now being kept in jail because of his
politics rather than because of his original conviction.
Until very recently John was in an open prison at Castle Huntly in
Scotland. He had spent two years working unsupervised in the outside
community as a volunteer on projects for the mentally ill and socially
vulnerable, and had qualified as a literacy tutor for people with learning
difficulties. For almost a year he had also been allowed frequent home
leaves, and was not regarded as any form of risk to the public. All this
changed however, when Matt Stillman, a right-wing American social-worker
(who for example, insists on calling Irish people ‘Micks’), accused John
of having links with a ‘paramilitary’ and ‘terrorist’ organisation –
namely the Anarchist Black Cross (ABC), in reality a legitimate prisoner
support organisation that can trace its history back to Tsarist Russia.
This easily refuted lie was used as an excuse to move John to a maximum
security prison at Glenochil, and damaging allegations (Stillman’s lies)
hang over him, which we believe are specifically designed to prejudice the
parole board and prevent John’s release.
Since Stillman launched his smear against the ABC, eagerly taken up by the
Scottish Prison Service (SPS), who ‘ghosted John to Glenochil, a campaign
has been launched to demand ‘Hands Off John Bowden!’ And to defend the
good name of the ABC.
The focus of yesterday’s International Day of Solidarity was the Scottish
Parliament in Edinburgh, where more than 25 of John’s supporters
demonstrated for nearly 2 hours, demanding a full and swift investigation
and an apology for the lies that have been told. Supporters came from
various parts of Scotland and England to attend the demonstration, and
from as far as the Basque country. Hundreds of leaflets were distributed
in support of John, with placards and a large banner demanding an end to
the harassment he is enduring and to the vilification of the ABC.
A statement, specially written by John Bowden for the demonstration reads:
“I am currently isolated in a maximum security prison and being denied
release because of my association with the Anarchist Black Cross movement.
That movement has been labelled as “terrorist” by an employee of the
Scottish Prison Service, which represents an attempt by the state to evoke
a mood of outright repression against the ABC and a policy of indefinite
imprisonment against me. I am grateful for the support and solidarity
shown by people attending this demonstration and am with you there in
spirit.
As part of the ongoing support campaign, a large stack of postcards were
delivered to the headquarters of the Scottish Prison Service, and these
flooded in by post from all over the world, as did faxes, telephone calls,
and e-mails. Glenochil prison had to set up a special system to divert
incoming calls in support of John Bowden, and the SPS closed their
headquarters early at 4.00pm.
Around the world, from Japan to the USA, supporters of John picketed
British consulates and embassies, organised phone and fax blockades, and
held info meetings and mass card signings.
In the coming weeks, until the Scottish Prison Service withdraw the
allegations against John Bowden and the ABC, we urge supporters to show
their solidarity and continue to put pressure on the SPS liars. Please
publicise your actions and events.
In London there will be a solidarity demonstration on the 8th June in
support of John Bowden’s parole application.
Thank you to everyone who has seen through the state’s lies to support
John Bowden and defend the Anarchist Black Cross.
Some Ways You Can Help:
Find out more at: www.myspace.com/friendsofjohnbowden
Send a postcard reading ‘Hands Off John Bowden!’ to Scottish Prison
Service HQ, Communications Branch, Room 338, Calton House, 5 Redheughs
Rigg, Edinburgh, EH12 9HW. You can also e-mail them at
gaolinfo@sps.gov.uk Phone them on 01259 760471. Or fax them at 01259
762003.
Write to Glenochil prison, where John is being held: Audrey Parks,
Governor, HMP Glenochil, King O' Muir Road, Tullibody, Clackmannanshire,
FK10 3AD. Telephone: 01259 760471. Fax: 01259 762003.
Complain to the Care Commission about the lies being told by Matt
Stillman, who is employed by Perthshire Social Services: The Care
Commission, Headquarters, Compass House, 11 Riverside Drive, Dundee, DD1
4NY. Telephone: 01382 207100. Fax: 01382 207289.
Send John a card or letter of support: John Bowden, 6729, HMP Glenochil,
King O' Muir Road, Tullibody, Clackmannanshire, FK10 3AD.
Become involved in the support campaign for John by e-mailing
handsoffjohn@reborn.com
Third arsonist sentenced to 9 years
Government Agents, Keystone Saboteurs and the Soccer Mom Judge
Green Sabotage as "Terrorism"
debate."
Traitors or Freedom Fighters?
Ex post facto and bad bargains
Government Agents and Keystone Terrorists
The Failure to Protect Indigenous Women from Sexual Violence in the USA
Friday, May 25, 2007
Radical Environmentalist Gets 9-Year Term
Chelsea Gerlach Sentencing Notes
Chelsea Gerlach's Sentencing
Judge Ann Aiken began today's proceedings by commenting
that she was relieved to read in the news that suspects
from Portland's car arsons have been arrested and that
there appears to be no relation to the ELF or eco-sabotage
motives.
Government Arguments
US Atty Stephen Peiffer began the government's arguments by
saying that Chelsea had been involved in arsons at Childers
Meat Co., Boise Cascade in Monmouth, West Eugene police
substation, Jefferson Poplar, BPA and Vail; and that the
arsons were intended to intimidate, coerce or retaliate
against government. He said that she had evolved into a
"very accomplished criminal" over her span of time in the
ELF cell.
He then spoke about Chelsea's introduction to radical
activism through Earth First!, saying that her father had
given her a copy of the EF! Journal, gave her a car, and
allowed her to drive to Cove Mallard, Idaho at age 16 to
participate in a direct action campaign. There she was
arrested for blocking a road, and there she met Bill
Rogers. He said the defense would try to argue that Chelsea
was led astray by Rogers, but that she couldn't blame him,
her parents, EF! or Meyerhoff for her actions, as her
criminal conduct continued even after 2001 when the cell
disbanded. At age 14, she spoke at the PIELC (Public
Interest Environmental Law Conference) in Eugene, and met
Meyerhoff at South Eugene High School in 1994. He said, at
the time, Meyerhoff was not an environmentalist and that
Chelsea led him down the road to extreme environmentalism.
Eventually she went to The Evergreen State College in
Olympia, WA, went to the Warner Creek in 1996, and another
direct action campaign in the Olympic National Forest in
1997.
He said that during her tenure as a civil disobedience
activist, she became frustrated at the ineffectiveness of
those campaigns. She then left school, moved in with
anarchists, and began to read Rogers' zines about
incendiary devices. At one point, she went to Mt. Graham
observatory (AZ) with Rogers who, as a test, planned with
her to shoot out the telescope lens. The plan was aborted
when they were discovered by security guards. Peiffer said
Chelsea developed "malice toward anyone who didn't live up
to her standards". In 1998, he said she drove to the BLM
Rock Springs, WY wild horse corral where horses were
released. Plans to torch the site were aborted when the
horses began to stampede toward the town of Rock Springs.
Peiffer then spoke about Vail, saying that Chelsea and
others' arson there did a huge disservice to the
legitimate, lawful opposition of groups that had been
fighting the expansion of the ski resort for years. (I
wanted to ask him if any of these groups were being
monitored or on their watchlists.) He said "they are her
victims, too" and that after the fire, the environmental
groups lost their lawsuit. He said Rogers recruited Gerlach
and Meyerhoff, and then Chelsea drove them in her truck to
Utah where they rented a hotel room to build their
destructive devices (which were abandoned when they
realized the cold and altitude of the site would hamper
them). They drove to Vail, up a narrow rutted road in the
snow and were unable to reach the summit, so they came back
down the mountain where Meyerhoff backed out of the
operation. Peiffer said Chelsea drove Rogers back up the
mountain then waited in the truck while Rogers hiked the
rest of the way on foot and lit the fuel by hand, torching
8 buildings spread over a 1.4 mile area at an elevation of
11, 250 ft., which he called "amazing". He said there was a
patrol member in the process of moving into the newly built
patrol building, but thankfully wasn't there yet. When
Rogers came back down the mountain, he was injured and
having difficulty walking, but Chelsea had slept in the
truck and was waiting for him. They then drove to Denver
and went to the library where they wrote and sent the
communique. Peiffer then showed slides of the resort
burning, the damage after the fire, and the approximate
spot Chelsea had spent the night and stashed supplies. He
said that for restitution purposes, damage was $12M, but
when costs of business lost and other expenses were added,
the total came to $24.5M. Peiffer asked that the terrorism
enhancement be applied.
Peiffer spoke about Childers Meat Co., where Chelsea did
recon, was a lookout and wrote the communique. Then he
spoke about The Boise Cascade office in Monmouth, where she
served as lookout and wrote and sent the communique from an
internet cafe (which was meant to intimidate and coerce the
government, so should get the terrorism enhancement). The
Bonneville Power Administration tower was an action that
Chelsea had researched to find a remote tower that was on
the main grid to L.A. He said the intent of that action was
to destroy electrical transmission to start Y2K troubles.
Destruction of an energy facility is one of the predicate
crimes for the federal terrorism law, so he asked for the
enhancement on this action.
He spent more time on the West Eugene Police Substation
attempted arson, saying that Gerlach chose the target, in a
mixed-use neighborhood next to a hospital, university and
businesses... with no regard for human life. He said she
chose the target because anarchists in Eugene wanted
revenge for street battles, jail time and pepper spray. He
said the team rented a motel room in Salem and built a
"clean room" to create the devices to be used, and that
Gerlach helped to assemble the devices and carried one to
the site in her backpack. Since the devices failed, he said
they sent no communique. He said, "There's no telling what
would have happened, if they had been successful and no one
had been hurt, they would have claimed victory." He asked
for the terrorism enhancement due to the fact that it was a
government building.
At the Jefferson Poplar Farm action, Peiffer asserted that
Chelsea did the research, connected Jefferson Poplar and
the University of Washington Horticulture Center to the
Tree Genetic Research Cooperative, a group working to share
research about genetically modified fast-growing poplar
trees. He said that what Chelsea didn't know was that by
the time they did the action, JPF had changed hands and it
was no longer engaged in genetic research. He stated that
Gerlach was involved in recon of the site with Meyerhoff
and Daniel McGowan, and that Gerlach and McGowan wrote the
communique. He said the language of the communique was
retaliatory to the Oregon and Washington legislatures, and
therefore should have the terrorism enhancement applied. He
said that after that action, Craig Rosebraugh, the ELF
press officer at the time, rewrote the comminque to omit
the reference to genetically modified trees, which angered
the group. Peiffer said members of the cell didn't trust
Rosebraugh. Dibee drove Chelsea to Vancouver, BC to talk to
Darren Thurston, whom Chelsea had not yet met. She asked
Thurston to convey the anger to Rosebraugh, which he did in
an email. Peiffer said Rosebraugh then drove to BC to talk
to Thurston, and told him he no longer wished to be press
officer.
Peiffer said Chelsea had attended five Book Club meetings
where discussions and workshops were held on constructing
devices and timers, encryption, and use of code, among
other things. These book club meetings took place in
Springfield, OR, Santa Cruz, Tucson, Olympia. The last was
in Sisters, OR, where things had begun to fall apart. He
said Chelsea's involvement at these five meetings showed
her deep involvement, a certain degree of leadership
("though we're not asking for a leadership departure"), and
that she was trusted and admired by the group.
He then mentioned her involvement in crimes she is
uncharged for, including an April, 2001 action to destroy
genetically engineered plants at Oregon State University.
He showed the communique, written by Gerlach, that was
addressed personally to the president of the Tree Genetic
Engineering Cooperative. Peiffer called it a
"sophisticated, well-researched document." Other uncharged
actions occurred at an Eastern Oregon genetically
engineered crop site, the Biolabs beagle rescue in Orange,
CA (which Peiffer called common thievery), and a 2001
break-in at a primate research facility in Arizona.
In 2002, Peiffer said, after the cell had disbanded, Joseph
Dibee gave Gerlach $10,000 to perform reconnaissance at oil
and high-tech sites around the country.
From 2001-2005, Peiffer said Gerlach was involved with
Darren Thurston, both romantically and criminally, selling
drugs to survive, creating fraudulent identification, and
purchasing firearms. He said she led agents, soon after
deciding to cooperate, to a cache of guns in the Siuslaw
National Forest. Peiffer said Thurston told the government
he and Chelsea had made and tested HMTD (an explosive) in
Portland, then drove to Redway, California where they met
with a representative of the EZLN (Zapatistas) and, using
7-10 grams of the substance, blew up a stump to
demonstrate. Peiffer railed for a moment about how Chelsea
had been harboring an illegal alien (Thurston), purchasing
weapons for him, and assisting him with illegal border
crossings, all criminal acts she was not being charged for.
He summed up by asking for 120 month sentence and
restitution to the sum of $16M.
Defense Arguments
Craig Weinermann, defense counsel for Gerlach, said he
wanted to focus on two things in his arguments: 1)How
Chelsea was introduced to radical action, and 2)The nature
of her cooperation. A DVD was submitted to the judge with
testimony from family and others. Weinerman asked that the
DVD not be played in open court, due to Chelsea's deep
concerns for her privacy. Aiken agreed that the DVD not be
shown in open court in front of the media. He said he
normally does not like to discuss cooperation in court, but
since it seemed very important to the court, he would. He
said that Chelsea cooperated not only when she was
arrested, but took extraordinary post-plea actions, when
she stood to gain nothing, to convince the other defendants
not to go to trial and to take pleas. Weinerman said the
government had not taken her exemplary cooperation into
consideration when compiling their sentencing
recommendation, so he would ask the judge to do justice by
downward departure.
He spoke about Bill Rogers for quite some time, and said he
had profoundly influenced Gerlach. He said he mentioned it
not by way of excuse, but in order to understand how
Chelsea came to be in the situation, it was necessary.
Gerlach was 16 when she met Rogers at Cove Mallard, Rogers
was 28. He said Gerlach looked to him as a mentor and
confidant, that she looked up to and admired him, and that
he exploited her, and recruited her into the so-called
"Family". He characterized Rogers as "The Mastermind" of
the whole cell, said that he recruited six of the members.
He said that if Chelsea hadn't met Rogers, she probably
would never have strayed beyond the boundaries of simple
civil disobedience in her actions.
He then showed slides of Chelsea as a child, always smiling
with her parents. Weinerman said he believed Chelsea had
grown up too fast, and was taught that environmental
degradation is immoral. He showed slides of her in the
student newspaper at South Eugene High School, speaking at
age 14 at the PIELC about civil disobedience, and said she
was deeply committed to finding non-violent solutions to
environmental degradation. He said she was raised with the
Earth First! Journal around the house where, at 16, she
read about Cove Mallard. Her father gave her a car and she
drove to Idaho to participate in the campaign, and stayed
for about two months. He said that most of the adults there
were supportive and protective of her... but not all. Bill
Rogers was 28, and he had a dark side. Weinerman said, "He
knew he could exploit her, and he began grooming her."
Chelsea went back to Eugene to graduate from high school.
Weinerman said, "The government says Chelsea dragged
Meyerhoff into the movement. We say, when they are both the
same age, within arm's length of each other, no one has
more power over the other. The way Chelsea was brought in
was NOT the same. Rogers had the power. Chelsea and
Meyerhoff evolved together." Chelsea went to The Evergreen
State College in Olympia where she became involved in
environmental groups, but she became frustrated with a
restless desire to do more, and called Rogers for advice.
He told her they were going to start a group that would
affect "real change". It was a destructive turn in
Chelsea's life. Rogers encouraged her to distance herself
from her family and social circle. In the spring of 1997,
Gerlach and Meyerhoff were living together in Phoenix, when
Rogers showed up and said, "We've got something big to do."
They drove to Colorado.
Weinerman said Rogers had recruited other young kids,
Nathan Block and Joyanna Zacher. He said Rogers authored
the "Black Cat Sabotage Manual". He said there was more to
Rogers' dark side, and that at the Book Club meeting in
Olympia, the group discussed sexual abuse issues. He said
that in discussions with Chelsea's investigator, Paul
Brown, activists Kim Marks and Peg Millet had characterized
Rogers as a sexual predator.
As to Gerlach's level of cooperation, Weinerman said
Gerlach had not been as "compulsive" as Meyerhoff, and
waited to talk to counsel first. He said it was a very
difficult decision for Ms. Gerlach. He said she knew she
would be ostracized. At the time, 30 to life was being
threatened, he said, and when she asked, "What will happen
if I cooperate?" he said he couldn't give her an answer.
She had to trust people she really didn't trust, he said,
and she had to trust the government to treat her fairly. He
said, "There was also a concern that this case was being
politicized... that shots were being called in Washington."
He said her decision was "agonizing". He said, "She did
more than talk the talk, " saying anyone can apologize in
court, but that Chelsea was "walking the walk".
He then described how Chelsea had encouraged Darren
Thurston to cooperate. (Darren was in the courtroom.) They
met in Portland, and in the presence of federal agents,
prosecutors, attorneys, Chelsea made her plea with
Thurston. Weinerman then read notes from the meeting, in
which Chelsea said, "I'm speaking from my heart. I didn't
know if we'd ever see each other again. At first, I didn't
want to put people in jail, but then I realized... I could
be a martyr, or I could have a life. I chose a life." She
also said, "The mandatory minimums suck." She told Thurston
there that she had revealed to the government about the
guns and drugs, and said, "You have to tell them
everything. Do the right thing." Weinerman said that after
Gerlach entered her plea, she was concerned about the rest
of the defendants, so she arranged to meet with McGowan's,
Block's and Zacher's attorneys. She told them she was being
treated fairly, and that they should not go to trial and
face the mandatory minimums. Weinerman said the government
had mentioned Chelsea's influence had an effect, but their
sentencing recommendation did not reflect this. He asked
for no more than 72 months' sentence for Gerlach. He asked
that the judge write a letter recommending Chelsea be
housed at FCI Dublin (CA).
Co-counsel for Gerlach, Mr. Ehlers, gave a statement, as
well. He said that he was there when Chelsea was arrested,
and had seen how difficult she was going to be. She didn't
trust him because he was a court-appointed lawyer. He said,
"I had to overcome her doubts." He said the change he had
seen in Gerlach was remarkable. That she struggled very
hard with the cooperation decision. He said that when she
decided to cooperate, he met with her for 16 hours at Lane
County Jail, and she did not like it. He said he had to
assure himself that when she met with the US Attorneys, she
would be truthful. When she finally did meet with them, he
said, "She embraced the role." He said he was amazed at her
ability to remember PGP passwords with over a dozen
alpha-numeric characters, and that when she went to the
Siuslaw National Forest with agents, dogs, and metal
detectors, it took her memory to find the cache of weapons.
He said she took a positive and caring attitude toward
others, and that her love of nature impressed him. He said
she was one of the kindest people he had ever defended. He
summed up by saying, "In stark terms, Bill Rogers was a
pedophile." He said it was the shame of being exposed that
led him to commit suicide, and that he had victimized
Chelsea in a way that would be with her the rest of her
life. He urged the judge to hand down a sentence that was
sufficient but not excessive.
Chelsea read a statement to the court in which she
apologized to the people hurt by her actions. She said her
beliefs were no excuse "for being so cavalier". She said
she took full responsibility for her choices, that she
doesn't blame her parents whom she loves very much. Her
voice broke when she said her parents had taught her that
violence was never a viable choice. She said by way of
explanation that for every piece of wilderness saved, so
many more were destroyed. She said she was glad to be
brought up with such a love of nature, but that she knew
she must adopt peaceful means to make change. She spoke
about her burgeoning spiritual practice, and her gratitude
at being given a chance to redeem herself. She said she has
plans to tutor in prison, and believes prison is a place
she could make some positive contributions.
Judge Aiken responded by saying she thought Gerlach's
statements were insightful and thoughtful. "You are
sentencing yourself to a better life." She said that most
people will come out of prison bitter, angry and likely to
re-commit. She said our obligation as a society is to see
that the people coming out of prison are people we can
embrace and welcome back into the community. She then read
an excerpt from a book (that I didn't catch the name of)
whose message was "service is the rent we pay for living".
She then berated Chelsea's parents for allowing a sixteen
year old to drive to Idaho alone and become prey to the
likes of Bill Rogers. She said, "That's not how you raise
children." She said she hopes people are listening, that if
parents don't stop being so self-absorbed she will be
seeing a lot more smart young people going away to prison.
About her job, she said, "If we don't believe in people,
this job would be nothing more than pushing paper. There
can be nothing more important than giving young people a
future and hope. You will be given a chance to rejoin the
community. However, you must be held accountable for your
crimes." She said Gerlach's crimes had caused fear and
destroyed people's property. She also said she hoped
Gerlach would choose more positive means to affect change
in the world. "The legitimate actions of the environmental
movement live under a cloud of suspicion in part because of
your actions." However, she noted Gerlach's extraordinary
cooperation, and said, "Your courage is noted."
She then sentenced Chelsea Gerlach to 9 yrs. The terrorism
enhancement was applied for Jefferson Poplar, WEPD, and
BPA.
Gerlach's lawyers moved that she be released pending
self-surrender, and the government did not object. However,
a representative from pre-trial services said that nothing
had changed from their perspective. Judge Aiken said she
was going to err on the side of caution and not allow it.
She said, "Someone needs to set boundaries, so I'm taking
the role of a parent and setting boundaries."
Earth Liberation Front arsonist sentenced to nine years
EUGENE, Ore. (AP) — A federal judge sentenced confessed Earth Liberation Front arsonist Chelsea Dawn Gerlach to nine years in prison Friday, declaring she committed acts of terrorism by setting fires at a police substation and a tree farm and by toppling a high-voltage transmission line. Aiken agreed with defense attorneys that Gerlach had made great progress in redeeming herself, and might never had committed the arsons if at only 16 she had not met William "Avalon" Rodgers, the charismatic leader of The Family, at an Earth First! encampment in Idaho.
Notes from Kevin Tubbs' Sentencing 5/24
Gumby Cascadia May 25, 2007
Portland Indymedia
On Thursday, 5/25, Judge Ann Aiken sentenced Kevin Tubbs to 151 months in federal prison. The terrorism enhancement was applied for Oakridge, Romania, Jefferson Poplar, and the EPD substation. Complete notes below.
5/24/07
Kevin Tubbs' Sentencing
Government Arguments
Asst. US Atty. Kirk Engdall started the day's arguments by talking about Kevin Tubbs' Warner Creek history, and his history prior to involvement in the "Family", citing involvement with PETA actions including one in which Tubbs allegedly threw cat excrement at execs. [It later turns out that this statement was utterly false and exaggerated: in truth the act of civil disobedience included dumping kitty litter as a prop.] He said Tubbs was involved in 14 arsons. He characterized him as an organizer, not a leader, saying that he was a "catalyst" for the arsons - a facilitator. Engdall said that Tubbs and Meyerhoff had had a meeting with Paul Watson at the 2000 PIELC (Environmental Law Conference in Eugene), where Watson allegedly paid 1000 dollars to Meyerhoff to go to Michigan and train another person in the art of incendiary device construction [this too was disputed as Stan’s informant report made it clear that he did not recall whether it was Tubbs or Rodgers]. He enumerated how Tubbs had registered vehicles for actions with falsified documents, that he had researched targets, done reconnaissance, and recruited others, especially at the Cavel West action. He then called Tubbs the "least courageous" in the group, choosing to be the driver instead of placing and lighting devices. He said Tubbs left the cell in 2001, but that he remained ready to assist in direct actions, and stayed in touch with others in the group. He characterized Tubbs as a "true believer" who loved the cause and was willing to die for it. He attempted to illustrate his point by showing a video clip from PickAxe (a documentary about the Warner Creek blockade) in which a bushy-haired Kevin is in a tripod and calmly states that if the pod were hit, he would fall and die, and expressed hope that the USFS would have more concern for him then the forests they regularly destroy.
He listed other actions Tubbs was involved with such as the arson at Dutch Girl dairy in Eugene and then mentioned the Oakridge ranger station arson. Engdall said the defense would argue that Tubbs was asked to give Jake Ferguson and Josephine Overaker a ride and thought they were only intent on simple vandalism. Engdall said that Ferguson asserts that Tubbs made the devices. He then showed video from Cascadia Alive! (a now-defunct live cable access show from Eugene) in which Tim Ream, on behalf of Cascadia Forest Defenders denounces the Oakridge action in light of contemporaneous legal and campaign victories. For the Cavel West action of a horse slaughterhouse, Engdall said that Tubbs located the target, did the recon, and discussed the target with Ferguson, and Joseph Dibee, deciding they needed more people. He stated that Dibee recruited Jonathan Paul, and that Paul recruited Jen Kolar. He said that Paul and Kolar made "vegan Jell-O", using a mixture of gas, diesel and soap. Engdall said they all drove to Remond, to the pre-action area, dressed in dark clothing and dug holes to bury the clothing on their return. He said Tubbs stayed with the car while the others went to the meat packing plant and placed the devices. During placement, one timing device that Dibee was placing went off and started burning, so the plan was aborted, all ran back to the vehicle, threw the clothes in the holes that had been dug, poured acid on them and buried them, then returned to Eugene.
The arson at Cavel West was not a failure and the slaughterhouse was destroyed and not rebuilt. Engdall showed video testimony from a first responder who testified that a "vast amount" of Redmond's water supply went into suppressing the fire. He then testified that some failed devices were discovered at the site, and that there was an employee who sometimes lived in a nearby building. Engdall said the communique stated action was done because legitimate methods to change things had failed... "exasperated and desperate". He said the plant was closed and jobs were lost.
Then he spoke about the arson at the BLM Wild Horse Corral (11/30/97). He said the communique for that action referred to the wild horses being on public land, and that the action was retaliation against the government, and a direct attack on government policy, which qualifies that action for the terrorism enhancement. He listed all the actions Tubbs was involved in: at APHIS in Olympia, BLM Rock Springs, Vail, US Forest Industries, Childers Meat Company, and the West Eugene Police Substation, Superior Lumber, Romania, Jefferson Poplar, BLM Litchfield horse corral. He said that Tubbs remained in contact with others from prior actions to organize them for future actions, that he saved lost IDs from his work in case they were needed for future actions.
Engdall asked that the terrorism enhancement be applied for the West Eugene substation, Romania and Jefferson Poplar (which were all applied in Meyerhoff's sentencing.) He said the government was asking for a sentence of 168 months. He said that Tubbs cooperated three weeks after his arrest and that his cooperation was substantial, but that his initial reluctance to cooperate, after he DARED to get legal advice from an attorney first, (only after he learned of 3 snitches against him: Ferguson, Meyerhoff and Kolar-in that order) was considered. He highlighted Tubbs' "true believer" status, his minor marijuana use, and minor criminal conduct prior to arrest. He stated that Tubbs was "less than remorseful" of his actions prior and after his arrest, and categorized him as a "serial arsonist".
He then called witnesses. Marcia Ledbetter, US Forest Service employee from the Oakridge Ranger Station testified that many documents, research and historical items had been lost, that she had felt intimidated and no longer felt safe. The assistant Fire Manager for the Oakridge district then spoke, saying very little could be done to save anything from the fire, that there hadn't been sufficient water to suppress the fire, and that he believed at the time that a FS employee occasionally slept in the building. He said that he was very angry, and that people were afraid to go into the woods by themselves afterwards.
Defense Arguments
Marc Friedman, Tubbs' attorney, began his arguments by pointing out the government stretched the truth in characterizing Tubbs to fit the story the feds wanted to put out there. He said the story about The Family was dramatic sounding - which the government had committed to the story and stuck with it. He said the government relied too heavily on the testimony of Jacob Ferguson, who was an unreliable witness trying to cast blame on others to get himself out of trouble. He said Tubbs was not a part of the so-called Book Club meetings, that they were a loose association of individuals who made decisions by consensus. He spoke about Tubbs upbringing, raised largely by his mother with a father in the military. He said Kevin was raised to have a fundamental respect for all life and animals; mom took in lots of strays. He characterized Tubbs as a loving and loyal child with a happy childhood, who joined animal rights groups as a teenager. He said that as a person, Tubbs rarely said "no", that he gave his unconditional loyalty to others. [General theme of the defense atty’s presentation was that Kevin was a follower, loyal, and would do anything his friends asked him to do, and played the most minor roles in the arsons. While this may be true, this theory of the case backfired with the judge. She was angered by his failure to stand up and take responsibility, etc.] He said that when Kevin transferred to Humboldt State University, he became aware of PETA and Earth First!, used a little marijuana, became vegan. When Tubbs returned to Nebraska, his life changed with the death of his father, and he engaged in his first animal release action. He was dedicated to helping those who can't speak for themselves. He adopted his dog Pujo. He became more involved with PETA, who encouraged his willingness to get arrested for publicity, and urged an escalation of tactics. He became an editor at the Earth First! Journal in Eugene, got involved in the radical community of the Whiteaker neighborhood, became "indoctrinated". Friedman said Jake Ferguson was his one and only friend in Eugene. That he went to Warner Creek and became a "tool" for the cause, taking risks, exactly what Jake Ferguson was looking for. His girlfriend dumped him for another guy in the ‘movement’, which devastated him, became isolated. Jake stepped in, gave Tubbs some zines with incendiary device-making techniques. Friedman said Tubbs did the Dutch Girl Dairy action to win his girlfriend Sis back, and that he drove vehicles without knowing what was going to happen, he had no motive.
Friedman said that a year after Oakridge, Tubbs became aware of the slaughterhouse at Cavel West through a DVD he had seen about horse slaughter. He was motivated by saving horses, and nothing else. They then show a very short segment of the horse slaughterhouse where horses are put into tiny metal rooms and a guy repeatedly used a pneumatic battering ram to fracture bones and eventually debilitate the horse as it writhed on the floor, was wrenched up by one foot and was then dismembered while still alive. Shocking footage. Judge stops it before the true suffering was shown. [Go to horsekillers.com or HSUS to see complete footage or how to end this horrific practice.] He said Joseph Dibee devised a plan and took the leadership role. The horses were being slaughtered on a private facility, that public lands were not even on Tubbs' "radar", and that the communique reflects that.
Then Friedman said that Tubbs was in a deep depression during the Burns BLM action planning, that he was enlisted solely to drive and satisfy the needs of others. He said that Tubbs identified Childers as a place that profited from harm to animals which was the sole motivation. Then, in the West Eugene substation arson, Tubbs played a minimal role. For the Superior Lumber action, he was recruited, and had never met Suzanne Savoie and Daniel McGowan prior to that action. Friedman said that for Romania, Tubbs "didn't have a clue" what that action was about... that he had never heard of Free and Critter. His role in Jefferson Poplar was described by Friedman as "minute", those 6 months before he went to reconnoiter the site with Meyerhoff, and during the action, never got out of the car. He said Tubbs was involved in the Litchfield action only out of loyalty to others. At that point, he was trying to withdraw, and said that would be his last action, he wanted out. Friedman said Tubbs continued contact was only staying in touch with friends and had no nefarious underpinnings.
Freidman showed video testimony from Tubbs' family and friends asking for mercy on his behalf. His fiancee Michelle Paige took the stand and eloquently testified to his deep compassion, kindness and gentleness. She said he had been harassed at FCI Sheridan due to his cooperation.
The feds then countered that Tubbs' story to the court was not credible, that he was avoiding responsibility for his actions.
Kevin then gave a very sad address to the court, speaking to the desperation and sadness that lead to his actions. He repeatedly stated that he was sorry for his idealistic but destructive behavior. He enumerated the many things that frighten him for the future of the planet, and said that though that is no excuse fro his actions, perhaps it explains what motivated him. He spoke about mass species extinction, ocean dead zones, depleted fish stocks, poisons in our water and food. He said that now scientists were calling global warming "a greater security risk than even terrorism", and went on to say that this did not justify the means, but illustrates where he was coming from. "We are asleep on the tracks of a runaway train. My intent was to wake people up." He apologized to his family and fiancee, and said that if he could go back and undo what he did, he would.
Judge Aiken responded by saying that although he may not be aware of it, SUVs are being torched all over Portland, and Tubbs has some responsibility for that. "You started a chain of events." She said that she gets calls from all over the country from people who say that Oregon is the birthplace of radical action. She said, "None of you are martyrs. You cannot take action on your own and damage peoples' property." She said he should be grateful that the government has offered to let him come back into the community. She said she would have been more impressed if he had taken full responsibility instead of trying to minimize his role and blame others for leading him astray. She said, "You have created fear, made people fearful in their workplaces and homes,” and exhorted him to remember, "Fear and intimidation can play no part in changing hearts and minds in a democracy." She said he had made legitimate environmentalists look bad. She said the communiques describe the actions with pride, but that Tubbs portrayed himself "almost as a victim" even though he was involved in most of the arsons. She said, "It makes me profoundly...palpably... sad that I have to sit through eight more days of wasted lives," and said she finds it "incredibly depressing, when you imagine that you could have been out committing random acts of kindness instead." She ended by saying, "You all seem to be very smart people. Why couldn't kindness have been your tool? Stop destroying the Earth to send a message."
She then issued the sentence, applying the terrorism enhancement for Oakridge, Romania, Jefferson Poplar, and EPD substation. With upward departures for his "leadership" role and the level of destruction, and downward departures for cooperation, she sentenced Kevin to 151 months and 60 months, to run concurrently (12 years 7 months) and 3 years supervised probation. Supervised release conditions included that Tubbs cannot have any contact with environmental or animal rights activists or organizations. Defense objected. Aiken then indicated she recognizes the First Amendment and considered a memo submitted by Darren Thurston’s attorney, and would refine the edict to require court approval of any contacts or organizations he wishes to interact with after he serves his prison sentence.
Third defendant in Earth Liberation Front arsons faces sentencing
May 25, 2007 Rodgers committed suicide in an Arizona jail shortly after the arrest in 2005 of himself, of Gerlach and others.
Defendants Sentenced in Eco-Sabotage Cases
Audio interviews on new Mumia crime scene photos
May 24, 2007 Infoshop News
AUDIO & PRESS RELEASE: New Mumia Abu-Jamal crime scene photos unveiled for
the first time in the United States, during the week of Abu-Jamal's May 17
oral arguments at the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
AUDIO FROM MICHAEL SCHIFFMANN'S MAY 18 PRESENTATION, WHERE HE IS JOINED BY
LINN WASHINGTON, JR. :
Note: refer to Abu-Jamal-News.
that Schiffmann refers to in his presentation
("Right click" on the link and "save link as" to download directly to your
laptop, or otherwise, listen directly from Abu-Jamal-News.
clicking")
----LISTEN TO THE COMPLETE 1HR., 28 MIN., FULL LENGTH VERSION:
http://www.abu-
----LISTEN TO THE SEPARATE CHAPTERS:
1) Linn Washington, Jr. on the Philly media's racist bias against Abu-Jamal:
http://www.abu-
2) Michael Schiffmann presents (part one):
http://www.abu-
3) Michael Schiffmann presents (part two) and begins to talk about Pedro
Polakoff's new crime scene photos:
http://www.abu-
4) Question: "Testing" Abu-Jamal's gun:
http://www.abu-
5) Question: The Missing Witnesses:
http://www.abu-
6) Question: What Happened to Kenneth Freeman and Cynthia White? Linn
Washington, Jr. details how the same person (eventually fired for making
false death certificates) wrote the mysterious death certificates for both
Freeman and White:
http://www.abu-
7) Question: What Other Cases Show:
http://www.abu-
8) Question: Where Was Robert Chobert and What Did He Tell Police?
http://www.abu-
9) Question: Getting the Facts Out to the Public:
http://www.abu-
10) Question: The Media's "Response" to the New Crime Scene Photos:
http://www.abu-
11) Question: Linn Washington, Jr, Reflects on Watching the May 17 Oral
Arguments:
http://www.abu-
12) Question: The Three Judges Deciding on Abu-Jamal's Case:
http://www.abu-
****PLEASE SHARE WITH YOUR FAVORITE MEDIA OUTLETS****
PRESS RELEASE: New Mumia Abu-Jamal crime scene photos unveiled for the first
time in the United States, during the week of Abu-Jamal's May 17 oral
arguments at the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
View the photos at: Abu-Jamal-News.
Speaking in Philadelphia on Friday, May 18, German author, Dr. Michael
Schiffmann presented findings from his new book (not yet published in the
US) "Race Against Death. Mumia Abu-Jamal: a Black Revolutionary in White
America," an expansion of Schiffmann's PhD dissertation at the University of
Heidelberg, just released in Germany. Professor Michael Schiffmann traveled
from Germany to Philadelphia to observe Abu-Jamal's May 17 oral arguments
before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
Along with original ballistics analysis, Schiffmann unveiled explosive new
crime scene photos from the morning of December 9, 1981, taken by press
photographer Pedro P. Polakoff, III.
In 1982, Abu-Jamal was convicted of killing Philadelphia police officer
Daniel Faulkner and sentenced to death in a trial that Amnesty International
has declared a "violation of minimum international standards that govern
fair trial procedures and the use of the death penalty."
Below are quotes about the crime scene photos from Robert R. Bryan, Linn
Washington, Jr., and Dave Lindorff.
ROBERT R. BRYAN
The newly discovered photographs reveal the fact that the police were
actively manipulating evidence at the homicide scene. For example, their
moving the police officer's hat from the roof of Billy Cook's vehicle to the
sidewalk to make the scene more emotionally dramatic was fraudulent and
criminal. It was as if they were setting up a scene, putting in props for a
movie to be shot. That is incredible.
Further, the incompetent manner in which the police at the scene dealt with
the evidence is mind-boggling. You would expect better from cops in some
little town in Alabama or Mississippi, than what we see in this case in
Philadelphia. The most stunning example was the photograph in which one sees
Police Officer James Forbes holding both pistols found at the scene in one
hand, bare-handed! This is unthinkable. A nitwit could do better. Why were
there no fingerprint tests? Why no ballistic examinations? It reminds me of
a scene from "The Keystone Cops," the way the evidence was being handled and
manipulated, except this was not funny. The fraud and incompetence of the
police had very tragic consequences for my client. Today Mumia Abu-Jamal
continues to sit on Pennsylvania'
Mumia was wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death. The police and
prosecution trampled upon his constitutional rights. It is disgusting and
shameful, as I pointed out on May 17 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit.
My goal is to win a new trial and walk Mumia Abu-Jamal out of that courtroom
a free person. I want an acquittal, so that my client can go home to his
wife and family.
--Robert R. Bryan is the lead attorney for Mumia Abu-Jamal. He can be
contacted via email: RobertRBryan@
LINN WASHINGTON, JR.
This series of photographs damage the prosecution'
because they graphically show police tampering with and manipulating the
crime scene...which is totally improper. Of particular significance is the
fact that these photographs provide graphic evidence contradicting the core
of the case against Abu-Jamal. The account of Abu-Jamal firing at the fallen
officer is shown to be false because there are no bullet holes and/or
embedded bullets consistent with the physics of this account. Further,
claims that the eyewitness cab driver, Robert Chobert, was parked behind the
officer's car are also shown false because there is no cab in any of the
photos.
Given the ole "picture-is-
surprising that the prosecutor repeatedly rejected this photographer'
offers of assistance because his photos expose the structural flaws in the
case presented in court against Abu-Jamal. These photos provide additional
evidence that the jury did not consider all of the available evidence due to
misconduct by police and prosecutors. This misconduct fuels demands for a
fair trial in this case.
Sadly, this newly rediscovered photographic evidence has yet to stimulate
interest in mainstream media...showing once again how this supposed
information seeking institution shirks its ethical duties in the Abu-Jamal
case to "seek truth and report it."
--Linn Washington, Jr. is a veteran Philadelphia journalist who has been
covering the Abu-Jamal case for over 25 years. He is a columnist for The
Philadelphia Tribune newspaper and an Associate Professor of Journalism at
Temple University.
DAVE LINDORFF
I've seen these photos. They are explosive.
Of course, the key at this point is getting Mumia Abu-Jamal a new trial, so
that all this incredible evidence can come out. Clearly, if there is a new
trial, there would be a quite different verdict.
If there is not a new trial, then of course, the new evidence will have to
be used in an effort to reopen the case at the state level.
--Dave Lindorff is the author of "Killing Time: An Investigation into the
Death Penalty Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal"
SUMMARY OF FACTS FROM DR. MICHAEL SCHIFFMANN'S NEW GERMAN BOOK "RACE AGAINST
DEATH."
In May, 2006, Schiffmann discovered two photographs on the Internet that
were taken by the only press photographer immediately present at the 1981
crime scene - Pedro P. Polakoff, III. Polakoff arrived within 12 minutes of
hearing about the shooting on the police radio and about ten minutes before
the Mobile Crime Unit (responsible for forensics and photographs) arrived.
According to Polakoff, this unit had still not taken any photos when
Polakoff left after 30-45 minutes at the scene.
Upon contacting Polakoff, Schiffmann learned that three of his 31 original
shots were published in Philadelphia newspapers at the time, and five others
were lost. Schiffmann told me that he "published five of the 26 remaining
photos to show the following three points:
1) "The cops manipulated evidence and supplied the trial court with stuff
that was simply stage-managed. On Polakoff's photos, P.O. Faulkner's police
hat at first is clearly on the roof of Billy Cook's VW, and only later on
the sidewalk in front of 1234 Locust where it was photographed by the police
photographer who arrived 10 minutes after Polakoff!
2) "In court Police Officer James Forbes claimed that he had 'secured' the
weapons of both Faulkner and Abu-Jamal without touching them on their metal
parts in order to not destroy potential fingerprints. However, in the single
photo reprinted in the book you can see that Forbes is touching the weapons
on their metal parts, and quite a few of Polakoff's other photos make it
clear that Forbes touched and smudged these weapons all over, destroying any
potential fingerprint evidence that may have been on them.
3) "The second-most important prosecution witness, cab driver Robert
Chobert, simply was not parked in the spot, allegedly right behind Officer
Faulkner's police squad car, where he claimed to have been and from where he
claimed to have observed Abu-Jamal fire the shot that killed the officer."
Polakoff's observations don't stop there. Schiffmann writes in Race:
"According to Polakoff, at that time all the officers present expressed the
firm conviction that Abu-Jamal had been the passenger in Billy Cook's VW and
had fired and killed Faulkner by a single shot fired from the passenger seat
of the car."
"Polakoff further reports that this opinion on the part of the police about
what had happened was apparently based on the testimony of three witnesses
who were still present at the crime scene, namely, by the parking lot
attendant in charge of the parking lot on the Northern side of Locust
Street, by a drug addicted woman apparently acquainted with the parking lot
attendant, and another woman. As Polakoff later heard from colleagues in the
media, the parking lot attendant had disappeared the day after, while the
drug-addicted witness died a couple of days later from an overdose. Whatever
it was that these witnesses saw or did not see, we will probably never know
- the interesting fact in any case is that neither of them ever appeared in
any report presented by the police or the prosecution.
Polakoff told Schiffmann that he was simply ignored when he repeatedly
contacted the DA's office to give them his account--and his photos--of the
crime scene.
AUDIO FROM MICHAEL SCHIFFMANN'S MAY 18 PRESENTATION, WHERE HE IS JOINED BY
LINN WASHINGTON, JR. :
Note: refer to Abu-Jamal-News.
that Schiffmann refers to in his presentation
("Right click" on the link and "save link as" to download directly to your
laptop, or otherwise, listen directly from Abu-Jamal-News.
clicking")
----LISTEN TO THE COMPLETE 1HR., 28 MIN., FULL LENGTH VERSION:
http://www.abu-
----LISTEN TO THE SEPARATE CHAPTERS:
1) Linn Washington, Jr. on the Philly media's racist bias against Abu-Jamal:
http://www.abu-
2) Michael Schiffmann presents (part one):
http://www.abu-
3) Michael Schiffmann presents (part two) and begins to talk about Pedro
Polakoff's new crime scene photos:
http://www.abu-
4) Question: "Testing" Abu-Jamal's gun:
http://www.abu-
5) Question: The Missing Witnesses:
http://www.abu-
6) Question: What Happened to Kenneth Freeman and Cynthia White? Linn
Washington, Jr. details how the same person (eventually fired for making
false death certificates) wrote the mysterious death certificates for both
Freeman and White:
http://www.abu-
7) Question: What Other Cases Show:
http://www.abu-
8) Question: Where Was Robert Chobert and What Did He Tell Police?
http://www.abu-
9) Question: Getting the Facts Out to the Public:
http://www.abu-
10) Question: The Media's "Response" to the New Crime Scene Photos:
http://www.abu-
11) Question: Linn Washington, Jr, Reflects on Watching the May 17 Oral
Arguments:
http://www.abu-
12) Question: The Three Judges Deciding on Abu-Jamal's Case:
http://www.abu-
------------
--This press release is from Abu-Jamal News. For more, contact co-founder
Hans Bennett, whose email is:
hbjournalist@
To read the complete summary of Schiffmann's findings:
http://abu-jamal-
To read a summary of the four issues currently before the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals:
http://abu-jamal-
0The%20Four%
---
Source : Infoshop News
http://www.infoshop
Devices "identical" to extremist group's
Investigators will search a suspect's computer for ties to
ecoterror groups. Grant Barnes is accused of trying to set
off firebombs under 7 SUVs in March.
By Howard Pankratz
Denver Post Staff Writer May 22, 2007
This sport utility vehicle was firebombed in Cherry Creek
in March. Investigators say the devices were "identical" to
those used by the Animal Liberation Front overseas. (9News
file)
Several firebombs set off under SUVs in Cherry Creek in
March are "identical" to devices used by an extremist group
known as the Animal Liberation Front and described on its
website, according to Denver investigators.
Leif Skulborstad, a Denver Fire Department investigator,
said in a search warrant affidavit that devices made with
identical materials and assembly methods were used by ALF
activists in the Netherlands to torch meat trucks.
Authorities accuse Grant Barnes, 24, of attempting to set
off firebombs under seven sport utility vehicles over four
days in March. Seven more devices were found in Barnes'
car. No one was hurt in the attacks, in which two vehicles
had heavy fire damage, but other vehicles did not burn.
Barnes was arrested March 22 after Denver police launched a
"saturation patrol" in the neighborhood where several
firebombs were left. He has been charged with 15 felony
counts, including six counts of using explosives to commit
a felony and two counts of second-degree arson.
Denver investigators have received permission to search a
computer found in Barnes' car. They believe it could show
which websites Barnes visited and whether he acted in
"collaboration with members of an arson/terrorist
organization."
Authorities cited no evidence that Barnes coordinated his
activities with any outside group or had any accomplices in
the firebombing.
KCNC-Channel 4 reported over the weekend that investigators
wanted to search Barnes' computer for any evidence of links
to ecoterror groups.
Phil Cherner, Barnes' lawyer, had no comment Monday on the
matter and said he had not seen the latest search warrant
affidavit.
Skulborstad said Fire Department investigators and a
Denver-based agent of the federal Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms had never before seen the type of
devices used in the Denver arsons. But he said Internet
searches located the exact devices
Grant Barnes, 24, is charged with 15 felony counts,
including two counts of arson. (The Denver Post)
and how to construct them on an ALF website titled
"Arson-Around with Auntie ALF."
Capt. Tony Berumen, head of the Denver Fire Department's
Fire Prevention and Investigation Division, said Monday
that the ATF is assisting in the investigation.
At one of the Denver arson sites, someone wrote the letters
ELF (often used to refer to the extremist Earth Liberation
Front) on a Hummer H2 hours after one of the devices went
off. At the time, Skulborstad noted that ELF was written at
only one of the arson sites and probably after fire
investigators left the scene.
In the latest affidavit, Skulborstad said that ELF and ALF
are interrelated organizations and "both ... use arson and
incendiary devices as a terrorist tactic."
Staff writer Howard Pankratz can be reached at 303-954-1939
or hpankratz@denverpost.com.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Call for Support of Green Scare Defendants
This is a nationwide call for people to come to the sentencing hearings of Green Scare defendants Joyanna Zacher, Nathan Block, Daniel McGowan and Jonathan Paul. These four people have shown great courage through the entire federal process. They all deserve our full support whether you know them personally or not.
The dates are:
June 1, 9AM: Nathan Block & Joyanna Zacher
June 4, 9AM: Daniel McGowan
June 5, 9AM: Jonathan Paul
All hearings are at the new federal courthouse at 405 East
8th(Franklin and Ferry). ALL HEARINGS BEGIN AT 9 AM. Please dress and
act appropriately.
Report on Meyerhoff's sentencing
5/22/07
Today, Judge Ann Aiken heard sentencing arguments for
Stanislas Gregory Meyerhoff. Hearing continues into
5/23/07.
U.S. Attorney's arguments
Assistant US Attorney Kirk Engdall argued the sentencing of
Stan Meyerhoff, characterizing him as a "serial arsonist
who became leader of the cell known as The Family" and used
the ELF to justify their crimes. Told judge and courtroom
that ELF originated in 1992 by Earth First! In England.
Philosophy and tactics then adopted by ALF. ELF/ALF rules
include strict nonviolence guidelines which include ecomic
sabotage, vandalism, etc. Goals include: (1) inflict
maximum economic damage of exploiters, (2) educate public
about issues of concern, (3) take all necessary precautions
against loss of human life. (Kirk says this is only for
convenience). He said that cell members existed largely on
a subsistence lifestyle, dumpster diving, squatting
abandoned
buildings, growing and selling marijuana and shoplifting
for necessities. Describing the cell as extremely
secretive, he went on to enumerate steps taken to protect
anonymity, including the use of aliases, code words,
computer encryption, falsified documents to obtain licenses
and other identification. He asserted that the cell
educated members and others on arsons and philosophies. He
said that Meyerhoff attempted to improve designs to
incendiary devices, and published how-to zines that were to
be broadly distriubuted as well as conducted trainings on
manufacturing devices for the Book Club.
He then went on to enumerate each of the crimes to which
Stan has admitted, using a Power Point display to show
slides and videos of the targets and the damage done to
them. He discussed the "heady days" of the early years
of the conspiracy, saying that in October of 1998,
Meyerhoff was recruited by Bill Rogers to burn Vail. He
asserted that the public communiques were popular in
environmental media which extolled the movement and decried
the victim, and that communiques were only to be sent if an
arson was successful and popular with the movement, and
there were no injuries. He claimed the group destroyed GE
research, calling it "reckless science" in communiques.
He said the Book Club met 5 times in 5 locations in 3
states over 2 years; that the last meeting was in the
summer of 2001, in Sisters, OR. The meeting was intended to
impvove knowledge and techniques of arsons.
He characterized Stan as becoming more of a leader in
each action... planning the actions, building the devices,
and recruiting cell members. He said that Meyerhoff became
increasingly frustrated with the ineffectiveness of the
actions ("impotence of arson). Engdall said that Stan
spoke with Rogers about escalating to violence against
humans, but that after the burning of wild horse corrals at
Litchfield, CA, the group went their separate ways.
Kirk characterizes Meyerhoff as smart, but lonely.
Described him as a social misfit, rejected by his peers, a
loser. The he met Chelsea Gerlach and began a "downward
spiral to becoming an angry individual. He said the
defense would argue that Gerlach "led him down the path of
crime", but that Meyerhoff continued doing arsons after
Chelsea left him. Engdall said Rogers and Meyerhoff had
private and public discussions about targeting corporate
leaders for assassination, and that Meyerhoff engaged in a
conspiracy with Joseph Dibee to assassinate Jonathan Paul.
Engdall said the two were approached by law enforcement in
Williams, OR after getting lost and called the hit off.
Substantive Arsons:
10/11/98 BLM Rock Sprgs, WY. Attempted arson, aborted
because of horse stampede. Original target was Vail, but
decided on 2nd target. Engdall claimed they targeted BLM
to intimidate, coerce, and retaliate against the US and
BLM. The communique says they freed 100 wild horses,
informed the public of slaughter of wild horses.
10/19/98 Vail. Meyerhoff leaves before arson, but helped
with devices. Rogers does it on his own with Gerlach
driving him. Feds say even though the arson targeted
private corporate expansion, it was on federal land, and so
was targeting government.
5/9/99 Childers Meat Co., Eugene, OR
12/25/99 Boise Cascade logging company, a private industry,
but feds argue they do public and private lands logging,
therefore targetting "government". Stan placed the
devices. Targeted multinational coroporations that don't
respect the ecostsytem (video clip of fire)
12/30/99 BPA Power tower toppling for Y2K, near Bend, OR.
(CG, SM, Jake Ferguson, J. Overraker). Hoped for LA power
outage, but power was rerouted before blackout.
9/6/00 West Eugene public safety station, Eugene, OR.
Gerlach, Meyerhoff, Tubbs, Ferguson
Meyerhoff organized the arson and tested a new device.
Engdall claims motive was because activists were angry at
EPD because of the Rob Thaxton case, and were pepper
sprayed by EPD during the 7 Week Revolt. Kirk says this
arson was incredibly dangerous because it was a risk to
people in a busy place. Device was mounted on bike and
leaned against building. Engdall asserted it was "clear
retaliation against the EPD and therefore an attack
against government and a terrorist act. Fire was put out by
hospital security guard with a small fire extinguisher.
(don't think they use fire extinguishers to deal w/
terrorist attacks in the middle east eh?)
1/2/01 Superior Lumber Co., Glendale, OR. Meyerhoff
constructed timers and placed devices as co-leader.
Communique issued said escalation of tactics against
capitalism and industry.
3/30/01 Romania II. Statement of defiance for Jeff Luers.
Engdall said Stan referred to this action as the "big
one", that he tested a new device -sheets soaked in fuel
connecting the SUVs. Meyerhoff recruited Block & Zacher
from Olympia. 35 SUVs destroyed, very effective arson.
Video clip shown to demonstrate dangerousness of fire to
firefighters. Slides of fire and burning, released toxic
gases and fumes, hazmat team called. The Feds called it an
attack on the state because of the prosecution of Jeff
"Free" Luers.
Jefferson Poplar Farm, Clatskanie, OR. Engdall says
Meyerhoff was team leader, "double whammy" with
University of WA arson. Recruited Block & Zacher, McGowan
("who was always invited to GM actions" according to
Engdall). Tubbs, Gerlach, Ferguson were advisers only on
this one. Farm states no GM research conducted there, only
hybrid research. 3 buildings targeted, 2 burn.
10/17/01BLM Litchfield, CA horse corral. Meyerhoff built
devices.
He enumerated other actions Stan was involved in that he
was not being charged with, including an arson at Pima
Canyon Estates (a luxury development in Tucson, Arizona)
6/12/01, another at Michigan Tech University 11/5/99,
8/28/99 BioDevices animal liberation, Judie timber sale
tree spiking 2/20/01, the destruction of culverts at Eugene
Sand and Gravel, and 3 GE actions against Monsanto, OSU and
VA Polytech. In all, he said Meyerhoff had been involved in
actions totaling over 30 million dollars not including
uncharged crimes.
Engdall then called witnesses to testify. The manager of
Jefferson Poplar Farm said they were engaged in research of
hybrid poplar trees, highlighting the "green" uses of them.
He said he was the one who discovered devices in the office
building that had not ignited. OSP was called in to remove
the devices. He said the overall effect was that his
employees were inconvenienced and emotional, spare parts
and tools were lost, and that he eventually laid off the
workers and closed. The Deputy Chief of the Clatskanie
Rural Fire Department then took the stand. He said that
when he got to the site, two buildings were on fire, so he
doubted it was an accident. He said he could smell propane
near the tank, and that it was very close to the building.
He testified that he thought the tank could rupture and
become a "fireball", and that the tank could be propelled
into the air from an explosion. Meyerhoff's attorney
cross-examined him, and he said that the fire was put out
prior to his shutting off the tank, and that remains of the
device were still intact.
Engdall summed up with the things taken into consideration
for the feds' recommended sentence, such as the danger
involved, the number of crimes, the complexity of them, the
threat to life and property. He said that Romania and
Jefferson Poplar were especially dangerous, and that
Meyerhoff had taken a leadership role. He said they had
spoken to Meyerhoff's mother, family and friends, and that
they take into account his age, any psychological issues,
any abuse in life, any indications of violence. They also
consider his cooperation, the TIMING of his cooperation...
was it initial, delayed or influenced by others? Was his
cooperation valuable? Did he encourage others to cooperate?
He said they had also considered the deterrent effect of
any sentence to be recommended, and its effect on future
prosecutions. He said they had consulted with US Attorneys
in Oregon, CA, CO, WY, AZ, MI, and WA, the FBI, BATF, USFS,
BLM, ODOJ, US DOJ, OSP, EPD, who were all "integral" to the
investigation, and that their recommended sentence was 180
months. He said they recommended this sentence based on
Meyerhoff's role as a serial arsonist, but mitigated based
on the fact that he was law-abiding before and after his
involvement, and because he cooperated even without the
presence of a lawyer, and continues to cooperate. His
aggravating factors are his leadership role, his role as
strategist, as an "arson emissary", that he taught others
to start arsons and cells. He said the maximum sentence
Meyerhoff could have received was 1, 245 years, and that
the terrorism enhancement clearly applies to him.
Defense Arguments
Meyerhoff's defense attorney, Terri Wood, began by calling
witnesses. Jim Smith, and arson investigation expert was
first. He examined the fires at Jefferson Poplar, Romania,
and Childers. Wood asked if the propane tank at Jefferson
Poplar could have exploded at the time the first responders
arrived. He said not if the tank was venting through the
pressure valve. He testified that he's done extensive
research on expanding gas explosions. He said that smaller
amounts of pressurized gas create larger explosions, due to
the fact that propane will boil faster in smaller amounts.
He said that at Jefferson Poplar the tank would have
required an excessive amount of heat at the bottom of the
tank, or the tank would have to be engulfed in flame for it
to explode, and that the placement of the two incendiary
devices 6-7 feet from the tank would not have created
sufficient heat for that to happen. He stated that if the
pressure valve had failed, there would be no explosion, but
a blowtorch effect. As to the vehicles on the property, he
said that the highest fuel load and chance for an explosion
in a vehicle burn is the tires, and that firefighters know
this, and put the tires out first. There was no explosion
at Jefferson Poplar. As for Romania, he said that there was
no damage to the offices, that the area where the vehicles
burned was really hot, but heat rises, so the damage was
contained to the vehicle area. Responding to the ATF report
about a device being placed close to a gas meter at
Childers, he said a meter rupture would not have caused an
explosion, but a blowtorch effect. He said that since it
was a non-home structure, that firefighters knew there were
no people inside, and did not therefore take dangerous
risks to rescue people. Safety is their #1 concern if a
building is engulfed, so they back off and try to contain
the fire.
Wood also called Zelda Ziegler, a former Department of
Energy contractor in incident response, to testify on the
same subject.
Wood then spoke of the vulnerability Stan would experience
due to his cooperation with the government, and cited media
attention to his cooperation, such as in Rolling Stone, and
articles in the Earth First! Journal that print "veiled
threats" against snitches, as well as on Portland
Indymedia. She stated that Stan has been added to Who's A
Rat website, and referred to a dispatch from Jeff Luers of
12/05 saying that snitches "should be treated
acccordingly".
Then she called Paul Solomon, director of men's services at
Sponsors, Inc., a local Eugene post-incarceration support
service provider. Solomon testified that he'd spent nine
years in prison for robbery and drug crimes, including five
years of federal time in Sheridan, OR. He stated that
"snitches" or "rats" are at the bottom of the pecking order
in prison, second only to child molesters. He said they are
abused, extorted for protection, and assaulted... anything
from name-calling to stabbing... and are more susceptible
to sexual abuse as they are prime targets for exploitation.
He testified that maximum security facilities house more
violent offenders, while minimum-medium facilities have
more programs giving offenders a vested interest in earning
"good time". He said that Stan would have a particularly
hard time if placed in a maximum security facility due to
his lack of "street sense", and his lack of criminal
knowledge... how to survive in the joint. This would only
be exacerbated by the "snitch jacket".
Next up was Harvey Cox, a retired Bureau of Prisons warden
from Texas, and a former correctional consultant at Terre
Haute, Indiana Federal Penitentiary (the "terrorist"
prison). He said that Stan's classification will be decided
by the Bureau of Prisons by worksheet on a point system,
which includes these factors:
- did felon voluntarily surrender?
- the severity of offenses (arson rates at highest severity
level)
- criminal history ( terrorism enhancement would raise Stan
from a 0 to 10)
- history of violence
- history of escape
- detainers (?)
- age factor
- education level
-drug or alcohol abuse history
He said 12-15 points is low security, 16-23 is medium, and
24+ is high security, with some discretionary latitude
allowed. Other factors considered are public safety factors
such as gang affiliation or other "disruptive group"
affiliation, which the ELF could be. He talked about the
politics involved, stating that the BOP work for Atty
General Alberto Gonzales, and that the bureau will do what
he says. ELF is the #1 domestic terrorist threat? Stan is
likely to be designated high security and sent to a
supermax facility like Terre Haute. He said supermax
prisons are "hard to get into". He said that inmates spend
23 hours a day in lockdown, with one hour in a caged area
considered a "yard". He said typical high security prisons
house the most violent offenders with prior records who are
"criminally sophisticated". Snitches are frequently
assaulted. He said he had seen two to three assaults a
week, anything from minor injuries to murder. He said that
the sensory deprivation of prisoners locked up for "their
own protection" leads to severe psychological problems.
Judge Aiken interjected that the Bureau of Prisons says
they can't comply with her recommendations. She asked Mr.
Cox what she could do about this. He told her to write a
personal letter, instead of just the usual forms, to the
Regional Director highlighting the extraordinary
cooperation of this defendant in a high profile case,
explaining that Stan is not viewed as a security risk or
violent, and to say that he's not a terrorist even if the
terrorism enhancement is applied. He said a letter from the
US Attorney would get lots of attention and be even more
effective.
Then Dr. Robert Stanulis took the stand. He is a forensic
neuro-psychologist who evaluated Stan. He said that Stan
was only 21-24 years old when he was involved in ELF, that
he was not a leader of the group, but was a competent
individual with his assigned tasks, eager to please a
leader. As to his tendency to violence, Dr. Stanulis said
Meyerhoff scored very low on that scale. He said that
Stan's motivation was to make the world a better place,
even though the tactics were criminal, and that though he
had toyed with the idea of violence, as an intellectual he
disregarded it as an option. The Dr. characterized Stan as
a "passive non-violent" person who rationalized his acts as
civil disobedience. He stated that because Stan is
committed to making the world a better place, his
likelihood of recidivism is low. He said that the frontal
lobe development of a 22-24 year old doesn't fully
rationalize long-term consequences. He then listed the
possible consequences of a long and violent prison
experience... Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, depression,
suicide, and the risk of increased radicalization in
prison.
Wood then showed a video with short testimonies of several
of Stan's professors at Central Oregon Community College,
and several of his relatives, as well. Then Stan's mother
testified, and plead with the court for leniency. Court was
recessed for the day.
5/23/07
Meyerhoff's attorney, Terri Wood, started off the day with
objections to the fed's use of defendants' debrief info
(which she contends is inadmissible) to characterize Stan
as a leader in the Jefferson Poplar and Romania actions.
The government conceded to the objection.
Wood said that the incident with Joseph Dibee did not
involve anything related to the movement, that Stan didn't
agree to murder anybody. She said it was more likely that
Joseph was just "blowing off steam" and that Stan just
"went along for the ride". She said that was Stan's last
contact with Dibee. She claimed the government was
overreaching with regards to the talk of escalating
violence, and that talk of assassination was revolutionary
speech is protected by the first amendment. She then
brought
up factual disputes regarding the application of the terror
enhancement, saying that the government's assertion that
any actions that caused injury or death would not be
claimed by the ELF (per Craig Rosebraugh) implied there had
BEEN actions that caused injury or death but were
unclaimed... an assertion with no basis. She objected to
the government's characterization of Stan as a leader in
the West Eugene Police substation arson, and the
implication
that the propane tank at Jefferson Poplar was just "waiting
to explode"... all hyperbole.
The feds responded that under the plea agreement, the
stipulation of facts says that Meyerhoff took a leadership
role. Savoie and Phillabaum both placed him at the location
of the Monsanto action (for which he is not charged). A
contact in Michigan advised them that Meyerhoff had gone
out and trained him in the construction of devices.
Wood countered that under the plea agreement, the
stipulation of facts for each count was not a waiver of
debrief privilege. The judge agreed, saying that hearsay
statements during a sentencing is allowed, but that due
process still exists, so hearsay can't be relied on for
sentencing unless there is extensive evidence.
Wood's objections to the application of the terrorism
enhancement were next. She reiterated the government's
burden of clear and convincing evidence for each defendant.
She said the only uncontested information on motivation
factors are the communiques. She said the only government
property destroyed were the Bonneville Power tower, and the
Eugene Police substation, and that neither of those had
issued communiques. All other crimes were against private
industry. She said that, furthermore, the communiques do
not establish by clear and convincing evidence the motive
to retaliate, coerce or intimidate. She argued that the
Romania communique was solely about torching SUV's, not
changing laws, and that there was no belief that the action
would influence the government by intimidation or coercion.
She said there was no adequate link, that it was a clear
expression of defiance, not retaliation. In the Vail
communique, there is no mention of a federal lawsuit. Being
defiant of government is NOT retaliation, and is not
intended to coerce the government. As to the BLM arsons,
she said there is conspiratorial liability only for Stan,
that they don't qualify as predicate crimes under
844(f)(g). She also argued that if the terror enhancement
is applied, and the judge decides to downward depart the
Criminal History category from a 6 to a 1, it would still
be a misrepresentation of Stan's true Criminal History.
The government responded that the communiques are potent
exhibitors of motive, especially the Romania communique
shows a strong anti-government sentiment.
Wood pointed out that Stan played a role in arsons of
unoccupied structures, which statistically result in very
few injuries. She said there are four factors to be
considered in sentencing, 1) the seriousness of the
offense; 2) the need to protect the public; 3) the
deterrent effect of prison on others; and 4)the
rehabilitation of the defendant. She asked the court for a
lesser sentence... not a downward departure, but less than
the advisory range of the government. She said the Bureau
of Prisons can't guarantee Meyerhoff's safety. She
referenced Rule 35, to get him out of prison to Community
Corrections
Center.
She said there's no way for the court to protect him once
in prison, that the only thing to do is decrease his time
or put him in lockdown. She requested less than five years.
She pointed out that Jacob Ferguson was allowed out on a
deal where he allegedly will plead to 1 count of
arson with probationary sentence which is a huge
sentencing
disparity and overreach by the feds. She argued that the
$18M judgement for restitution is a heavy penalty that will
hinder Meyerhoff for the rest of his life. She asked for a
waiver of accrual of interest. And requested a letter from
the court to the Bureau of Prisons, and to change the
Criminal History category to 1 if the terrorism enhancement
is applied. She also asked the court to require the US
Attorney's office to write a letter to the BOP.
The government made their final comments, stating that
their recommendations are not overreaching, that
Meyerhoff's crimes would get a mandatory minimum of 230
years or a life sentence due to the multiple crimes and
causing fear. They said 188 months accomplishes federal
obligation in this case.
Stan then read a statement to the court. He apologized for
his "extremist barbarity", referring to himself as an
"ordinary bigot". He said the actions were
counter-productive to the goal, and that "fear cannot
replace discussion". He said he regretted his time in the
"thuggish ELF" and said he had succumbed to "youth's weak
will". He offered his "most profound apology"... sorry "in
every sense of the word". He said his acts were selfish and
egotistical, cowardly and arrogant. He regrets his choices.
He engaged in "ELF violence for the sake of false pride",
and begged for forgiveness.
Judge Aiken spoke before issuing her ruling. She referred
to a Native folk tale, that says we have two wolves inside
us - one good, one bad. The wolf we feed is the one that
wins. She said "For a very long time you've been an evil
boy." It was "dumb luck" that no one was hurt. She said,
"You are not a terrorist in the traditional sense of the
word", but said he'd engaged in conduct intended to
intimidate or retaliate, whether government or private
individual. She said he'd used his knowledge to teach
others to engage in arson, and that she rejects the notion
that he did not do it for personal gain. She said she
doesn't believe he intended to save the environment. "True
environmental activists were harmed by your actions." She
said she would write any letter to help with his placement
in prison. She urged him not to have cowardly (suicidal)
thoughts. She reads letters from another inmate she has
been corresponding with who is having a rewarding
experience teaching and tutoring in prison. "Don't be a
coward. Step up. Be an asset."
She then enumerated all the sentencing guidelines, with
upward or downward departures (which I won't detail here
because it's 3 a.m.), the application of the terrorism
enhancement for Romania, Jefferson Poplar, and the West
Eugene PD substation, and issued 156 months, with 3 years
supervised release, and a letter to the judge every 6
months. Also added condition that he not have
contact with any environmental or animal rights
activists or organizations.
The government still sucks.
author: Otter Portland Indymedia
Random notes on the Stanislas Meyerhoff sentencing hearing.
[The following expresses the author's personal opinions, and is in no way guaranteed to be true or accurate.]Today in federal court in Eugene, Oregon, Judge Ann Aiken told Stanislas Meyerhoff that he was "very brave." This was how she described his actions immediately after he got arrested, when he caved in under the pressure of the police state, and without even requesting legal counsel, instantly informed on all of his former friends and allies, and himself, to the maximum extent of his ability.She considers this action to be very courageous, and well she might, because as noted exhaustively in court, he thereby volunteered himself into the life of an intellectual, mild-mannered nonviolent 130 pound snitch in a maximum security prison. She was so proud of him that she chose to expose him to only 13 years of this existence, instead of the fifteen that the prosecutors were recommending. She read him a couple of uplifting stories about young men who'd found productive ways to spend their time in prison, and then she wished him luck.
At several points during the hearing, Judge Aiken expressed frustration at her inability to have any effect on the fate or treatment of inmates once they leave her care. Earlier one of the expert witnesses for the defense advised her to try writing a letter to the warden, or the position immediately above the warden. He did note, however, that a letter from the District Attorney would be more effective than a letter from a judge.
All of these people had just spent several hours discussing in uncomfortable and graphic detail the statistical likelihood of Stan being physically and sexually abused in prison, especially if he is labeled a terrorist and sent to max or supermax. His own psychological expert witness put up a chart showing the personality characteristics of a sexual predation victim, and which ones Stan shared that were likely to get him into trouble. (He fit about 3/4 of the profile.) Another expert witness who had spent nine years behind bars and now works for a halfway-house organization, testified that Stan basically didn't stand a chance.
It apparently never occurred to any of the participants in this surreal conversation to realize that what they were describing was an absolutely barbaric, horrific, and bizarre institution, completely out of place in any civilized society. For some people, the only rational response would have been to refuse to participate in any part of the process until the system could be made safe and effective. But not for this group.
No, the condition of the prisons was not what this group of people was here to discuss. Nor were they there to discuss the condition of the planet, or whether or not any of the defendants' political or environmental claims may have had scientific merit. They certainly were not there to discuss whether the government had any political biases motivating the prosecution of these particular arsonists.
What they were there to talk about were the motivations of Stanislas Meyerhoff, and whether or not these motivations made him a terrorist.
The definition they were going to use for this decision, as established by Congress, specified that any act of "violence" (including property destruction), which can be proven to have been motivated by a desire to retaliate against or coerce some branch of government, is terrorism.
Apparently private homes and businesses don't count, at least not during the time period in which the arsons took place. What also doesn't seem to matter is the fact that every real life example used by Congress to pass these words into law involved crimes that clearly cost multiple human lives -- the Oklahoma City Bombing, other terrorist attacks all over the world. Terrorist attacks. Suicide bombers. Cafes exploded in the middle of the lunch rush. Buses blown sky high with bodyparts all over the street. Terrorism.
EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT TERRORISM IS. Except, apparently, the government whose job it is to protect us from it. The same government who, under the influence of pressure from corporate lobbying groups representing the very same "earth raping" businesses targeted by the ELF and ALF, chose to devote a very large proportion of its law enforcement resources to the pursuit of these new "domestic terrorists". They chose to put their money into chasing this new kind of terrorist, who never kills anybody, at the expense of pursuing right-wing militias and abortion clinic bombers, and foreign terrorists, who have no such scruples.
At no time during the sentencing hearing was there any mention, of course, of the scale of this forty million dollar environmental arson spree when compared to the bombing spree underway in Iraq for the past four years. There was also no mention of the civilian casualties currently being inflicted by this very same government, which is run by the rule of law, and which refuses to tolerate the use of violence in pursuit of political objectives.
I don't know about you, but I sure feel a lot safer now.
For justice, the label must befit the crime
International day of solidarity with John Bowden 25th May
24 May 2007
Come and join us outside the Scottish Parliament in
Edinburgh at 2.00pm. Bring placards and banners.
If you are unable to attend please show your solidarity in some other way,
for example by phoning or faxing Glenochil prison and/or the Scottish
Prison Service, contacting or picketing your nearest British embassy,
organising a card signing, etc.
WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP:
Find out more at: www.myspace.com/friendsofjohnbowden
Send a postcard reading ‘Hands Off John Bowden!’ to Scottish Prison
Service HQ, Communications Branch, Room 338, Calton House, 5 Redheughs
Rigg, Edinburgh, EH12 9HW. You can also e-mail them at
gaolinfo@sps.gov.uk Phone them on 01259 760471. Or fax them at 01259
762003.
Write to Glenochil prison, where John is being held: Audrey Parks,
Governor, HMP Glenochil, King O' Muir Road, Tullibody, Clackmannanshire,
FK10 3AD. Telephone: 01259 760471. Fax: 01259 762003.
Complain to the Care Commission about the lies being told by Matt
Stillman, who is employed by Perthshire Social Services: The Care
Commission, Headquarters, Compass House, 11 Riverside Drive, Dundee, DD1
4NY. Telephone: 01382 207100. Fax: 01382 207289.
Send John a card or letter of support: John Bowden, 6729, HMP Glenochil,
King O' Muir Road, Tullibody, Clackmannanshire, FK10 3AD.
Become involved in the support campaign for John by e-mailing
handsoffjohn@reborn.com or by writing to the address below.
Leeds ABC, PO Box 53, Leeds, LS8 4WP.
leedsabc@riseup.net
www.myspace.com/leedsabc
Arsonist gets 13-year sentence in terror acts
Update: Three people being questioned this morning in connection with car fires
Posted by The Oregonian May 24, 2007 07:05AM
More arsons, but no answers
My brother, the 'terrorist'
Let me tell you a little bit about him. He likes the History Channel. He's a Trekkie. He cried (in secret) at the corny 1980s movie "Turtle Diary." He's good at fixing things. And, most important, he has devoted his life to stopping animals' suffering. To this end, he has broken the law. He crept into animal laboratories to free dogs. He dismantled corrals to release wild mustangs. He impersonated a fur buyer to film the treatment of minks. He put himself between whales and whalers despite warnings that his boat would be impounded and that he would be jailed. And nearly 10 years ago, he burned down a horse slaughterhouse in Redmond, Ore. It is for this final act that the U.S. government considers him among the ranks of Osama bin Laden, Eric Rudolph and Ramzi Ahmed Yousef.
"This is a classic case of terrorism," the federal prosecutor said earnestly to the judge during a hearing last week in my brother's case.
My brother, Jonathan Paul, has pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Eugene, Ore., to burning the Cavel West Slaughterhouse. He will find out on June 5 whether the judge considers his actions deserving of the "terrorism enhancement" to his sentence sought by the government. (Nine other members of the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front, who pleaded guilty to different charges, are being sentenced as well. The first, sentenced Wednesday, was deemed a terrorist.) If a terrorism enhancement is imposed, my brother's recommended sentence could go from less than three years to more than 14 years.
Don't let me give you the impression that I think arson is something to be taken lightly. I do not. The irony is rich in this case: I was a San Francisco firefighter for 13 years. I was angry and dismayed that my brother chose arson as a route to stop animal suffering. But "a classic case of terrorism"?
Federal laws define terrorism as one of a laundry list of offenses committed for the purpose of coercing the government to change its policies. It is a broad definition, designed to give judges wiggle room and adopted at a time when terrorism was a new concept. Congressional hearings in 1995 and 2001 make the original intent of the laws clearer. When House members and senators described acts of terrorism, every example (Pan Am Flight 103, Oklahoma City, the first World Trade Center bombing, the Tokyo subway attack) involved the killing of, or the intent to kill, human beings.
But recently the government has moved away from the idea of terrorist-as-murderer. The case involving my brother represents the first time that terrorism enhancements have been sought when all the evidence shows that the defendants took affirmative steps to make sure no one would be endangered.
Clearly the government is trying to expand — or more accurately, dilute — the definition of a terrorist to encompass those who engage in property damage. Egregious property damage, yes, but still just property damage.
Past terrorism cases also have involved targets with government links. But the Cavel West Slaughterhouse was a private Belgian corporation; its horsemeat went to Europe and Japan. The prosecutor has argued that some of the horses were wild mustangs, sold by the federal Bureau of Land Management, and that therefore there was a clear intent to disrupt government policy.
There's a legal term for this. It's called "overreaching."
How much safer do we feel now that ELF/ALF members, who have never hurt or intended to hurt a single human being, might be confined to a maximum-security prison? Could it really be true that the most powerful country in the world feels "coerced" by a bunch of bunny huggers? Is the confident "I am the decider" leader of this nation being bullied by vegans? Or is it possible that the government just wants to crow about convicting another "terrorist" while the main one is still at large?
A lot has been written about the radicalization that led to Bin Laden's hatred of the U.S. Let me tell you a bit about the conversion of one member of the group that the FBI now considers the "No. 1 domestic terrorist threat." When my brother was 15, he shot a bird out of a tree with a .22-caliber rifle. It fell to the ground, wings spread, gasping for air. He killed it with a rock. Then he vowed he would never knowingly harm an animal again.
My brother had hunted before. (Less perhaps then Ted Nugent but more than, say, Mitt Romney.) And yet on that day, he had a revelation. He can't explain it. A religious person might say it was the tiny cruciform bird on the ground. A psychotherapist might surmise that something had been percolating for a while, only to burst to the surface. Who knows? What I do know is that since that day in 1981, my brother has been resolute in the rescue and protection of animals.
Anyone who lives in Redmond will tell you how terrible the Cavel West Slaughterhouse was. The horses screamed all day. Their blood clogged the sewage system. The stench was unbearable. The killings, by many accounts, were slow and agonizing. My brother's sentiments were far from radical, and they had nothing to do with the government. His intention was simple: save the horses.
This does not mean arson was the right thing to do. If you call my brother a lawbreaker, I won't argue. But labeling him a terrorist dilutes the meaning of terrorism. And you demean all the Americans, and all those around the world, who have died in real terrorist acts.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Earth Liberation Front arsonist sentenced to 13 years
May 23, 2007 By JEFF BARNARD
AP Environmental Writer
EUGENE, Ore. (AP) — Declaring fires set at a police station, an SUV dealer and a tree farm acts of terrorism, a federal judge Wednesday sentenced the first of 10 members of a radical environmental group to 13 years in prison.
U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken commended Stanislas Meyerhoff for having the courage to "do the right thing" by informing on his fellow arsonists after his arrest, but declared that his efforts to save the earth by setting fires were misguided and cowardly, and contributed to an unfair characterization of others working legally to protect the environment as radicals.
"It was your intent to scare and frighten other people through a very dangerous and psychological act — arson," Aiken told Meyerhoff. "Your actions included elements of terrorism to achieve your goal.
"The fact that your actions were completely irrational doesn't mitigate this. Nor does the fact that no one was hurt.
Meyerhoff, 29, has admitted to being a member of a Eugene cell of the Earth Liberation Front known as The Family, which was responsible for more than 20 arson fires from 1996 through 2001 in five Western states that did $40 million in damage.
Meyerhoff was involved in fires at a Eugene police substation, a Eugene SUV dealer, an Oregon tree farm, federal wild horse corrals in Wyoming and California, and a Vail, Colo., ski resort. He also helped topple a high-voltage transmission line tower in Oregon.
After a member of the cell, Jacob Ferguson, agreed to turn informant and wear a hidden recording device, Meyerhoff and five others were arrested, starting in December 2005. Soon after his arrest, Meyerhoff turned informant as well, which Aiken said resulted in more arrests.
Defense attorney Terri Wood said Ferguson has a deal with the prosecution that involves one count of arson and no prison time.
In a statement before being sentenced, Meyerhoff denounced the ELF, saying its goals of promoting a public discussion about stopping practices that harm the earth actually cut off debate and harmed people.
"I was ignorant of history and economy and acted from a faulty and narrow vision as an ordinary bigot," Meyerhoff read from his four-page handwritten statement, his voice breaking at times. "A million times over I apologize ... to all of you hardworking business owners, employees, researchers, firemen, investigators, attorneys and all citizens whose property was destroyed, whose holidays were ruined, whose welfare was thwarted, and whose sleep was troubled."
Under federal sentencing guidelines, Aiken said, Meyerhoff was eligible for 30 years to life in prison. However, prosecutors recommended reducing that to 15 years, eight months, based on his cooperation with investigators. Aiken further reduced that to 13 years, noting that Meyerhoff showed courage by naming names and opening himself to retribution.
Defense and prosecution lawyers declined comment after the sentencing.
Prior to sentencing, Wood asked for leniency, arguing that most of the fires were not acts of terrorism because they were set at businesses, not government facilities.
The prosecution countered that based on communiques issued after the fires, the blazes were meant to retaliate against the U.S. Forest Service for allowing a Vail ski resort to expand into a national forest, the University of Washington for genetic engineering research and the government for prosecuting radicals who set earlier fires at the SUV dealer.
"The communiques are powerful, powerful evidence that the defendants and Mr. Meyerhoff intended to influence the conduct of government," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Kirk Engdahl. "It is our position that the terrorism enhancement clearly applies to Mr. Meyerhoff."
Aiken rejected the argument the ski resort arson was terrorism, noting the communique made no direct reference to the Forest Service.
But she declared that a fire set at a Eugene police substation was terrorism because it was a direct attack on government. The Romania Chevrolet SUV dealership arson was terrorism because the communique said it was revenge for sending arsonist Jeff Luers to prison for 22 years. And the Jefferson Poplar Farm arson was terrorism because the communique spoke of affecting pending legislation.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Feds To Continue Politically Motivated Prosecution of Eco-Saboteurs
Saboteurs may be sentenced as terrorists
Eco-Sabotage Cases: Judge Aiken Rules on "Terrorism Enhancements"
| [5/21/07] This evening, Judge Ann Aiken issued her ruling on whether the "Terrorism Enhancement" could apply to the District of Oregon federal defendants in the "Operation Backfire" eco-sabotage cases. Although Judge Aiken stated that this enhancement may apply, the government still has to provide clear and convincing evidence that the enhancement applies in the case of each individual defendant. |
 Terrorism Enhancement ruling, 5/21/07 http://stream.paranode.com/imc/portland/media/2007/05/359740.pdf |
From Judge Ann Aiken's ruling:
"The court finds that the terrorism enhancement under § 3A1.4 may apply to defendants' convictions for conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371 if the government establishes that defendants' participation in the conspiracy involved or was intended to promote a "federal crime of terrorism." Further, the court finds that a "federal crime of terrorism" does not require that the offense create a substantial risk of injury or transcend national boundaries. [...] The court also finds that the increase in criminal history category under § 3A1.4 does not violate defendants' Sixth Amendment rights. Finally, the government must establish the applicability of the terrorism enhancement by clear and convincing evidence."
Notes from last week's hearings on the sentencing enhancement are available here.
ProLibertad Solidarity Announcement
The ProLibertad Freedom Campaign
http://www.ProLibertadWeb.com
ProLibertad@hotmail.com and ProLibertad.Campaign@gmail.com
ProLibertad Hotline: 718-601-4751
_______________________________________________________________________________
DESPIERTA BORICUA!! GETTING BACK TO OUR ROOTS!!
ProLibertad is calling on all our allies to join us ‘Rican Weekend (June
9th-10th) as we hand out literature on Puerto Rico and the Puerto Rican
Political Prisoners!!
Thousands of Boricuas are waiting to learn more about the Puerto Rican
Indpendence movement!!
JOIN US AS WE GET BACK TO OUR ROOTS!!
SATURDAY June 9th, 2007 at 10am El Barrio Festival Meet
ProLibertad at 339 e116th St.
(btwn. 1st-2nd Aves.) Light Blue Building
SUNDAY June 10th, 2007 at 10am
National Puerto Rican Day Parade
Meet us on the corner of e45th St. and 3rd Avenue. Look for the ProLibertad
Banner
LET US KNOW IF YOU ARE GOING TO JOIN US: Call ProLibertad at 718-601-4751 or
email: ProLibertad@hotmail.com
Monday, May 21, 2007
Hyping Another Terrorist Threat
T o listen to government officials and the mainstream media, the six New Jersey men arrested for allegedly plotting an attack on the Fort Dix military base were well organized and nearly "ready to strike."
But like all of the government's claimed victories in "fighting terrorism," there are disturbing holes in the story that should raise questions about scapegoating and scaremongering.
The U.S. attorney's office in New Jersey announced May 8 that five men--Jordanian-born U.S. citizen Mohamad Ibrahim Shnewer; Turkish-born legal U.S. resident Serdar Tatar; and brothers Dritan, Eljvir and Shain Duka, ethnic Albanians from the former Yugoslavia who were reportedly in the U.S. illegally--had been charged with "plotting to kill as many soldiers as possible in an armed assault at the Fort Dix Army base."
A sixth defendant, Agron Abdullahu, a legal resident also from the former Yugoslavia, is charged with illegally holding weapons for the others.
The FBI says it learned of the supposed plot when the men went to a Circuit City store and asked a clerk to transfer a jihad training video of themselves onto a DVD. They were arrested after allegedly attempting to purchase weapons from an undercover FBI agent.
According to the government, the men had conducted surveillance on Fort Dix, obtained computerized ballistic simulations and stolen a map of Fort Dix from a pizza shop located near the base in order to help plan their attack.
But the extent of their supposed military-style "training" appears to be trips to a firing range in the Poconos and playing paintball in the woods. According to the Washington Post, the indictment against the men "indicates that the group had no rigorous military training and did not appear close to being able to pull off an attack."
Nor do court papers indicate that the suspects themselves were convinced of their own supposed plan. At one point, for example, they express doubt at the thought of obtaining automatic weapons--noting that they are, after all, illegal.
The media's reports on the arrests immediately deemed the six as "Muslim fanatics" and "Jersey jihadists." But some of the men were known to be not particularly religious. In fact, according to the New York Times, investigators have quietly admitted that "there is little indication that they were devout--or even practicing--Muslims."
Perhaps most troubling, however, is the FBI's use of two paid "informants" in the case. One of the informants, according to the Times, "railed against the United States, helped scout out military installations for attack, offered to introduce his comrades to an arms dealer and gave them a list of weapons he could procure, including machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades."
That begs the question: how far would the supposed "plot" have gone had the FBI not been there to push it forward?
In fact, in November, Tatar himself contacted police in Philadelphia, telling a sergeant he had been approached by a man who "pressured him to acquire maps of Fort Dix." He even told the sergeant he was worried that that "the incident was terrorist-related."
The Feds claim that Tatar was simply trying to throw off suspicion and determine if the first informer was a plant. But the fact that one of the defendants in a supposed terrorist cell actually called police to report possible terrorist activity raises serious questions about the truth of the government's claims.
* * *
Over-hyped declarations about terrorism prosecutions are nothing new for Bush administration. It has announced one high-profile terrorism case after another, but few have ever been substantiated, and many more have been riddled with racism, entrapment and abuses.
Last fall, for example, several men of Middle Eastern descent were arrested in separate incidents in Ohio and Michigan on terrorism charges. They had aroused suspicion by buying too many cell phones--and, in one case, taking pictures of a bridge. Charges were later quietly dropped, but not until after the government smeared the men in the media as potential terrorists.
A similar pattern has played out in the case of seven men of Haitian descent arrested in Florida last year on charges that they were plotting to blow up Chicago's Sears Tower.
Though the charges are still pending, the case against the men rests on little more than the fact that they allegedly gave an FBI informant lists of shoe sizes in order to purchase military boots for them. Even the FBI was forced to admit that the plan was more "aspirational than operational."
As a recent editorial in the Palm Beach Post commented, "[A]nyone heard lately about the so-called 'Miami 7'? The Justice Department with much ballyhoo last year claimed the five U.S. citizens, one legal permanent resident and one Haitian national had conspired with al-Qaeda 'to levy war against the United States'...But Justice may face an uphill climb to show how the men were anything other than poor, unsophisticated street vendors and easy dupes when the government's agent came casting suggestion."
Then there is so-called "dirty-bomber" Jose Padilla, who spent more than three years in solitary confinement in a military brig as an officially designated enemy combatant for allegedly plotting to take part in an al-Qaeda plot to detonate a radioactive bomb inside the U.S.
When the Bush administration suddenly announced in November 2005 that federal criminal charges had been filed against Padilla, the indictment made no mention of the dirty bomb plot or most of the other original charges.
Today, Padilla's lawyers say he has been so psychologically damaged by the physical and psychological abuse he suffered at the hands of the government that he can no longer participate in his own defense.
Likewise, former University of South Florida professor Sami Al-Arian remains in prison today despite the fact that a jury acquitted him of the most serious terrorism charges against him and deadlocked on several lesser counts.
To end his imprisonment and be reunited with his family, Al-Arian agreed to plead guilty to a single count of supporting the nonviolent activities of a Palestinian charity. Yet his release date has come and gone, and he remains behind bars--because federal prosecutors now claim he is a "material witness" to other trumped-up terrorism prosecutions, and want to force him to testify.
Despite government assertions, the truth is that Al-Arian has been prosecuted for his political beliefs and defense of Palestinian rights--not for any "terrorism."
* * *
A closer look at the government's own records show that the "war on terror" has yielded few convictions.
Late last year, a study by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University found that in the first eight months of 2006, the Justice Department prosecuted 46 international terrorism cases--but declined to bring charges in 209 cases that the FBI or other agencies had referred, frequently because of a lack of real evidence.
"It is clear that the prosecutors are deciding that a lot of the investigations being recommended do not cut the mustard and do not meet their standards," David Burnham, the co-director of TRAC, told the New York Times.
In all, the study found that in nearly 6,500 cases treated as "terrorism" investigations by the Justice Department since September 11, only about one in five defendants have been convicted.
And the average sentence for those convicted in "international terrorism" cases was just 20 to 28 days, and many received no jail time at all, the study found. The reason: Many of these cases involve lesser charges like immigration violations or fraud.
In other words, the prosecutions that the government labels as being about "terrorism" are almost never actually about terrorism.
In fact, a February audit released by the Justice Department's inspector general found that the department usually "could not provide support for the numbers reported or could not identify the terrorism link used to classify statistics as terrorism-related."
Convictions for immigration violations, marriage fraud and drug trafficking were counted as "terrorism convictions" by the Justice Department. Such cases included: charges brought against a marriage-broker for being paid to arrange six fraudulent marriages between Tunisians and U.S. citizens; the prosecution of a Mexican citizen who falsely identified himself as another person in a passport application; and the case of a suspect charged with dealing firearms without a license.
As one anonymous former prosecutor recently told Truthout.org's William Fisher, "U.S. attorneys are well aware of their bosses' priorities. Since 9/11, all of them have been under pressure to bring terrorism prosecutions.
"In many cases, that has led them and their superiors, as well as prominent politicians, to call high-profile press conferences where they announce terrorism charges against people, but when they show up in court, there are no actual terrorism charges."
Nicole Colson writes for the Socialist Worker.
At Padilla terror trial, a witness's surprise effect
A witness for the US government has painted a less-than-menacing picture of a terrorist training camp.
By Warren Richey | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor May 21, 2007
MIAMI--Federal prosecutors had high hopes that Yahya Goba would emerge as a key witness in the trial of suspected Al Qaeda recruit Jose Padilla.
Now they are hoping he doesn't.
When Mr. Goba was arrested in September 2002, he was portrayed as America's worst nightmare. Government officials said he was a member of an Al Qaeda sleeper cell who was recruited for jihad, went to Afghanistan to train in the use of weapons and explosives, and returned to Lackawanna, N.Y., to quietly await further instructions from Osama bin Laden.
It was the same path that prosecutors say was followed by Mr. Padilla. Goba's detailed telling of his story was seen by federal prosecutors as a winning trial strategy, an opportunity to show the jury firsthand how a Muslim-American could wind up in a terrorist training camp run by Al Qaeda.
But the picture of Goba that is emerging from the witness stand at Padilla's trial is less menacing than federal prosecutors had hoped. Rather than boosting the government's case, his testimony appears to be helping Padilla make his.
Goba began his testimony on Friday and is expected to continue on the witness stand Monday morning.
He is appearing at the trial under a plea agreement and is seeking to have the government reduce his 10-year prison sentence. Goba, who is married with a 4-year-old daughter, has a strong additional incentive to cooperate in every way with the government. He wants to avoid being designated an enemy combatant and diverted out of the criminal justice system into indefinite military detention.
Padilla was held and interrogated for three years and eight months in military custody as an enemy combatant before being named in the current criminal case.
The Miami indictment charges that Padilla and his two codefendants formed a terror support cell that provided money, equipment, and recruits to Islamic militants. Padilla is portrayed as a willing recruit.
His lawyers say he is a devout Muslim who traveled to the Middle East to advance his religious study. They deny that he attended a terror training camp in Afghanistan.
Goba as a stand-in for Padilla
The irony of Goba's testimony is that defense attorneys appear to be doing to the prosecution with their own witness what prosecutors set out to do to the defense. They are using Goba as a stand-in for Padilla.
In his opening statement to the jury, Assistant US Attorney Brian Frazier said that Goba would explain "just what kind of training Jose Padilla wanted" at the camp in Afghanistan.
Defense lawyers objected. And US District Judge Marcia Cooke sustained their objection. It was a preview of what was to come.
When the government announced last week that Goba would be the next witness, defense lawyers argued that prosecutors would try to hold Padilla accountable for Goba's conduct by implying to the jury that both were members of a single, massive Islamic conspiracy.
Judge Cooke rejected the government's broad Islamic conspiracy theory, saying there was no evidentiary connection between Goba's cell in Lackawanna and the alleged South Florida cell. The judge limited Goba's testimony to his own personal experiences at the Al Farooq training camp in Afghanistan. He could testify about filling out a "Mujahideen Data Form" identical to the form that the government says Padilla filled out.
But the judge barred prosecutors from showing the jury a 30-second film of Mr. bin Laden visiting the Al Farooq camp while Goba was there. The judge ruled it wasn't relevant to Padilla's case because Padilla is alleged to have attended the camp 10 months earlier.
Cooke's limitations set the stage for a dramatic turnabout.
Testimony has limitations
Instead of Goba discussing the radical, violent, terrorist goals of many of his fellow recruits and their Al Qaeda hosts at Al Farooq, his testimony has been limited to his own experiences and beliefs. He told the jury under questioning by defense lawyers that he never intended to join Al Qaeda, engage in terrorism, or harm anyone.
He attended the training camp because he'd been told by an Islamic preacher that it was a religious duty to prepare for jihad to assist Muslims struggling against oppression in places like Bosnia, Kosovo, and Chechnya.
"Are you now, or have you ever been a terrorist?" Padilla defense lawyer Michael Caruso asked.
"No," Goba answered.
"You felt that it was necessary to do this training so that if called upon, you could help your [Muslim] brothers and sisters facing atrocities all over the world?" Mr. Caruso asked.
"Yes," Goba said.
Defense lawyers asked Goba to explain his beliefs about jihad, or Islamic holy war. He agreed that jihad can represent an inner struggle within a Muslim and that when it takes the form of physical fighting, it is only acceptable in defense of Islam and Muslims.
"So murder is not jihad?" asked William Swor, a lawyer for a Padilla codefendant. "Unfairly injuring someone is not jihad?"
"Yes," Goba answered to both questions.
By the end of the cross-examination, prosecutors knew they were in trouble: When the jury was dismissed for the day, Mr. Frazier asked Cooke to allow him more leeway to explore what Goba was told about Al Qaeda's view of jihad.
"The impression is left that the only reason people go to this camp [in Afghanistan] is peaceful – the inner struggle," Frazier said.
Defense lawyers urged the judge to hold firm to her earlier ruling. "[Frazier's] goal is to get Al Qaeda's credo into this trial through this witness," said Jeanne Baker, a lawyer for another Padilla codefendant.
The episode is significant because it has enabled defense lawyers to introduce some of their core arguments to the jury using an important government witness. It has allowed defense lawyers to paint the case in finer shades of gray rather than the black-and-white approach adopted by the government.
It also highlights the severe constraints faced by federal prosecutors who have attempted to cobble together a criminal case against Padilla without jeopardizing sensitive intelligence sources and methods. There is no shortage of Al Qaeda officials in US custody at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, with direct knowledge of the purpose of the Al Farooq training camp. But even if they agreed to testify, to transport them into the United States would empower them with certain legal protections and would open a door to permit an investigation of the harsh interrogation tactics allegedly used against them overseas.
Even in its constrained form, Goba's testimony has been important for the government. Under direct questioning from Frazier, Goba said that prior to entering the training camp he filled out a Mujahideen Data Form identical to the form prosecutors say Padilla filled out.
But Padilla allegedly attended the same camp 10 month earlier. Prosecutors acknowledge that they have been unable to locate anyone who was at the training camp with Padilla. "If they exist, we don't know where they are," Frazier told the judge outside the jury's presence.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Joint Statement from the San Francisco 8
Episode: Legacy of Torture Viewing options
Play RealMedia format (28m 19s; for broadband users)
Three Swedish animal rights prisoners
Urgent ELP! Bulletin (20th of May 2007)
A few days ago three Swedish people were arrested accused of raiding
and rescuing rabbits, from a rabbit farm. All three have been
remanded into custody.
For legal reasons the three do not wish to be identified but they
would welcome letters of support. Therefore an e-mail address has
been set up where e-mailed messages of support can be sent to.
Please send urgent e-mailed messages of support to:
L, M and T all at:
brevtillknivsta@yahoo.se
Thank you.
When writing please write to L, M and T separately. All three can
receive messages in both Swedish and English.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
SUV Firebombing Suspect May Have Ecoterror Ties
Rick Sallinger
Investigators say Grant Barnes, 24, placed firebombs under several SUVs during a four day period in March. No one was hurt and only a few detonated, but several vehicles were heavily damaged in the fires that resulted. Barnes remains jailed on arson charges.
At least one of the damaged vehicles had the letters ELF on it, which stands for Earth Liberation Front, the group best known in Colorado for claiming responsibility for the massive fire atop Vail mountain in 1998.
One of the cars targeted that had ELF on it belonged to Chris Dykes.
"It was on my window -- ELF," Dykes told CBS4. "I didn't even hear of ecoterrorism before that."
Denver Fire Department officials initially down played any possible link with ecoterror. However, a search warrant affidavit now suggests Barnes used an Earth Liberation Front Web site and an Animal Liberation Front Web site to get instructions on how to build firebombs.
A request to search Barnes computer that's part of the affadavit also contains copied photos of suspicious devices found in Barnes' car.
Explosives expert Mark Singer told CBS4 it appears the person who built the firebombs followed the Web site instructions step-by-step.
"They are a very crude device and they are also very effective when they function," Singer said.
Investigators want to search Barnes computer for any correspondence or bank records that could link him with the ecoterrorist groups.
Russell Bishop and his wife Evelyn got lucky. They found one of the firebombs beneath their Hummer and it did not go off.
"They're not just burning up a car," Bishop said. "They're risking people's lives."
Authorities with the Denver Fire Department declined to comment, saying this investigation is at a critical point.
Navy lawyer sentenced in Gitmo espionage
The Virginian-Pilot
NORFOLK, VA. — A Navy lawyer so disillusioned with the government's handling of foreign detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, that he sent classified information about 550 men in custody there to a civilian attorney was sentenced Friday to six months in prison and dismissed from the service.
Lt. Cmdr. Matthew Diaz was convicted Thursday on four of five charges stemming from his actions in early January 2005, while stationed at Guantanamo.
The most serious conviction — violating the Espionage Act by sending classified information to someone not entitled to receive it — carried the possibility of a 10-year sentence.
The four charges carried a maximum 14-year sentence. He began his sentence in the brig Friday night.
Federal hearing may be pivotal for Abu-Jamal
May 18, 2007 (5 articles)
An appellate court heard his arguments that blacks were excluded illegally
from the jury that convicted him of killing a policeman in 1981.
By Emilie Lounsberry, Philadelphia Inquirer
While supporters of Philadelphia'
demonstrated outside, a federal appeals court wrestled yesterday with the
question of whether the prosecution intentionally kept blacks off the jury
in the 1982 murder trial of Mumia Abu-Jamal.
Abu-Jamal, a former radio reporter then driving a cab, is seeking a new
trial for the 1981 murder of Police Officer Daniel Faulkner - or at least a
chance to get off death row.
If he loses this round before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, Abu-Jamal, now 53, will be more at risk of execution than at any
point in his 25 years of appeals.
So the stakes were high yesterday in a court proceeding that focused
squarely on the law as the three judges pressed prosecutors and Abu-Jamal's
lawyers about the key points in the case - especially about how to determine
if blacks were unfairly excluded from the jury.
Abu-Jamal's lawyer, Robert R. Bryan, contends that there was a "culture of
discrimination" in the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office around the
time of the 1982 trial, and that the prosecutor used 10 of 15 challenges to
strike potential jurors who were black.
But prosecutors contend that there was no evidence of racial discrimination
and that Abu-Jamal waived any chance to make that argument now by failing to
raise any objections during jury selection in 1982.
"There was no timely objection. That defeats the claim," Hugh J. Burns Jr.,
chief of the appeals unit in the District Attorney's Office, told the
judges.
While the high-level legal debate continued for more than two hours, a quiet
audience of about 200 people listened intently. Abu-Jamal supporters from
Germany and France, along with activist Dick Gregory and local MOVE activist
Ramona Africa, sat amid family members of the slain officer, including his
wife, Maureen, who traveled from California for the hearing.
Maureen Faulkner said at the end of the court proceeding that she remains
convinced of Abu-Jamal's guilt. "No matter who was on the jury, I think they
would have come to the same conclusion," she said.
As the audience poured out onto the plaza, which was filled with placards
and banners in support of Abu-Jamal, people on both sides of the case seemed
to agree, finally, on something: The judges were well-prepared and had held
a fair hearing.
"The judges were very professional,
of a French delegation that came from Paris for the hearing. She said she
has studied the case and read the transcript of the trial before
Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Albert Sabo.
"I don't know what the conclusion will be, but it was very different than
Judge Sabo," she said.
Abu-Jamal was sentenced to death in July 1982 by a predominantly white
Philadelphia jury. The state Supreme Court upheld his conviction in 1989 and
also refused to grant him subsequent relief.
When the case moved to federal court, U.S. District Judge William H. Yohn
Jr. rejected 28 of the 29 defense claims.
But Yohn did rule in favor of Abu-Jamal in deciding that the jury may have
mistakenly believed it had to agree unanimously on any "mitigating"
circumstance that might have persuaded jurors to decide on life rather than
death.
And in turn, Yohn said that Abu-Jamal should be sentenced to life, instead
of death, or get a new hearing only on what his sentence should be.
The Third Circuit panel - Chief Judge Anthony J. Scirica and Judges Thomas
L. Ambro and Robert E. Cowen - peppered the lawyers with questions about the
ambiguous jury instructions and whether the prosecutor made unfair remarks
during his closing argument.
A decision is not expected for several months.
But it was questions about jury selection that dominated the argument. All
three judges have granted relief to death-row inmates in cases in which they
found that prosecutors had unfairly struck jurors for racial reasons.
Burns contended that the trial prosecutor, Joseph McGill, had wanted blacks
on the jury, but Bryan argued the case was infused with racial elements at a
time when the District Attorney's Office was known for trying to exclude
blacks from juries.
"Discrimination was at work by the D.A.'s office during this period," said
Bryan.
The Third Circuit will now review Yohn's reasoning on the jury instructions,
and also consider whether there was racial bias during jury selection and
whether Abu-Jamal's constitutional rights were violated by the prosecutor's
closing argument and by the alleged bias of the trial judge during
post-conviction review.
The Third Circuit could:
- Reverse Yohn and uphold the death sentence.
- Uphold Yohn and order a new sentencing hearing.
- Grant a new trial.
- Send the case back to Yohn for a hearing.
Even if the court upholds the death sentence, Abu-Jamal could attempt to
persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, or try to go back again to
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, where he still has one petition pending.
---
Source : Philadelphia Inquirer
http://www.philly.
***
May 17, 2007
Pennsylvania
Abu-Jamal lawyers try to show court he didn't get fair trial
MARYCLAIRE DALE, The Associated Press
PHILADELPHIA - An appeals court panel pressed defense lawyers and
prosecutors on how to determine whether the district attorney intentionally
kept blacks off the jury that convicted former Black Panther Mumia Abu-Jamal
of killing a white police officer in 1981.
Abu-Jamal's death sentence was overturned in 2001. Prosecutors are asking
the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reinstate it, while Abu-Jamal's
attorney are challenging his 1982 conviction.
Abu-Jamal, 53, has built a global following through his politically charged
writings and recorded speeches from prison. Actors, writers, death-penalty
opponents and a melange of other activists have staged rallies on his behalf
around the world over the years. About 500 supporters protested at the
courthouse Thursday.
The jury that convicted and sentenced Abu-Jamal had 10 whites and two
blacks.
In arguments Thursday morning, Chief Circuit Judge Anthony J. Scirica told
Abu-Jamal's attorney Robert R. Bryan that many courts say judges should
compare the rate at which blacks are struck from juries to the racial makeup
of the entire jury pool.
Both sides agreed there is no such record for the 150-person jury pool used
for Abu-Jamal's trial.
"I don't know how we could get it," Bryan said. "We're a day late and a
dollar short with that issue, unfortunately.
Prosecutor Hugh Burns says the issue wasn't raised until mid-1990s, making
it hard for his office to defend the accusation.
Abu-Jamal, a former radio reporter, was convicted in 1982 of shooting
Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner a year earlier. Faulkner had
pulled over Abu-Jamal's brother in a traffic stop when Abu-Jamal, according
to witnesses, ran to the scene from his nearby taxi and shot the 26-year-old
officer repeatedly. Abu-Jamal was shot once, apparently by the downed
patrolman.
A federal judge in 2001 threw out the death sentence because of improper
jury instructions, but upheld Abu-Jamal's conviction. Both sides are
appealing.
Philadelphia prosecutors call the evidence in the case overwhelming. They
are asking the appeals panel to reinstate the death sentence.
The appeals panel is weighing three issues: whether the trial judge was
racially biased, whether the judge erred in instructing jurors on the death
penalty, and whether the prosecution preferred white jurors.
About 500 pro-Abu-Jamal protesters were gathered outside the courthouse
Thursday.
One of them, Marcus Shell, 35, of Philadelphia, said Abu-Jamal didn't get a
fair trial because of who he was , "a former Black Panther, the voice of the
voiceless."
"Mumia represents a lot of blacks locked up in prison today," Shell said.
On the Net:
Free Mumia site: http://www.mumia.
Daniel Faulkner site: http://www.danielfa
---
Source : Associated Press
http://www.philly.
***
May 18, 2007
Pennsylvania
Citing Racist Bias, Attorneys For Mumia Abu-Jamal Urge A Federal Appeals
Court to Grant the Former the Black Panther A New Trial
Democracy Now!
Attorney Robert Bryan says a racist judge and racist jury practices
contributed to the sentencing of Abu-Jamal to death row. Bryan joins us in
New York one day after he argued before the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals in Phildelphia.
For our first segment, we turn to Philadelphia, and a pivotal court hearing
for the imprisoned journalist and former Black Panther Mumia Abu-Jamal.
Abu-Jamal has spent a quarter-century on death row. He was convicted of
killing a police officer following a controversial trial before a
predominantly white jury. In 2001, a judge overturned Abu-Mumia's death
sentence but upheld his conviction. On Thursday, a three-judge panel heard
oral arguments to decide whether Mumia gets a new trial, life in prison
without parole, or execution. Hundreds of people packed the courtroom while
an even larger crowd rallied in support of Mumia outside. A decision may not
come down for months.
We are joined now by Mumia Abu-Jamal's lead attorney. Robert Bryan has
represented Mumia since 2003. He is a fellow of the American Board of
Criminal Lawyers, and the former Chair of the National Coalition to Abolish
the Death Penalty.
Robert Bryan, Mumia Abu-Jamal's lead attorney. He is a fellow of the
American Board of Criminal Lawyers, and the former Chair of the National
Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty.
To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire program, click here for
our new online ordering or call 1 (888) 999-3877.
---
Source : Democracy Now!
http://www.democrac
***
May 18, 2007
Pennsylvania
Group protests US, supports jailed journalist
ANKARA - Turkish Daily News
A group of activists yesterday protested the United States for not releasing
journalist and political activist Mumia Abu-Jamal who has been in jail for
25 years and is currently on death row.
Journalist, intellectuals and political activists gathered in front of the
U.S. Embassy in Ankara under tight security. "We protest the American
administration'
statement.
Abu-Jamal, a black journalist with a past of Black Panther activism, was
convicted in 1982 of killing a police officer in Philadelphia. Anti-death
penalty activists worldwide claim he did not get a fair trial.
---
Source : Turkish Daily News
http://www.turkishd
***
May 18, 2007
Pennsylvania
Spectators Pack Courtroom as 3rd Circuit Hears Appeal in Mumia Abu-Jamal
Case
Shannon P. Duffy, The Legal Intelligencer
Nearly a quarter century has passed since Mumia Abu-Jamal was convicted and
sentenced to die for the murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel
Faulkner, and in that time his case has become perhaps the world's most
closely watched death penalty case.
In December 2001, a federal judge overturned Abu-Jamal's death sentence due
to confusing jury instructions, but upheld his conviction.
Now, in an appeal to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, prosecutors are
asking that the death sentence be reinstated and Abu-Jamal's lawyers are
asking for an entirely new trial, arguing that the conviction must be
overturned because there is evidence that prosecutors improperly struck
black jurors in his 1982 trial.
Thursday, a three-judge panel consisting of Chief Judge Anthony J. Scirica
and Judges Thomas L. Ambro and Robert E. Cowen heard oral arguments that
lasted more than two hours, far longer than the ordinary 15 minutes per
side.
For many of the hundreds of spectators who packed the courtroom, the
arguments were likely difficult to follow as the judges and lawyers spoke in
a lexicon specific to modern-day death penalty litigation, often referring
to case law from the 3rd Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court. Much of the
arguments focused on highly technical and complicated questions about how
the federal courts should weigh such claims when a state court system has
already rejected identical arguments and upheld both the conviction and
death sentence.
But the bottom line was fairly simple: prosecutors insist that Abu-Jamal got
a fair shake in the Pennsylvania courts and that the federal courts should
not second-guess those rulings, while Abu-Jamal's lawyers insist that no
court has ever given their client justice since his trial was unfair from
the start due to a racially biased jury selection process and a racist trial
judge.
Arguing for the prosecution, Assistant District Attorney Hugh Burns told the
appellate panel that Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge William H. Yohn
Jr. erred when he overturned Abu-Jamal's death sentence because he should
have deferred to the decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which had
already held that the penalty-phase jury instructions were not confusing.
Yohn, in his 2001 decision, found that the jury instructions and the verdict
form could have left jurors with the incorrect perception that they needed
to be unanimous on any "mitigating factor" that would support a vote against
death.
Such jury instructions, Yohn said, violate the U.S. Supreme Court's 1988
decision in Mills v. Maryland.
"The jury charge and verdict form in this case created a reasonable
likelihood that the jury believed that it was precluded from considering a
mitigating circumstance that had not been found unanimously to exist," Yohn
wrote.
But Burns said the jury instructions in fact contained no such flaw.
Instead, he said, they merely failed to explicitly inform jurors that they
need not be unanimous on mitigating issues.
Such silence on an issue, Burns said, is not a Mills violation on its own,
and Yohn erred by holding that jurors in Abu-Jamal's case would assume the
unanimity requirement.
But Abu-Jamal's lawyer, Judith L. Ritter, urged the judges to focus on the
three-page jury verdict form that, she said, made it impossible for the jury
to understand that any one juror had the right to vote against the death
penalty on the basis of a mitigating factor even if no other juror agreed.
The verdict form, Ritter said, used the word "unanimously" twice in
connection with the death sentence, including once just before a list of
mitigating factors.
Ritter asked how the form could possibly be filled out to reflect a
non-unanimous finding and suggested that the only possible interpretation
the jury could have had was that it was required to be unanimous -- a
situation that would clearly violate Mills.
For Abu-Jamal, who has always insisted he is innocent, the more important
argument came next when attorney Robert R. Bryan argued that a new trial
must be ordered because of racial bias by prosecutors in the jury selection
process, a so-called Batson claim.
Abu-Jamal's Batson claim attracted the attention of the NAACP Legal Defense
and Education Fund, which filed an amicus brief supporting his claim. And in
a rarely seen step, the court agreed to hear oral argument on the issue from
NAACP attorney Christina Swarns.
In his Batson claim, Abu-Jamal complains that Assistant District Attorney
Joseph McGill peremptorily struck only four of 28 white potential jurors,
but struck 11 of 15 black jurors.
But Yohn found that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court correctly rejected that
claim, because Abu-Jamal had failed to meet the first prong of the Batson
test.
Prosecutor Burns told the court that Abu-Jamal's Batson claim is fatally
flawed because his lawyers never made any complaint during the jury
selection process. Instead, he said, Abu-Jamal's lawyers conceded at the
time that many blacks were being excluded from the jury for valid reasons
when they told the judge that they were opposed to the death penalty.
Burns also said the statistics are troublesome because there is no evidence
of the racial make-up of the entire jury pool. Without that statistic, he
said, it's impossible to make sense of a Batson claim.
But Swarns told the judges that no court has ever given Abu-Jamal a fair
shake on his Batson claim.
Under the Supreme Court's decision, she said, a defendant must make out a
prima facie claim that racially motivated jury strikes occurred, and the
burden then shifts to the prosecutor to explain his or her reasons for the
strikes.
"What we're talking about is smoke, not fire," Swarns said.
But Swarns said the courts have never reached the second step of the Batson
process because they have always imposed too strict a burden on Abu-Jamal in
the first phase.
Bryan urged the judges to look beyond Abu-Jamal's case, saying the U.S.
Supreme Court recognized in Batson that racially biased jury selection was a
"widespread" practice and that numerous other Philadelphia murder trials
from the same period have later spawned successful Batson claims.
"Are we to believe that this case is the exception to the rule?" Bryan
asked, noting that Abu-Jamal's case was "highly charged" from the outset
since he was a former Black Panther and was accused of killing a white
police officer.
---
Source : The Legal Intelligencer
http://www.law.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Message from Oregon activist prisoner Brian McCarvill
"I visited Brian McCarvill today at OSP and he said to let folks know the
following:
The lawyer that he asked people to contact will be leaving that position
in the public defender's office on June 12th. That lawyer is wrapping up
all his cases, and has talked with Brian on Tuesday May 22nd, to let him
know that the request for consideration for a sentence reduction has been
submitted to the District Attorney. Brian asks that people hold off on
contacting his lawyer for now. Hopefully there will be some movement on
this request and a decision made by June 12th.
I was told that Brian's request has been already posted on some lists. I
don't know what lists those were, so please forward along this information
to whoever posted it, or to the list where Brian's earlier request to put
pressure on his lawyer via calls & letter-writing was posted."
"I am asking people to write or call my lawyer and ASK HIM TO MOVE MY CASE FORWARD. His name is Patrick Ehlers, Asst. Federal Public Defender, 101 SW Main Street, Suite 1700, Portland, OR 97204. His telephone is (503) 279-4291. He is attempting to negotiate a relief in my extreme sentence - I was given a 38 year sentence after refusing a plea deal for 5 years. My case has been dragging on for over 12 years. Can you put out the word on this?"
Jeff ("Free") wants some books. Can anyone help?
Jeff Luers recently wrote asking if supporters could order two different books for him. One is With Speed and Violence: Why Scientists Fear Tipping Points in Climate Change by Fred Pearce (Beacon Press) and the other is Dha Sceal by Martin O Cadhain - this is a bilingual Irish book and can apparently be found on www.irishbook.com. If you are willing to buy Jeff one or both of these books let us know by emailing freefreenow@mutualaid.org so we don't have any duplications. Thanks!
Costa Rica to stop sending police to US army school
Thursday, May 17th 2007
Reuters
SAN JOSE, Costa Rica, May 16 (Reuters) - Costa Rican President Oscar Arias vowed on Wednesday to stop sending police to train at a U.S. facility criticized for a history of producing soldiers who went on to violate human rights.
Arias, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, made the promise after talks with Rev. Roy Bourgeois, a U.S. activist priest who has campaigned since 1990 for the closure of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, formerly known as the School for the Americas, at Fort Benning, Georgia.
Though U.S. defense officials closed the original school, a Latin American military training facility, in 2000 and reopened it a year later under the new name and with a new curriculum, critics say the change was purely cosmetic.
Costa Rica currently has three policemen at the center.
"We agreed that when the courses end for the three policemen we are not going to send any more," Arias said.
Costa Rica has no army but has sent some 2,600 police officers over the years to be trained at the school, which critics say trained dictators, torturers and assassins.
"This is going to give a lot of energy and hope to our movement," Bourgeois said of Arias's decision.
The school today focuses on issues like disaster relief and combating terrorism yet critics see it haunted by past alumni such as former military leaders Manuel Noriega of Panama and Leopoldo Galtieri of Argentina and Salvadoran death squad organizer Roberto D'Aubuisson.
Arias won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1987 for his efforts to stop civil wars in Central America.
Operation Backfire: Guilty Justice - FBI vs ELF
Warrior Wind 3
It is useful to view 'Operation Backfire' in terms of
a broader long-term trans-atlantic effort by
international law enforcement agencies to stop
'eco-terrorism' and 'animal rights extremism'.
This document is reproduced from the newsletter
'Warrior Wind' No.3 produced in the U.S.A.
Introduction and Overview
Almost a year and a half has passed since December 7,
2005, when the first arrests of FBI’s “Operation
Backfire” took place. Then as now, we recognized these
arrests as not just an effort to stop “eco-sabotage,”
but as an attack on broader circles. We have kept too
long a silence over the past year, having last
addressed the Backfire prosecutions in April, 2006.
Last year saw arrests, informing and finally plea
deals—some more principled than others—in these cases.
We have also seen resistance and solidarity to varying
degrees. It is time to take a look back, but also to
think of the future. We do not believe that the
so-called “Green Scare” is over, any more than we
expect our rulers to cease hostilities against the
planet and its people any time soon, at least on their
own accord. The statements and predictions we’ve made
in previous issues have not all been equally sage, but
we continue to know whose side we’re on. This article
not only intends to be a factual update, but also to
place instances of repression and fight-back within a
broader context. We start from the simplest points,
the basic unfolding of events from late April of last
year until now.
Briana Waters continues to face charges in Washington
federal court. Her charges relate to a single arson,
carried out against the University of Washington
Center for Urban Horticulture. A new indictment issued
on May 10, 2006 includes a “destructive device”
charge, carrying with it a 30-year mandatory minimum
prison sentence. Briana Waters is the mother of a
young child, and is currently released on
court-ordered supervision. She is proceeding to trial
on her charges—this trial is currently set for
September 17 in federal court for the Western District
of Washington—and asserts her innocence.
Informants in this case include Kevin Tubbs, Jennifer
Kolar and Lacey Phillabaum. On October 15, Phillabaum
and Kolar entered guilty pleas in the federal court of
Tacoma, Washington, regarding the Urban Horticulture
action. Kolar also pled guilty to two other incidents
during this hearing, one in Colorado and one in
Oregon. Kolar faces a suggested sentence of 5 – 7
years, while Phillabaum faces a suggested sentence of
3 – 5 years. Both Kolar and Phillabaum are fully
cooperating with the authorities. Sentencing for these
two is expected to be pushed back until the end of
Waters’ trial.
When we last wrote, Nathan Block and Joyanna Zacher
had joined eight others facing charges in the Oregon
federal eco-sabotage cases, these two having been
accused of involvement with arsons at the Jefferson
Poplar tree farm in Clatskanie, and the Romania
Chevrolet Truck Center in Eugene. Nathan and Joyanna
both remain in Lane County Jail at the time of
writing. The Oregon federal cases against those who
have been captured—Bill Rodgers died two weeks after
his ’05 arrest in an apparent suicide, several people
have still not been apprehended, and prime informant
Jake Ferguson has not yet been charged with a single
crime—have now all ended in plea deals. These deals
can broadly be categorized into two types—the plea
deals of those who agree to fully assist the state,
and the plea deals of those who refuse to testify
against or incriminate others. Sadly, there are six
defendants of the former, and only four of the latter
kind.
On July 20 and 21, Darren Thurston, Kevin Tubbs,
Kendall Tankersley (Sarah Kendall Harvey), Stanislas
Meyerhoff, Chelsea Gerlach and Suzanne Savoie entered
pleas in Oregon federal court. Some of these
defendants had been known as informants for some time,
while the cooperation of others was a more recent
revelation. Lawyers for these six, in cooperation with
the court, have suppressed the details of their
clients’ cooperation agreements. However, their
collaboration with the authorities is assumed to be
substantial, and certainly includes providing
information and testimony for any future prosecutions.
Indeed, lawyers for these defendants argued in open
court that, if the terms of cooperation were made
public, their clients would be immediately labeled as
“snitches.” Pleading guilty to a range of conspiracy,
arson and attempted arson charges, these cooperating
defendants received the following suggested sentences:
Darren Thurston, 37 months; Kevin Tubbs, 168 months;
Kendall Tankersley, 51 months; Stanislas Meyerhoff,
188 months; Chelsea Gerlach, 120 months; and Suzanne
Savoie, 63 months.
Prior to the plea deal hearings of July, Chelsea
Gerlach, Stanislas Meyerhoff, Josephine Overaker and
Rebecca Rubin were indicted on May 18 by a Colorado
federal grand jury for their alleged involvement in
the 1998 arson at the Vail ski resort. (Josephine
Overaker and Rebecca Rubin are two of those still
being sought by the authorities in relation to the
sabotage cases.) For Gerlach and Meyerhoff, their
Oregon federal pleas incorporate the Colorado charges.
On September 29, they were arraigned for these
charges, and on December 14 they entered guilty pleas.
Gerlach and Meyerhoff are not expected to serve more
time in prison due to these charges.
In the period following these plea deals, lawyers for
the four remaining non-cooperating District of Oregon
defendants argued in court for production of material
from possible National Security Agency warrantless
wiretap surveillance against their clients.
Prosecutors had long dodged these motions, and defense
lawyers began to force the point. While defense
attorneys laid out some interesting and logical
arguments as to why such surveillance was likely to
have been used against their clients, nobody now has
any more proof (or disproof) of this surveillance than
when the discovery motions were first entered. It
should be noted, however, that prosecutors seem to
have become more willing to discuss alternate plea
deals during this period of intensive motions and
counter-motions to the court.
With the dropping of the motions for NSA discovery
just days before, on November 9 the remaining Oregon
defendants entered into a “global resolution” plea
deals. Unlike previous plea deals, these defendants
admitted solely their individual participation in
certain actions, but explicitly refused to identify,
testify against or otherwise implicate others in
crimes. Furthermore, the complete plea deals of these
defendants have been made public in their entirety.
During the November 9 plea hearing, Joyanna Zacher and
Nathan Block pled guilty to their own involvement in
the Romania Chevrolet and Jefferson Poplar fires, both
receiving 96-month suggested sentences. Daniel McGowan
likewise received a 96-month suggested sentence for
his involvement in the Superior Lumber and Jefferson
Poplar fires, while Jonathan Paul received a 60-month
suggested sentence for his part in the burning of the
Cavel West horsemeat plant.
Formal sentencing for all defendants—cooperating and
non- cooperating—is scheduled to begin in the middle
of this month, continuing until early June (see
sidebar.) Federal prosecutors will argue during these
hearings for “terrorism” enhancements to the suggested
sentences under Section 3A1.4 of the Federal
Sentencing Guidelines. This sentence enhancement could
lead to defendants spending their prison terms in
maximum security settings, have lifelong consequences
for them such as being unable to travel overseas, and
possibly even add to the length of their sentences, at
the judge’s discretion. Even in the District of
Oregon, conflict surrounding these cases is far from
over—this takes the form of both limited fights within
the courts, as well as what we hope will be more
widespread interpersonal, political and social
challenges.
A Look at Some Previous Statements, and Subsequent
Debate
We do not wish to exaggerate the importance of our
writing, but the many developments since our last
newsletter suggest that revisiting some themes and
specific statements in previous issues would be
helpful. When we first wrote on the Backfire arrests
in February of 2006, we commented that “Beyond the
sniveling behavior of others, and media scare stories
about a fictional ‘eco-terror network,’ the state has
nothing...” Clearly, this has changed. With the
exception of Briana Waters— whose Washington federal
trial is still pending—the state now has a mass of
“guilty” pleas from those who have been captured. This
fact does not alter in any way our conviction that the
so-called “Family” of “eco-terrorists” is a deliberate
invention of the state, designed to portray horizontal
relations and self-organized revolt as something that
is instead cultish, militaristic and hierarchically-
structured. The state projects its own logic onto its
opponents—a point that we feel cannot be stressed
enough as prosecutors try to fit the “terrorist”
jacket onto defendants at sentencing.
In our two previous issues, we made statements as to
which defendants were operating as informants, and
which were not. Upon releasing each newsletter, more
informants were confirmed each time. This has been a
disheartening process, and the decision by Darren
Thurston— who was esteemed by many—to begin
cooperation proved especially difficult. The state has
benefited from informant-defendants in two ways: first
through the immediate violence against co-defendants
and the uncaptured from such testimony, and also by
secondary damage to radical circles on the outside.
For as long as alleged enemies of our system base most
of their support for prisoners not on clear ideas of
affinity and solidarity, but rather on attraction to
personalities—perhaps based on someone’s past
reputation—it will be difficult to avoid a repeat of
the farcical, yet draining, disputes of late-2006. We
do not wish to reopen the pseudo-debates and stupid
controversy of last year, but we do wish to make two
basic points. Firstly, it is an absolutely topsy-turvy
position to accuse non-informants and their supporters
as “spreading division,” for their act of remaining
dignified while others crumpled. Secondly, the
argument that those who held out longest on their “not
guilty” pleas should be condemned for deception and
manipulation of supporters, is a contemptible pro-
establishment perspective. There is nothing virtuous
about “honestly” rushing to sacrifice oneself and
others at the altar of the state. Our writings have
never centralized the issue of “guilt” or
“innocence”—neither our horribly deformed society nor
its justice deserves respect. This is not to suggest
that the real-world effects of legalisms should be
ignored—growing surveillance, mass imprisonment and
more subtle threats, are all part of the world order
we oppose. As we cannot merely wish them away, legal
outposts deserve our reconnaissance.
The Question of Legality when Responding to Repression
December 7, 2006 marked the one-year anniversary of
the first Backfire arrests. On or around that day, 43
cities on four continents held solidarity and
educational events relating to the Backfire cases as
well as the broader “Green Scare.” This sort of
international coordination, the creation and
distribution of counter- information, and the raising
of funds for defense campaigns, are all significant
and worthwhile activities. We hope that they can be
built upon. Accompanying the call for action on
December 7, was the disclaimer:
“Remember, everything you do to support people who are
targets of prosecution should be LEGAL and in their
best interest. Many are in pre- trial or in an appeal
process; please do not organize something that could
jeopardize their cases.”
We respect the comrades who issued this call for
action, and especially admire their insistence on the
best interests of targets of repression. However, we
also believe that the issue of legality needs to be
examined more closely. We are not trying to impugn to
the authors of the Dec. 7 call any beliefs that they
may not actually hold; we merely use their statement
as a point of departure. During an open court hearing
regarding Jeff Hogg (see below) and the Oregon
Operation Backfire- related grand jury, one lawyer
working on defense efforts, and another correspondent
for Portland Indymedia, were both indirectly
threatened by federal prosecutors for having publicly
presented their views surrounding the cases. The
government threat, as always, went like this: if you
keep on with your present course, you will be
criminalized, and those you support will suffer too.
Even what could normally be conceived of as the most
legal and by-the-books support for defendants,
therefore, gets lumped into the category of the
potentially, and at some stage actually, criminal.
Especially as formal sentencing approaches, there is a
clear desire in many quarters not to create any
pretext for further repression. This impulse is
partially understandable, but its logic may also be
dangerous.
When faced with a potential social threat, it is naïve
to think that the authorities remain on the level of
legality. Rather, they bend or break the rules, in
order to neutralize whatever they perceive as
troublesome. In Italy, at a time of high social
struggle, a 1969 bombing at the Piazza Fontana in
Milan was used to justify the arrest of four thousand
anarchists, radicals and workers. One of those
arrested, Giuseppe Pinelli, “accidentally” fell to his
death during a police interrogation. The Piazza
Fontana bombing was later discovered to be the work of
neo-fascists working with extensive NATO and US
government cooperation. While it is clear that poorly
thought-through actions, no matter how strongly we
associate with any underlying motivation of revolt,
can do real damage, it is also clear that the state’s
violence operates at a high degree of autonomy from
any resistance by the oppressed. If there is not a
pretext for repression, our rulers will create one
soon enough, or they will change the laws in order to
suppress every perceived defiance. This makes a
mockery out of any call for strictly “legal” activity.
To functionally respond to repression, including that
of the Backfire prosecutions, therefore means a
continual widening, rather than narrowing, of our
options. This is no excuse for reckless activity. We
do not make a fetish out of “illegality,” or even
suggest it as a primary course. Rather, we see any
attempt to situate acceptable intervention strictly
within ever-dwindling “legality,” as ultimately
self-defeating and suicidal. As long as the government
sees its repressive strategies as effective at keeping
the rabble in line, it will continue them and enlarge
them. Our conception of solidarity, therefore, is not
one of “legality” or “illegality,” both of which are
categories that need to be transcended. Beyond any
immediate support for a specific defendant, we should
ask ourselves questions such as: Does our way of doing
things lead to self-repression, or to an increased
confidence in our own strengths and capabilities? Is
our approach creative rather than stereotypical? To
what degree does it open up opportunities for more
widespread struggle?
The “Green Scare” and Democratic Terror
Operation Backfire is widely perceived as being the
cornerstone of a broader “Green Scare.” While we
ourselves have used “Green Scare” as short-hand, the
term needs to be looked at critically. The phrase
“Green Scare” is useful in that it at least places the
present campaign within a historical continuum, a
chain that certainly includes the First Red Scare of
the late Teens (including the Palmer Raids and mass
deportations) as well as the “McCarthyism” of the
Second Red Scare (late ‘40s – ‘50s.) The drawback of
this term is that it can mystify the nature of
repression, which is ongoing and everyday, by
describing it as an occasional event or aberration
from the democratic norm. In reality, repression and
imprisonment are fundamental aspects of our democracy.
Prison populations have skyrocketed over the last
three decades, with over two million people behind
bars in the U.S. alone, wholly comparable to a new
plantation system. The U.S. Constitution spelled out
this development over a century beforehand, in the
13th Amendment ratified in the aftermath of the Civil
War:
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as
a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have
been duly convicted, shall exist within the United
States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
No matter what its lofty origins, the ideal of
democracy is mainly a deception. Our democratic system
talks of basic liberties, and then denies them; it
speaks of participation, but it means the choice
between Coke and Pepsi. A proper explanation as to why
this is so would require a lengthy historical
discussion. There are only a few points we can make in
a much shorter space. To begin, violence is perversely
maintained by any system that claims it has no place
for violence, as this proclamation simply makes sure
that citizens avert their gaze or make excuses when
institutions are responsible. Secondly, democracy is
the system that exists while each of us scramble for
property or some “better” social position day-to-day;
the cruel games we’re caught up in create the dominant
version of politics. Finally, our right to “have an
opinion” within democracy is tied to our powerlessness
to create real change. We may not want pollution, but
we’re going to get it no matter what we think. Within
a “tolerant” and “participatory” system, our opinions
are the same as our acceptance. To vote becomes a
proclamation that one will put up with both pollution
and police.
We therefore view Operation Backfire as but one tile
in a mosaic of force and servility. Repression of
radicals is not something new, nor has it ever gone
away. The striking difference between Operation
Backfire and the Palmer Raids or the FBI’s COINTELPRO
program, is that these earlier campaigns of repression
happened in periods of intense social struggle. At
those points in history the State felt that the
society it defended was imminent danger from mass
defection and upheaval. Ironically, such past
disruptions often proceeded under the banner of
“inclusion”—for the poor, immigrants, women or the
Black population. This was at once the tactical
brilliance of these movements—allowing them to harness
the energy of those who had suffered exclusion long
enough—and also the seeds of their defeat, as they
were caught off guard by the real workings of a system
they idealized and wanted to improve.
By the early 1990s, urban theorist Mike Davis
described the growth of the Blood, Crip and other
street gangs in Los Angeles in relation to the decline
of any sustainable vision of a better society. Davis’
book, City of Quartz, highlights the development from
earlier street “sets” of the ‘50s and ‘60s, some of
which eventually took an active role against immediate
racism and poverty, to the later Blood and Crip gangs,
whose rebellion was textured by drive-by shootings
plus the economics of Crack cocaine supply and demand.
In response to such gangs, Los Angeles authorities
mounted their “Operation Hammer,” a racist dragnet
operation that, in perfect keeping with the overall
“War on Drugs,” filled the prisons with potential
troublemakers as a part of a counter-revolutionary
rollback strategy. Not long after Davis’ book
described the seemingly hopeless situation on the LA
streets, that same city exploded in rebellion
following the Rodney King-beating verdict. That
rebellion—majority Chicano but with significant Black
and other racial involvement, and in any case
fundamentally a class fight-back— was the high water
mark of resistance within the US over the last 20
years. It was also ruthlessly suppressed.
Both the LA Rebellion and internal attempts to resist
the first Gulf War, informed another generation of
radicals that followed, many of whom were just
entering their teens when these events occurred. The
generation of Seattle ’99 as well as the generation of
the early Earth Liberation Front, connected earlier
historical lessons to their own concerns. In the
context of an increasingly fragmented society, a toxic
environment, absurd rulers, and meaningless work as
the best prospect offered, people gradually began once
again to ask root questions. There was an effort,
however fumbling, to examine how humans treat other
humans, as well as to how a ruling social order treats
human and non- human animals alike. Sabotage was one
response given to our miserable society. Such sabotage
predates, and has always gone far beyond, that
attributable to the Earth and Animal Liberation
Fronts. For every spectacular action such as the Vail
arson, there have been innumerable examples of modest,
small-scale sabotage, carried out invisibly by diverse
numbers of people. While sabotage alone cannot bring
forth the new ways of life we desire, it nevertheless
is encouraging for the strong response it gives to our
society, at least in purely negative terms. Many
people tracking Operation Backfire have been shocked
by revelations of the government expenditure involved
in investigating and prosecuting these property crime
cases. According to the Eugene Weekly, thirty federal
agents were assigned from 2002 onwards to a Eugene
task force investigating the sabotage. This figure
ignores the additional expense of bribes given to
informants on the outside, such as the $50,000 reward
that may have been paid to a central informant, Jake
Ferguson. Even if we accept that the accused caused
millions of dollars in property damage, it seems clear
that the government’s Operation Backfire is not
exclusively aimed towards individuals—nobody accuses
the defendants of a single arson over the past five
years, so it would have cost the state exactly zero
dollars to get them to stop. Instead, the government
targets an overall social tendency. The state will
spare no expense to eliminate subversive tendencies,
not so much for what individuals are reported to have
done, but for what a greater future constituency could
do. Our rulers are afraid that we will revolt,
because—even by the admission of our government’s
smartest policy advisors—we have every reason to do
just this. In the sixties, radical movements, when
they were not straight up repressed, were all too
often seduced by visions of a better life made in
capitalism’s own image. In today’s society, the
quality of illusions is shabbier than ever, even if
our system still keeps itself together through an
apparatus of illusion. The most convincing spectacles
today are those of horror—terrorism, ethnic or
religious massacre, ecological collapse. Each of these
spectacles do have a certain real basis—human society
is genuinely at a crisis point, and it’s increasingly
hard to imagine any way for this society to avoid
catastrophe on a far greater scale than the mass
slaughters of the Twentieth Century. Yet our society’s
presentation of its own deep crisis, perversely
recruits the population to stay in line, even to
desperately clamor for fewer freedoms and less
dignity.
We find ourselves in a situation not only of worsening
conditions, but also of ubiquitous doublethink and the
degradation of language. Matters have gone so far that
it is earth-liberationist damage to property that
becomes labeled as “terrorism,” while few take our
society to task for its cultivation of widespread
terror for profit or for politics, including the
diffuse environmental terror performed by
industrialists each day. However, human
imperatives—biological, intellectual and
emotional—have not yet been utterly reduced. Just as
such imperatives organized themselves into the anvil
that eventually broke the Los Angeles “Hammer,” we may
still choose to live today, shattering the alleged
continuity of interests between the rulers and the
ruled. While we do not cheerlead for any particular
tactic—let alone group—it is clear that only through
multiform insubordination can people continue to find
the best in both themselves and each other. We
unreservedly support, and hope to play a part in, such
a process. We do not support the “green scare”
defendants merely out of a sense of charity, and we
certainly don’t claim to speak for any of them. Just
as we oppose this latest repression, we say to hell
with the whole mess of work, prison, and war.
Spectators Pack Courtroom as 3rd Circuit Hears Appeal in Mumia Abu-Jamal Case
Shannon P. Duffy
The Legal Intelligencer
05-18-2007
Nearly a quarter century has passed since Mumia Abu-Jamal was convicted and sentenced to die for the murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner, and in that time his case has become perhaps the world's most closely watched death penalty case.
In December 2001, a federal judge overturned Abu-Jamal's death sentence due to confusing jury instructions, but upheld his conviction.
Now, in an appeal to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, prosecutors are asking that the death sentence be reinstated and Abu-Jamal's lawyers are asking for an entirely new trial, arguing that the conviction must be overturned because there is evidence that prosecutors improperly struck black jurors in his 1982 trial.
Thursday, a three-judge panel consisting of Chief Judge Anthony J. Scirica and Judges Thomas L. Ambro and Robert E. Cowen heard oral arguments that lasted more than two hours, far longer than the ordinary 15 minutes per side.
For many of the hundreds of spectators who packed the courtroom, the arguments were likely difficult to follow as the judges and lawyers spoke in a lexicon specific to modern-day death penalty litigation, often referring to case law from the 3rd Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court. Much of the arguments focused on highly technical and complicated questions about how the federal courts should weigh such claims when a state court system has already rejected identical arguments and upheld both the conviction and death sentence.
But the bottom line was fairly simple: prosecutors insist that Abu-Jamal got a fair shake in the Pennsylvania courts and that the federal courts should not second-guess those rulings, while Abu-Jamal's lawyers insist that no court has ever given their client justice since his trial was unfair from the start due to a racially biased jury selection process and a racist trial judge.
Arguing for the prosecution, Assistant District Attorney Hugh Burns told the appellate panel that Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge William H. Yohn Jr. erred when he overturned Abu-Jamal's death sentence because he should have deferred to the decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which had already held that the penalty-phase jury instructions were not confusing.
Yohn, in his 2001 decision, found that the jury instructions and the verdict form could have left jurors with the incorrect perception that they needed to be unanimous on any "mitigating factor" that would support a vote against death.
Such jury instructions, Yohn said, violate the U.S. Supreme Court's 1988 decision in Mills v. Maryland.
"The jury charge and verdict form in this case created a reasonable likelihood that the jury believed that it was precluded from considering a mitigating circumstance that had not been found unanimously to exist," Yohn wrote.
But Burns said the jury instructions in fact contained no such flaw. Instead, he said, they merely failed to explicitly inform jurors that they need not be unanimous on mitigating issues.
Such silence on an issue, Burns said, is not a Mills violation on its own, and Yohn erred by holding that jurors in Abu-Jamal's case would assume the unanimity requirement.
But Abu-Jamal's lawyer, Judith L. Ritter, urged the judges to focus on the three-page jury verdict form that, she said, made it impossible for the jury to understand that any one juror had the right to vote against the death penalty on the basis of a mitigating factor even if no other juror agreed.
The verdict form, Ritter said, used the word "unanimously" twice in connection with the death sentence, including once just before a list of mitigating factors.
Ritter asked how the form could possibly be filled out to reflect a non-unanimous finding and suggested that the only possible interpretation the jury could have had was that it was required to be unanimous -- a situation that would clearly violate Mills.
For Abu-Jamal, who has always insisted he is innocent, the more important argument came next when attorney Robert R. Bryan argued that a new trial must be ordered because of racial bias by prosecutors in the jury selection process, a so-called Batson claim.
Abu-Jamal's Batson claim attracted the attention of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, which filed an amicus brief supporting his claim. And in a rarely seen step, the court agreed to hear oral argument on the issue from NAACP attorney Christina Swarns.
In his Batson claim, Abu-Jamal complains that Assistant District Attorney Joseph McGill peremptorily struck only four of 28 white potential jurors, but struck 11 of 15 black jurors.
But Yohn found that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court correctly rejected that claim, because Abu-Jamal had failed to meet the first prong of the Batson test.
Prosecutor Burns told the court that Abu-Jamal's Batson claim is fatally flawed because his lawyers never made any complaint during the jury selection process. Instead, he said, Abu-Jamal's lawyers conceded at the time that many blacks were being excluded from the jury for valid reasons when they told the judge that they were opposed to the death penalty.
Burns also said the statistics are troublesome because there is no evidence of the racial make-up of the entire jury pool. Without that statistic, he said, it's impossible to make sense of a Batson claim.
But Swarns told the judges that no court has ever given Abu-Jamal a fair shake on his Batson claim.
Under the Supreme Court's decision, she said, a defendant must make out a prima facie claim that racially motivated jury strikes occurred, and the burden then shifts to the prosecutor to explain his or her reasons for the strikes.
"What we're talking about is smoke, not fire," Swarns said.
But Swarns said the courts have never reached the second step of the Batson process because they have always imposed too strict a burden on Abu-Jamal in the first phase.
"Are we to believe that this case is the exception to the rule?"
After 31 Years, It is Time for Justice
The Murder of Our Mother, Anna Mae Pictou Aquash
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Statement of John Bowden for the International Day of Solidarity in Defence of Himself and the ABC:
Audrey Parks, Governor, HMP Glenochil, King O' Muir Road, Tullibody, Clackmannanshire, FK10 3AD. Scotland. Tel: (01259) 760471
Scottish Prison Service Headquarters, Communications Branch, Room 338, Calton House, 5 Redheughs Rigg, Edinburgh, EH12 9HW. Scotland. E-mail: gaolinfo@sps.gov.uk Tel: +44(0)1259 760471 Fax: +44(0)1259 762003
Emergency demonstrations to free Mumia as case reaches pivotal point
May 16, 2007 (3 articles)
Emergency demonstrations to free Mumia as case reaches pivotal point
Crystal Kim, Party for Socialism and Liberation
Free Mumia! Free all political prisoners!
On May 17, there will be mass demonstrations in Philadelphia and San
Francisco demanding freedom for political prisoner Mumia Abu Jamal. On the
same day, Mumia's lawyers will present oral arguments to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia for a new trial. Ultimately,
the court will make one of three decisions: grant the new trial, reaffirm
Mumia's life sentence or reinstate his death penalty sentence.
Framed for being a revolutionary
Mumia has been imprisoned for the last 26 years after being convicted for
the murder of a Philadelphia police officer. The truth is that he is a
political prisoner framed for his activism as a Black Panther and then as a
revolutionary journalist.
In the early morning hours of Dec. 9, 1981, Mumia was driving a cab on the
streets of Philadelphia when he came upon cops beating his brother. When he
stopped to intervene, he was shot and wounded. A cop was also shot and
killed.
Mumia's fingerprints were never found on the gun that killed the cop.
Witnesses saw the shooter running away from the scene. Mumia himself has
always maintained his innocence.
Mumia's trial was drenched with racism. African-Americans were
systematically excluded from the jury panel. The judge, Albert Sabo, was
overheard by a court stenographer stating about the case, "I'm going to help
'em fry the nigger."
In July 1982, an overwhelmingly white jury convicted Mumia. During the
sentencing phase, prosecutors argued that his past membership in the Black
Panther party was evidence of premeditation. Mumia was sentenced to death.
At the age of 14, Mumia joined the Black Panther Party and, a year later,
was serving as lieutenant of information of the Philadelphia branch.
At the time of his arrest, he was the president of the Philadelphia
Association of Black Journalists. In 1978, Mumia covered the first police
attack on the MOVE organization-
West Philadelphia. Nine MOVE members were arrested and given long jail terms
in that attack. The MOVE organization was attacked again in 1985, when
Philadelphia police launched an all-out assault that included the dropping
of a bomb on the MOVE house and the firing of 10,000 rounds of ammunition.
Eleven MOVE family members-six adults and five children-were killed in the
police attack.
From inside prison walls, Mumia has continued his revolutionary journalism.
Through books, radio broadcasts, and especially essays, he provides powerful
political commentary that lays bare the machinations and hypocrisy of the
U.S. government. His eloquent statements have earned him the title "Voice of
the Voiceless."
Struggle to free Mumia
Ceaseless mobilizations and protests have made Mumia an international symbol
of resistance to the racist and repressive U.S. state.
In 2001, after months and years of protests led by Pam Africa of MOVE and
the International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia, federal district
court judge William Yohn overturned Mumia's death sentence. The district
attorney immediately appealed the decision and the matter is now before the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Mumia remains on death row in the State
Correctional Institution at Greene, Pa.
On May 17, as Mumia's attorneys argue for a new trial at the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia, a demonstration demanding
freedom for Mumia will take place in front of the courthouse. A solidarity
demonstration will be held in San Francisco.
All progressives and revolutionaries must continue to struggle for Mumia's
freedom. Mumia represents more than himself. He represents tens of thousands
of others behind bars-predominantly from Black and Latino oppressed
communities-
by the so-called "justice" system.
Free Mumia! Free all U.S. political prisoners!
For information on the emergency demonstrations in support of Mumia, click
here.
---
Source : Party for Socialism and Liberation