Guilty Verdict Eric McDavid

Urgent ELP! Bulletin (28th September 2007)

Dear friends

Today Eric McDavid was found guilty of his role in planning to
destroy property of the US Forestry Service, etc.

He is due to be sentenced on the 6th of December.  He faces a minimum
sentence of 5 years and a maximum sentence of 20 years.

Hearing the Jury deliver a Guilty verdict always comes as a shock to
the system.  Therefore please send urgent letters of support to:

Eric McDavid X-2972521 4E231A
Sacramento County Main Jail
651 "I" Street
Sacramento
CA 95814
USA.

Below is the latest mailout from his support campaign team:

From: sacprisonersupport@riseup.net

This evening the jury returned a verdict of guilty in the case of United
States vs. Eric McDavid. Eric faces 5-20 years in federal prison. His
sentencing will be on December 6 at 9am before Judge England. Please
continue to call the jail and request that Eric be given vegan food.
Contact info can be found on www.supporteric.org It is difficult to write
now. More will come later. Thank you all for your support. The struggle is
not over.
SPS
>

British Animal rights campaigner jailed

ELP Information Bulletin (28th September 2007)

Dear friends

ELP has just learnt that a British animal rights activist, Julia Didrikson, has been sentenced to 5 months imprisonment because of her anti-HLS activities.

At the moment we do not have any prison address for Julia. If anyone knows her or knows where Julia may have been sent to, please let ELP know as soon as possible.

Below is a mainstream media article about Julia:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/7018843.stm

28 September 2007, 16:55 GMT 17:55 UK

Animal rights campaigner jailed

An animal rights campaigner who sent threatening emails to staff at Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) has been jailed for five months.

Julia Didrikson, 43, sent malicious emails to the Cambridgeshire research centre as well as to
multinational firms contracted to the company.

Didrikson, of Poole, Dorset, pleaded guilty to six charges of intimidating people connected with
animal research.
She was sentenced after a hearing at Peterborough Crown Court.

The court heard that some of the emails, sent over a three week period in March and April this year, threatened the children of staff and warned workers they would be killed.

Didrikson, of Pimpern Close, Poole, made no attempt to hide her email address from the messages, described by the judge as "vile".

Jailing her, Judge Nicholas Coleman said: "Whilst people do have well-held beliefs they are not
entitled to conduct themselves in this way.

"The language was clearly designed to instil fear. The recipients plainly felt fearful."

Emails written to HLS included: "Your lives will be at risk every time you go to your cars after
your days at the torture house."

Didrikson was jailed under the 2005 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, which was brought in by the government to protect companies such as HLS from animal extremists.

She asked for another 19 similar offences to be taken into consideration, including writing
malicious letters to companies linked to HLS.

Didrikson was never a member of any organised animal rights group and was influenced by websites she visited when she was left alone after her Norwegian husband had to leave the UK.

Jeffrey Norrie-Miller, mitigating, said Didrikson was a lonely and vulnerable woman sparked into caring for all living things after suffering two miscarriages.

Det Con Tim Warren, of Cambridgeshire Police, said Didrikson was the first person in the country to
be convicted under the new legislation.

He said: "Everyone is entitled to conduct lawful business at work and to work alongside other
organisations without the fear of disruption and intimidation."


=============

Earth Liberation Prisoners Support Network
BM Box 2407
London
WC1N 3XX
England
www.spiritoffreedom.org.uk

Federal court jury finds man guilty in eco-terror plot

By Denny Walsh - Bee Staff Writer
Thursday, September 27, 2007

After deliberating for 11 hours over two days, a federal court jury has found Eric McDavid guilty of conspiring to blow up government and other facilities as part of an eco-terror plot.

The verdict came late Thursday afternoon following a trial that relied heavily on the testimony of an undercover FBI informant who was known to jurors only as "Anna" and who presented evidence of conversations McDavid and two companions had about blowing up the Nimbus Dam, a U.S. Forest Service facility in Placerville and other targets.

Two of McDavid's co-conspirators accepted plea deals from the government and testified in the case. McDavid's lawyer argued that he was a victim of entrapment by "Anna" because of the money and help she provided the conspirators.

He could face five to 20 years in prison.

http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/403055.html

Man Convicted Of Plotting To Blow Up Nimbus Dam
More Local News
Image

Rafer Weigel
Reporting

(CBS13) Eric McDavid, the man accused of plotting to blow up the Nimbus dam and cell phone towers has been convicted of conspiracy to damage or destroy property by fire or explosives.

The star witness in the case known as "Anna" spent two years undercover working for the FBI. She spend months with McDavid and his co-conspirators, building the case for the FBI. She described McDavid finding her tape-recorder and told her "if you're a cop, I'll kill you." She later called the FBI and said "I want out."

Anna also described a night she woke to McDavid standing over her holding a knife. The next day the FBI moved in and arrested the group.

The Government says that if McDavid's plan was successful, he could have caused billions of dollars in damage.

As for the other two in the alleged terror group, they plea-bargained to testify against McDavid.

http://cbs13.com/local/local_story_270200810.html - includes tv broadcast

Leader or led by the FBI?

Attorneys paint contrasting pictures of defendant as the eco-terrror
plot case heads to the jury.
By Denny Walsh - Bee Staff Writer
Published 12:00 am PDT Wednesday, September 26, 2007

A prosecutor told a Sacramento federal court jury Tuesday that Eric
McDavid "was the driving force" behind an eco-terrorism conspiracy,
and a defense lawyer countered that McDavid was entrapped by an
undercover informant and the FBI agents working with her.

McDavid "never wavered from his belief" that violent action was
required to get the attention of those who pollute and exploit the
environment, Assistant U.S. Attorney Ellen Endrizzi told the jury in
her closing argument.

She compared McDavid's alleged plan for a bombing campaign to the
methods of the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation
Front, radical environmental movements classified by the FBI as
domestic terrorism.

But defense attorney Mark Reichel argued that McDavid did not come to
the charged crime freely because he had fallen in love with "Anna,"
an FBI undercover operative posing as a member of the conspiracy.

"She was very good at deceiving people," he said. "She was on a
mission to explore brave new areas of crime and report back to the
FBI. Eric McDavid was not on a mission. He never had a chance.

"It was like a card shark and someone who didn't even know the rules
of the game."

Two others charged in the conspiracy -- Lauren Weiner and Zachary
Jenson -- did not have their hearts in a bombing campaign but were
going along because they didn't want to let "Anna" down, Reichel told
the jury in his closing argument.

Ticking off equipment, a log book in which the foursome recorded
their activities, "the crisp $100 bills" and a Dutch Flat cabin where
the group lived in the days leading up to the trio's arrest -- all
supplied by "Anna" thanks to her FBI sponsors -- Reichel said,
"That's the creation of a case."

"Without 'Anna,' you have nothing," he declared. "That's entrapment."

But Endrizzi and Assistant U.S. Attorney R. Steven Lapham argued that
"Anna" had little contact with McDavid before he told her of his
planned campaign in the summer of 2005, while she was driving him to
Chicago from an "anarchist" conference in Indiana. Thus, the
prosecutors insisted, McDavid had a "predisposition" to violent
action.

Lapham reminded the jury "Anna" testified that, on the same drive,
McDavid told her, "If you're a cop, I'll kill you."

"Doesn't that comment tell you he was dead serious about the bombing
campaign?" the prosecutor asked rhetorically.

Endrizzi argued that romantic feelings McDavid may have had for the
informant are "a red herring." There was nothing physical between
them, she said.

"The evidence is he was not reluctant" to proceed with the bombing
campaign, she said.

Even if McDavid wanted to impress "Anna," that is "motive, not
inducement," Lapham argued in his rebuttal of Reichel. The prosecutor
said it makes no difference what McDavid's motives may have been,
there was still a criminal conspiracy.

McDavid, 29, is charged with conspiring between June 2005 and Jan.
13, 2006 -- the day of the arrests -- to damage and destroy the U.S.
Forest Service's Institute of Forest Genetics in Placerville, the
Nimbus Dam and nearby fish hatchery in Rancho Cordova, and "cellular
telephone towers and electric power stations" at unspecified
locations.

The prosecutors on Tuesday pointed to the foursome's November 2005
meeting at the home of McDavid's parents in Foresthill as a pivotal
event in the conspiracy.

It was then, they argued, that the agreement was struck to proceed
with a bombing campaign

Weiner volunteered to buy "The Poor Man's James Bond," a book with
instructions on how to build a bomb, the prosecutors reminded the
jury.

Under the law, they said, a conspiracy is an agreement among two or
more persons plus at least one overt act.

"The conspiracy was complete when Lauren Weiner bought that book,"
Lapham told the jury.

But Reichel argued that, without "Anna," there would have been no
Foresthill meeting.

He reminded the jury that the FBI instructed "Anna" to get the
threesome together and find out if they were serious about going
ahead with the bombing campaign.

Trial evidence showed that Weiner did not have the money to travel
from Philadelphia, where she was living, to the Sacramento area, and
was afraid to fly. "Anna" paid for her round trip airfare and
persuaded her to make the trip.

The evidence also showed that McDavid insisted family commitments
prevented him from attending a meeting in the fall of 2005, but
"Anna" insisted that he make time.

"She's there to focus them and get them to fix a target," Reichel
said of "Anna." "The woman now has one single target, like a
heat-seeking missile."

Further, Reichel argued, had it not been for "Anna's" urging and
planning, the group would not have reconvened in Dutch Flat the
following January.

"Take 'Anna' out of the equation, and they don't get back together,"
he told the jury. "The tumbleweeds" -- a reference to the vagabond
lifestyles of McDavid and Jenson -- "go their own way."

But Lapham countered, "Merely providing the opportunity to the
defendant to act on his own predisposition is not inducement."

Jenson, 22, and Weiner, 21, pleaded guilty and testified against
McDavid. They were allowed to plead to lesser charges, and they hope
the prosecutors will recommend lenient sentences for them.

U.S. District Judge Morrison E. England Jr. will instruct the jury on
the law this morning and the panel will then begin deliberations.
McDavid is facing at least five years in prison and not more than 20

Chip Fitzgerald Parole hearing Canceled

In an unfortunate turn of events, we have received
news that Romaine Chip Fitzgerald's hearing was
canceled. According to Mel Mason (main organizer for
Chip's support campaign), the Parole Board was missing
a commissioner, and could not go on without him/her.

We are waiting for a full report from Chip. We will
report on any future dates asap.

Thanks,
Matt
LA ABCF

SHAC 7: Dari's Getting Relesed Friday & Much More!

Reply-To: info@shac7.com

Dear SHAC 7 Supporters,

It's been a while since we last sent out an update. First, we'll get the

not as great news out of the way. We were hoping the appeal would have

been filed this month. However, it has been put off a month and is now

scheduled to be filed on October 10th. Keep your fingers crossed!

Now...onto the good news! One of the SHAC 7 prisoners, Darius Fullmer, is

scheduled for release September 28th! Darius was sentenced to one year and

one day, and served 85% of his sentence. There will be a big welcome home

bash in New Jersey this Saturday, September 29th. While we are thrilled

Dari is getting out, we want to remind everyone there are still 5 SHAC 7

defendants behind bars. Please keep writing! Details on the potluck are on

the SHAC7.com website and are also detailed below.

Darius sent out a great new write up about getting out and his time behind

bars that is now available online. Read the full statement at SHAC7.com,

but here's a quick excerpt:

"Hope can not grow in the shadow of fear. Perhaps this case was meant to

teach me a lesson, but what I learned is not what they intended. I learned

to never fear them again. I Have seen the worst that they can do to us,

and it is nothing to fear. An inconvenience. This experience is one I hope

not to repeat, but if that is what it comes to, I am no longer afraid."

T-Shirts

If you haven't already, be sure to pick up one of the new SHAC 7 support

shirts! They're selling quickly and we're not reprinting this design. You

can order them online or via mail. All the details are at SHAC7.com

SHAC 7 Benefit CD

The generous folks at Headfirst! records have put out a benefit CD for the

SHAC 7 featuring a whole slew of punk and hardcore bands. Please consider

buying a copy to help support the SHAC 7. You can get it directly through

the record company, or you can buy it online from Food Fight! vegan

grocery and pick up some vegan junk food while you're at it!

DARIUS' RELEASE PARTY

Mark your calenders!! WELCOME HOME DARIUS FULLMER!!

We are having a volleyball game/ Vegan Potluck BBQ at Veterans Park in

Hamilton, NJ, Saturday September 29th starting at 1pm.

Everyone is welcome! This is not just a 'vegan' thing but the foodwill be

vegan thanks to all of you bringing an item! Rain or Shine we are on!!! :)

There are volleyball courts right!

The meet up area of the park is in the back near the volleyball courts.

There is plenty of parking and the park it is beautiful! If you don’t know

Darius this is a great time to meet him and welcome him back to the real

world with some good food and competitive volleyball!

Bring some food, a snack and some friends and welcome home Darius!!

Veterans Park

2206 Kuser Rd

Hamilton, NJ 08690

For more info contact Jeff

jefflap@comcast.net

Thank you for your continued Support,

The SHAC 7 Support Committee

Behind Closed Doors: Tales from Canada’s Hidden Holocaust

by Kim Petersen / September 24th, 2007
www.dissidentvoice.org

Behind Closed Doors: Stories from the Kamloops Indian Residential School
Revised Edition
Edited by Agnes Jack
(Theytus Books, 2007)
ISBN: 1894778413

“There was nothing of First Nations [sic] language, culture or history taught to the children at the residential school. The purpose of the residential schools was to do away with First Nations’ language and culture and to assimilate the children into white society.”
– Behind Closed Doors

On 13 September 2007, the United Nations adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIP). It was carried by the UN General Assembly despite the shameful nay-vote cast by Canada (along with nay-votes from other colonized and occupied states such as Australia, New Zealand, and the United States).

The Declaration sets standards for the treatment of Indigenous Peoples that should provide a framework for the protection of their human rights. The DRIP is non-binding, as is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so adherence to the Declaration is compelled only by a state’s sense of morality and concern for its reputation in the eyes of the world.

Canada’s minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, Chuck Strahl, complained about the DRIP: “It’s not balanced, in our view, and inconsistent with the Charter [of Rights and Freedoms].”

The opposition of Canadian authorities to the DRIP is understandable in light of how Canada came about. Canada is a state founded on the dispossession of its Original Peoples. The dispossession is ongoing.1

A major plank in the Canadian government’s program has been the assimilation of the Original Peoples. This was clearly demonstrated by the state’s removal of indigenous children from their homes and families and placing them in a residential school system which sought to replace indigenous languages, religion, and culture with English language, Christianity, and western culture.

Behind Closed Doors: Stories from the Kamloops Indian Residential School, edited by Agnes Jack, is a collection of 32 stories as told by Original Peoples of their own experiences in the residential school system.

The Kamloops Indian Residential School (KIRS) was situated in Kamloops — a small city in the south-central part of the province dubbed “British Columbia.” The KIRS, which operated from 1893 until it was closed in 1977, was part of the government’s assimilationist policy.

The story tellers relate accounts of a learned dysfuntionality from the KIRS which perpetuated itself through generations of Original Peoples.

The dysfunctionality originated in the treatment at the school. Individuality was stripped from the children by shearing their long hair, wearing of uniforms, and strict separation of girls and boys, even of family members.

There are tales of loneliness, long hours of labor, and harsh discipline that included beatings.

Said former KIRS student William Brewer, “[T]hey’d beat you up if you spoke your language. Most of them kids that were coming to that school, they could hardly speak English in them days.”

Ex-KIRS student Mary Anderson lamented, “No one got a comfort of any kind [at the school].” There were no hot baths; the building was cold; and the food was inferior, gristly, and sour.

Dorothy Jones recalled, “The teachers called us savages.”2

Former KIRS student Robert Simon described the school as a prison: “I don’t know what else it could be described as other than a jail. Any place that holds you against your will, punishes you and sets up rules to totally retrain your thinking.”

There were sports, dances, and movie nights. Movie nights at the school often featured John Wayne defeating the Indian savages. Indigenous dances were eschewed in favor of dances chosen by the school clergy. Horribly, there are also tales of sexual molestation and rapes suffered by the children.

Simon rued that the churches have not taken responsibility for their role in the assimilation of indigenous children.

Ron Ignace told of millennial-old indigenous languages, repositories of “vast amounts of intellectual knowledge representing a great reservoir of cultural heritage” that were “driven to the brink of extinction by Canada.” Ignace noted that Canada has done little to right this wrong, and, as a consequence, indigenous languages are still threatened.

Wanye Christinson said, “The residential schools are our holocaust. The government forcibly confined and rendered our people powerless by their laws and policies of cultural genocide. We are speaking of 150 years of trauma and horror where our children were systematically brainwashed to not resist the government’s legislation of assimilation and genocide.”

Despite this, the hardiness of many children that attended the residential schools shows them to be survivors. Telling of the tribulations in the residential school was part of the catharsis of survival.

Behind Closed Doors is a first hand history that all Canadians should be familiar with. If diasporic Canadians become aware of how Canada was established and is being further developed by trampling on Indigenous rights, would morality guide a national conscience and reach out to the Original Peoples? Becoming aware is the first step.

1. See Robert Davis and Mark Zannis, The Genocide Machine in Canada: The Pacification of the North (Toronto: Black Rose, 1973). ↑

2. For another perspective on who the savages were, see Daniel N. Paul’s We Were Not the Savages: A Mi’kmaq Perspective on the Collision Between European and Native American Civilizations (Nova Scotia: Fernwood Books, 2000). ↑

Kim Petersen is co-editor of Dissident Voice. He can be reached at: kim@dissidentvoice.org.

Eric McDavid Court Report, Sept. 24 (Day 7)

author: Sacramento Prisoner Support

Court report from Day 7 of trial

Below is the court report for yesterday (Monday). The majority of the day
was taken up by Zachary Jenson's testimony, followed by Randy Meyer of the
IFG, and then the prosecution rested. Mark began the defense's case with
character witnesses. Today (Tuesday) was the last day of arguments and the
jury will begin deliberating tomorrow morning, after they receive their
instructions. We'll post the report from today soon.

Please keep calling the jail, as Eric is still not receiving vegan meals!
He did receive commissary again this week. Visit www.supporteric.org for
more info on calling the jail.

Day 7, September 24, 2007

[Note: This is day 7 because it is the 7th scheduled court day, though
only the 5th full day of court. The previous two court days consisted of
the court being informed about defense attorney Mark Reichel's injury.]

Zach's Direct

After the RNC, Zach went back to Seattle and didn't see Eric again until
April of 05 in Seattle, when Eric stayed with him at his house for 2-3
weeks. They then hitched down the coast together, split up in Vegas and
Eric went to Ft. Lauderdale for the OAS. They met up again in Philly at
Bio, which is where they met Lauren for the 1st time and stayed at her
apartment. Zach testified that he noticed a "change" in Eric after the
RNC, that Eric seemed more "focused" and that by June of 05 Eric saw
protest as ineffective. He testified that Eric had been a mediator at a
spokescouncil meeting at Bio in 05. He also claimed that Eric discussed
the use of Molotov cocktails at bio, and that this was typical of Eric's
new attitude.

In July of 05, Zach attended the Crimethinc convergence in Bloomington,
IN. Eric and Anna were also there. Zach testified that he and Eric both
attended a guerrilla warfare skillshare, although he doesn't remember
specifics about the skillshare. He claimed that they did discuss targeting
federal buildings. He said that while in Bloomington, Eric identified
possible targets, including banks (to burn the money), mountain top
removal projects, and communist party buildings.

In August 05, Zach returned to Philly for Pointless Fest. He stated that
he met Eric and Lauren at a café where they discussed protest being
ineffective and using direct action. He said they planned to reconvene in
the winter, and at the AUSA's prompting he added that it was mostly Eric
and Lauren who participated in the conversation. Zach claimed that Eric
had alluded to direct action during the summer. He testified that Eric did
not seem hesitant at this time, and that he never seemed hesitant after
August of 05.

After Pointless Fest, Eric and Zach hitched back to the west coast. He
claimed that while they were passing through Kansas suggested dropping
sugar or "little bombs" into gas tanks.

In November at Eric's parent's house in Forest Hill, Zach testified that
Eric claimed the group was at the house of a "known anarchist." He also
claimed that Eric told the group during a conversation at the fire pit
that their discussions and meeting there constituted an act of conspiracy
and that he was ready to go to jail for his beliefs. The AUSA asked Zach
if Eric seemed hesitant about direct action at this time and Zach said no.
Zach testified that Eric and Anna asked him that night about how he was
feeling about direct action. He told them he felt comfortable, but when
the AUSA asked him if he was, in fact, comfortable at that time, he said
no. The AUSA then brought up an interview/article with Derrick Jensen, and
asked if Eric had referred to it at the meeting. Zach said yes, and
explained that the article was about "fence sitters" and how it doesn't
matter if they're scared away by action, because they're going to be
scared away anyway. He said he recalled that the Jensen article mentions
dams as a target. He said that Eric agreed with Jensen's views.

Zach claimed that while in Forest Hill the group discussed targets,
including billboards, cell phone towers, corporate buildings, and the IFG
(Institute of Forest Genetics). He claimed that Anna did not indicate a
particular target, but that she did ask a lot of questions - in Foresthill
and at the cabin in Dutch Flat. Zach claimed that Eric brought up the idea
of homemade C4 in Foresthill - a "recipe" including mixing bleach and
ammonia. In Foresthill, the group decided that they would meet after the
New Year to begin.

The AUSA asked Zach if Eric seemed influenced by Anna and he said no. She
asked if Eric seemed hesitant in Foresthill, and he said no.

Zach then explained security culture. The AUSA asked Zach if Eric
understood security culture, and Zach claimed he didn't remember if he
did, but he "assumed" he did. He also said he didn't remember if he was
given directions about security culture from Pointless Fest through
January of 06. He said he signed up for email in December of 06 that he
thought was secure (anythingirish).

He claimed that the group had discussed cutting off contact with their
families so they wouldn't know where they were. He also said they
discussed a possible safehouse in Wyoming. Zach stated that Eric wanted
security to "be pretty tight." The government then brought forth an
exhibit - an email between Eric and Zach in which Eric asked Zach to talk
to Lauren about security culture.

The AUSA asked Zach if Eric asked Anna to do anything to further the plan
during the weekend in Foresthill. Zach said no. Zach said he contributed
$100 worth of food stamps for groceries during their time in Dutch Flat.
He also said that Eric held on to the "Burn Book" the most. He claimed
that Eric had voiced an opinion on the accidental death of civilians,
which was that he would avoid intentionally hurting people, but that he
would take it on a case by case basis. Zach claimed he didn't want to be a
part of any "accidental death of civilians," and that Eric didn't feel the
same.

Zach testified that the group did "recon" at the Nimbus dam and at the
IFG. The group parked their car at a market across the street from the IFG
to hide their license plate. They told the workers at the IFG that they
were students from a local college, and Eric signed in for the group under
an alias (the Sean Douglas Group). Zach claims that the group considered
the IFG a target on that day. Zach testified that Eric and Lauren used the
internet on the 11th to search for chemical supplies, but the search was
unsuccessful. They identified stores and Eric called them. At the cabin
they discussed testing explosives in the desert in Nevada or Susanville.

On January 12, the group came into contact with law enforcement when Anna
got pulled over for running a stop sign. Zach claims the mood was tense
after the stop, and that people blamed her "a little bit" for the stop. He
says he can't remember if she was criticized. He says that Eric tested
fuses on the 12th, and that it was Eric's idea. He also claimed that Eric
was the primary person mixing bleach and ammonia that day. He says he
himself did not stir the mixture. Upon prompting, Zach stated that Eric
seemed "like the brains" of the operation, that he was coming up with most
of the ideas and suggestions. When asked if Anna asked questions or made
demands, he responded that she asked questions. He claimed that Eric's
opinion usually prevailed. He also claimed that Eric was the one to calm
Anna down.

Zach stated that the plot was moving too quickly for him. After Anna left
the night of the 12th, the rest of the group had a discussion about
setting a schedule and having personal space so things would go more
smoothly. .He testified that no one that night suggested that Anna be
dropped, and that no one suggested pulling out of the conspiracy. He said
the plan for January 13th was to get more supplies to try again.

When asked to describe his relationship with Eric during 05 and 06, Zach
said that he saw Eric like a brother. He claimed that he still considers
Eric a friend, and that Eric told him he should take care of himself. The
AUSA asked Zach if he had conspired, and he said yes, that he had
conspired to destroy property that was harming the environment.

Mark's Cross Examination

Mark briefly reviewed the timeline Zach laid out in his direct. Zach
confirmed that he did not pick out Anna as an informant at the G8 in June
04. He said he found her to be attractive, and that they had "small"
conversations.

Zach described the sleeping arrangements at Crimethinc in Des Moines (04).
He said that he slept in the attic of a house, and that Anna "was sleeping
with him [Eric] there as well." Zach said that Eric had no money at this
time, and that he was homeless and living off the land. He said this was
his own situation as well. He said that Anna did have cash in Des Moines,
and that she took him shopping at a corner store. He said that Eric at
this time was honest, nice, friendly, and not violent. After Des Moines,
Zach traveled to the RNC with Eric.

Mark then questioned Zach about previous drug use. He said marijuana
sometimes made him feel divorced from reality and paranoid. He also
affirmed that it helped him write more freely. He said he hasn't written
since May. Zach said he smoked marijuana with Eric before the fire pit
conversation in Foresthill, but that they effects had started to wear off.

Zach said that Anna claimed she had been a stripper and that she had $100
bills, but that Eric never had much money. Again, he was homeless and
penniless. When asked if he had ever known Eric to rent a home for a
month, Zach said no. Zach said the $100 in food stamps he spent in Dutch
Flat was end of the stamps, and that after that he himself was homeless
and penniless again.

After the RNC, Zach and Eric went back to the west coast. Zach claims he
can't recall if Eric talked to him about Anna, or if Eric wrote love
letters to Anna. After they arrived in Seattle, Eric stayed with Zach for
a couple of weeks, then left. They took off together again in April 05.
They had emailed through the spring, but did not discuss direct action
then or while the traveled out east. Zach said Eric did not express a
desire to engage in direct action in Auburn.

Zach said at some point he became aware that Eric had a romantic interest
in Anna, which developed at Bio. He said he didn't notice Anna ever
spurning or pushing Eric away. She knew Eric was interested in her - it
was no secret to anyone.

Mark asked Zach if he talked with the AUSA about the questions that were
going to be asked during trial. He said yes, but not the exact questions.
When asked if there were times he disagreed with the AUSA about what had
happened, he said yes. Mark went over the process of Zach's plea, during
which time Zach affirmed that his lawyer had gone over the minimum and
maximum amount of time in jail he faced and what the sentencing guidelines
were. He was facing 5-20, but after his charges got reduced with the plea,
he is now facing 0-5 years. He affirmed that he is now the government's
witness. He affirmed that he has not yet been sentenced, although his
sentencing hearing was originally scheduled over a year ago. Now it is set
for after trial. His goal is to get as little time as possible. Mark asked
if the sentencing recommendation from the government was based on whether
he was truthful, helpful, and offered his assistance, and Zach said yes.
When Mark asked if the government was no longer the opponent in his mind,
Zach said "correct." He affirmed that the government had prepared him by
giving him "pieces" of evidence to listen to. He said he wanted the
government attorneys to be happy with him as a witness.

Mark then directed the conversation back to the email between Zach and
Eric. Eric was in Sacramento at the time, and he says he can't make it to
the November meeting because he has family stuff to take care of. Mark
asked if Eric didn't want the group to know he was hesitant, and Zach said
"correct." He said he was acting.

Zach said that during the car ride out west in January that he was "still
saying things to make them think I was good to go for it," although he was
hesitant and reluctant. He said that Anna paid for the gas during this
trip. He says he does not remember Anna asking him how he felt about Eric
being their leader during this trip, but he does remember a conversation
(with Anna) about Anna leading them into a trap. Mark asked if that was
because she was leading everybody on everything, and Zach said "it seemed
like it."

Anna told Eric to get an anythingirish email account. She was upset when
Eric said he couldn't make it to the November meeting. He affirmed that in
December of 05 Eric was still trying to get a recipe from Anna, and that
Eric never said to Anna that he had a recipe and that he didn't need any
help. He said that Lauren did bring books with recipes to Dutch Flat.

When asked if the government had talked to him prior to his testimony
about who was the "brains of the operation" he said "yes I did." Mark
asked him if Anna had at least the same brainpower and wherewithal as
Eric, and Zach said "she seemed to." He affirmed that she had instructed
Eric, and that Lauren had brought books with recipes. He testified that in
July and August of 05, Eric said he didn't want to go to the west coast on
the advice of an attorney, and that he didn't want to be involved in
direct action in California. When Mark said that idea must have come from
somewhere else, Zach said "I suppose so, yes." Anna brought the laptops
the group used, as well as a chemistry set.

The group spent a lot of time on the 11th trying to figure out what a
hydrometer was - Zach testified that Eric didn't know what it was, but
that Anna did. He admitted that he himself is very unfamiliar with
chemistry. He said he didn't know if the "final product" at Dutch Flat
would use a fuse, so he had no idea if the fuses were for something else.
He had no understanding of what the final product would be called. He
testified that the mixing was a failure, and that the bowl breaking added
to the tension of the day. He admitted that it felt like they were a bunch
of amateurs. When asked if Anna was the brains of the operation, he said
she was in regards to the chemistry stuff.

In the "Burn Book," it says "A" (for "Anna") next to "Targets." This was
her concern and she wanted to talk about it. Eric's name is nowhere on the
list of concerns. The purpose of the book was to focus the group, and Anna
encouraged everyone to write in it.

On the 12th, during the argument, Zach stated that things were moving too
fast. He affirms that during this argument, Eric was advocating to Anna
his (Zach's) position. Eric says maybe they can just do billboards. Lauren
was also trying to pull back. Lauren was in the kitchen during the mixing,
but Anna was trying to get her to come out. Eric was sticking up for
Lauren, telling Anna not to push people. When asked if Anna was pushing
people, Zach said yes, that he found Anna to be pushy at this point. After
the argument, Zach voiced concern that Anna had turned off her cell phone
for security reasons.

Mark then asked Zach if anarchism means different things to different
people, and Zach responded "yes." He affirmed that it's a political view
that is egalitarian and concerned for others, that the poor should be
helped. He said this was a vision he shared with Eric. He testified that
Eric was not violent when they met.

Zach testified that he and Eric smoked marijuana the night of the 12th.
They then wrote in the "Burn Book" their plans for the next day, to
organize how things were going to go. He felt like things were moving too
fast. He said that there were no real plans at the end of the day, but
that they discussed plans later that night. Zach said that both he and
Lauren's goals during the discussion/argument on the 12th was to say
things were going too fast, and that Eric was backing them up.

He testified that Lauren really like Anna, that Anna was like a sister to
her and that she looked up to Anna. Zach said that Anna gave Eric money
for supplies, $100 bills. He also testified that the group decided Nimbus
dam would NOT be a target. The group had no specific cell towers
identified as targets. The group had no agreement on fixed targets the
morning of the 13th [when they were arrested]. Mark asked Zach if direct
action could mean many different things (sit ins, breakaway marches,
vandalism, arson) Mark asked Zach if people at convergences talk about
direct action, and Zach affirmed. Zach had talked about federal buildings
in July of 05. Zach affirmed that these were the same sorts of
conversations the group was having on the 12th and 13th.

Government's Redirect

The government went back over the terms of Zach's plea. He admitted having
had to talk to agents about people unconnected to these charges. He said
if he lies he can be recharged with the original charges. The government
can recommend the full 5 years, under the current charge.

When asked if Eric had a physical relationship with Anna, Zach said yes,
but only cuddling and sleeping. He named a couple other people Eric had
physical relationships with. He said that Anna did not encourage Eric in
his advances. He claims that he Anna told Lauren Eric was trying to force
himself on her, but that Eric said he never forced himself on Anna.

He talked about how they ate out of dumpsters, shoplifted and panhandled.
When asked if Eric was the same size he is now, Zach said that Eric looks
like he's lost 20 pounds [no surprise, as the jail continues to deny him
vegan food... ]. The AUSA asked Zach if Eric's parent's kicked him out,
and he said no, that he understood Eric could go back home when he wanted
to. He claims that Eric was not housesitting for his parents in November,
but that he was actually living there.

Zach testified that Eric claimed to be the "idea man" for the group. He
said that Eric expressed the desire to use a Molotov sometime between july
of 04 and January of 05. He said that Eric didn't seem capable of
attacking gas stations (with sugar or little bombs) because he didn't have
the tools or supplies he would need. He said he didn't seem hesitant. Zach
said the group purchased a gas can for fuel for an explosive device.

Zach testified that Eric was not high on the 13th and that he appeared
"willing to go." When asked if Anna had not had money that morning, would
the group have been able to get supplies, Zach said it would have been
harder, but yes. The government then played an audio clip in which Eric is
advocating slowing down, and possibly targeting unspecified cell phone
towers. Anna expresses her dismay at losing the "tree factory" [IFG]. The
government asked Zach who was giving the answers in this clip, and he
replied "mostly Eric." When asked how he felt when he reviewed the
evidence in the case, Zach said it scared him because they "had a lot of
evidence against us." She asked him if he was guilty, and he said yes.

Mark's recross

Mark points out that the excerpt isn't the end of the conversation. Zach
affirms that other people participate in other parts of the conversation
and that it wasn't just Eric. When Lauren later gives her views, Eric is
supportive. Zach said Eric sat quietly to consider their thoughts, and
that he was supportive of them. The disagreement was with the three of
them and Anna.

Govt Redirect

Was the agreement still in place? "yes"

Mark's response

You had no idea what was in Eric's mind, correct? "Correct"

Govt

Did Eric express opinions about going forward in this exhibit? "yes"

Mark

You were just acting, right? "yes"

So you have no idea whether or not Eric was acting also? "yes"

Randy Meyer's Testimony

Randy Meyer works for the Department of Agriculture, USFS, at the IFG in
Placerville, CA, where he is a biology technician in a lab. He has been in
the field for 16 years. He says he interacts with college students
regularly on the job. He says that visitors usually register in the
registry book, as a security measure. He was at work on the 10th when
Eric, Zach, Lauren and Anna came to the IFG. The group signed in under
"Sean Douglas Group." Randy had shaded in their entry with highlighter
because he claims he was nervous about the group. He gave them brochures
and pointed out the arboretum, but then saw them again later. He said they
"weren't quite doing what I thought they were gonna' do." He said their
responses to questions weren't making sense, as he has a familiarity with
the local schools and what classes are offered, which teachers teach them,
etc. He claims he spoke primarily with Eric. The government then pulled up
a hand-drawn map, allegedly drawn by Eric, of the IFG. Randy testified
that it was a fairly accurate representation of the property. He said if
someone wanted to do mischief with the map, they could. He testified that
there was a scientist who lives on site. The government then asked him
about gas and fuel tanks, as well as chemical supply sheds. He said the
propane tanks were not hidden and were "kinda' hard to miss." He said the
chemical building was clearly marked on the outside, and that the
chemicals would be toxic if caught on fire.

Mark's Cross

Randy said he had not been notified by the FBI prior to the group's
arrival (which he was upset about). He did not see what car they drove in,
which was an indication to him that something was amiss, as no one had
ever walked in off the road before. He stated that he thought Eric was the
leader of the group. He did not notice anyone taking pictures or using a
camera.


In a break, during the absence of the jury:

Government Stipulation:

Both parties agreed to the following:
1)Cell phone towers affect interstate and international commerce
2)The Nimbus dam is owned and operated by the US Bureau of Reclamation
3)The fish hatchery is owned by the state of California
4)The IFG is owned by the USFS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark's motions
1)To renew the pretrial motions to dismiss because of outrageous
government misconduct
Denied
2)To renew the motion to suppress evidence of audio/video surveillance in
DF because of 4th amendment violations, no warrant and Anna's testimony
that there was no place in the house the camera's couldn't reach
Govt says Anna never testified to that, the tapes only ran in her
presence, the cabin was rented by the govt so there was no warrant required
Denied
3)To move for acquittal based on Rule 29, the govts failure to establish
evidence of a crime
Denied

Defendant's Case in Chief

Character Witnesses

Eric Gonzalez

Eric has known Eric for 15 years. They met in High School and have been
best friends since then. The last time he saw Eric was at New Years in
January of '06. Eric M. lived with Eric G. for a while in 04 while Eric M
was working construction in Sacramento. He described Eric M as honest and
kind, and said that Eric never expressed violent thoughts to him. Eric
told him about his travels. He said that Eric did not strike him as
someone who would have been involved in explosives in 05. He said Eric
offered to help others and that his disposition was that he was always
happy. He said he never heard Eric talk about making explosives. Eric was
part of the family - he knew him for 15 years and he had never harmed
anyone.

Govts Cross

The AUSA asked Eric "Who is Derrick Jensen?" and Eric responded that he
didn't know. Eric said that he and Eric M talked back and forth about what
they believed in, but that Eric never really talked about his own
political views. Eric M never told him he was an anarchist. He did share
travel stories and he did tell him he was attending protests and
crimethinc convergences. He said he didn't know where he was going after
New Years. Eric G was interviewed by the FBI about Eric M in April of 06,
and FBI documents show that Eric G reported to them that Eric had told him
he was going to Seattle after New Years. The AUSA was seemingly trying to
get Eric G to say that Eric M was lying to him, but he said he wouldn't
consider it a lie. He said he had never heard Eric M discussing plans. The
AUSA then asked Eric G about his political views - specifically if he was
conservative then, then if he was a republican. He stated that he was
apolitical.

Mark's Redirect

Eric Gonzalez's wife has known Eric M for 13 years and also considers him
a good friend.

[Long back and forth between govt and Mark about when admissible timeline
starts - England sides with govt, effectively stating that predisposition
starts the same day as the conspiracy allegedly begins???]

Sarah Gonzalez

Sarah has known Eric for 13 years. During that time he has stayed and
lived with them. He is like a brother to her. She said he's always been
special to her. She described him as caring and loving - as family. She
said he has never been a violent person, and that she was extremely
surprised by the charges. She said that he did talk to her about Anna - he
enjoyed her company and looked forward to seeing her again. .

Govts Cross

The government asked if Sarah was with Eric in Philly, Des Moines, etc.
No. She couldn't remember if Eric had talked with her about Derrick
Jensen. She said that Eric had not told her he was an anarchist, but that
he did talk to her about Ryan Lewis. He had not talked with her about
direct action or the ELF.

Sarah McDavid

Sarah is is Eric's sister. She testified that Eric did not have a job in
the summer of 05 and that he was traveling at the time. She said that her
brother was completely non-violent, and that violence was not in his
character. She said he is extremely peaceful and sensitive. She said he
was normally happy. She testified that Eric came home for the holidays in
05. When Eric was arrested, she said she was completely surprised by what
the media was saying about him being an "eco-terrorist." When Mark asked
her why she said "because he's not." She said he is not ok with killing
people.

Govt Cross

The govt asked her how many conversations she had with Eric about killing
people, and she responded "zero." She said that they had discussed his
views on the environment, but had not discussed the ELF or ALF. She said
she knew he was having friends up to the house in November. The government
asked if she had heard any of the tapes, and she said yes. The government
said, despite listening to all these things, you still believe he's
nonviolent? And she said yes. The government said "Because he's your
brother?" She responded that it was his character.

This concluded court for the day.

Kenneth Foster - Public Information Act Request

Dear Fellow Activists,

I received this from Scott with the Texas Moratorium Network and think these
figures show the strength of our movement for Kenneth Foster. Of course it
was not only the letters, phone calls, emails and faxes that saved
Kenneth--but the overwhelming numbers in support of Kenneth had to catch
someone's eye.

11,815 to 12 in support of Kenneth! Very impressive!

While many of us marched, leafleted, held forums and other events, not
everyone could attend these events. So every little thing that everyone did
played a part in the victory. Let's remember that!

Thanks Scott for providing this information! Ramona or Pam in philly--can
you all get this information to Mumia?

Thanks for making the impossible possible in Texas everyone!

Gloria

----


Texas Board of Pardons & Paroles

Board General Counsel
P. O. Box 13401
Austin, Texas 78711
Phone (512) 406-5852
Fax
(512) 467-0945

September 19, 2007



Mr. Scott Cobb
3616 Far West Blvd., Suite 117, Box 251
Austin, Texas 78731
Scottcobb99@gmail.com

Re: Open Records Request dated September 06, 2007, received September
07, 2007

ATTACHMENTS

COMMUNICATIONS FOR KENNETH FOSTER JR. TDCJ# 999232

REQUEST

The number of communications received by the Texas Board of Pardons and
Paroles regarding the case of Kenneth Foster Jr. Faxes

2536 Postcards

17 Letters

3887 E-mails

5228 Telephone

158 Telegram

1

The number of communications that support the execution. Texas

6 United States

3 Foreign Countries

0 Unknown

3 Total

12
The number of communications that oppose the execution

1665

3485

5914

751

11815

The number of names signed on petitions.

759

1006

3237

468

5470

Provide the dates of the first communication and the last communication
received First

05/27/07 Last

09/09/07

Maria Ramirez/Parole_Board/TDCJ
09/11/2007 08:38 AM To Charlene Anderson/Parole/OIMS/TDCJ@TDCJ
cc

Subject Fw: Public Information Act Request

Two Belarus Antifa Prisoners

Urgent ELP! Bulletin (25th September 2007)

Dear friends

ELP has just learnt about the arrest and imprisonment of two antifa
activists in Belarus following a clash between the activists and a
group of neo-nazis in December 2006.  One of the activists is Maksim
Gubski, a local Minsk organiser of Food Not Bombs.

Below is an e-mail about Maksim and his co-defendant, Vladislav.

====

Support imprisoned Belarussian anti-fascists!

Maksim and Vladislav are anti-fascists from Minsk, who are doing 3
years sentences in Belarussian camps for their activities. They
support football club MTZ-RIPO, which is famous for its
uncompromisingly anti-fascist fans.

Maksim turned 18 years old in late July. He has been in anti-fascist
movement for 3 years, and was one of the organisers of Food Not Bombs
in Minsk, which made actions in Gorki park, Victory square and other
places in the city.

In December of 2006 they had an encounter with nazis, who ended up
being defeated. One of the nazis figured out that Maksim was
participating to event, and he went for the cops. Eventually Maksim
and Vladislav were sentenced to 3 years for "aggravated hooliganism",
that is statue 339 part 2 of the Belarussian criminal codex.

Write letters of support to Maksim and Vladislav! Their addresses are

Gubski Maxim
VK-2 - 21
Batowa str. 4 Bobruisk
213800 Belarus

Vladislav Vladimirovich Plyashkevich
IK-10 otryad 4
Novopoltsk-5 Vitebskaya oblast
211440 Belarus

If you have a chance to write addresses with cyrillic letters, it is
more chance that letter will make it there:

213800 Ðåñïóáëèêà Áåëàðóñü ã.Áîáðóéñê
óë. Áàòîâà-4 ÂÊ-2
îòä. 21
Ãóáñêîìó Ìàêñèìó.

Ïëÿøêåâè÷ Âëàäèñëàâ Âëàäèìèðîâè÷
211440. Ðåñïóáëèêà Áåëàðóñü. Âèòåáñêàÿ îáë.
ã.Íîâîïîëîöê-5 ÈÊ-10. Îòðÿä ¹4.

(from https://avtonom.org/index.php?nid=1220)

=========

Earth Liberation Prisoners Support Network
BM Box 2407
London
WC1N 3XX
England
www.spiritoffreedom.org.uk

Statements from the PR Political Prisoners

The ProLibertad Freedom Campaign
ProLibertad@hotmail.com and ProLibertad.Campaign@gmail.com
http://www.ProLibertadWeb.com
ProLibertad Hotline: 718-601-4751
_______________________________________________________________________________

http://jaredrodriguez.com/s23/

The above link is to a website with pictures of el Grito De Lares
event/activity in New York City.

Here are statements from the Puerto Rican Political Prisoners for El
Grito de Lares in Puerto Rico, in Spanish, the English translations
will be published later this week.
_______________________________________________________________________________

MENSAJE DE OSCAR LÓPEZ RIVERA
ACTO DEL GRITO DE LARES
23 de septiembre de 2007


Saludos cariñosos y patrióticos para todos(as):

“Gerardo, Antonio, Ramón Fernando y René volverán” reza la consigna
del pueblo cubano que lucha por la libertad de sus cinco héroes
injustamente encarcelados y condenados a excesivas penas en mazmorras
del imperio yanki.  Diariamente este mensaje es transmitido al mundo
por la radio cubana.  Y ya más de 300 grupos por todo el planeta se
han solidarizado en ésta causa y están exigiendo justicia y libertad
para estos compañeros.  Hoy, cuando conmemoramos nuestro glorioso
Grito de Lares, gritamos:  “Gerardo, Antonio, Ramón Fernando y René
volverán””.

Nos incumbe a todos(as) los(as) boricuas que amamos la justicia y la
libertad ser solidarios y luchar por la liberación de estos héroes y
compañeros.  Ellos son presos del imperio yanki porque con su valor e
inteligencia lograron infiltrar organizaciones terroristas de la
derecha cubana americana que viene cometiendo atrocidades contra el
pueblo cubano y su Revolución por casi 50 años.  Son las
organizaciones terroristas que asesinaron a los 73 pasajeros de
Cubana de Aviación en Barbados con una bomba, los que asesinaron a
Orlando Letelier y Randy Moffet en Washington y los que tienen a la
comunidad cubana en yankilandia terrorizada.  Son los que han
cometido fechorías y ataques terroristas contra el independentismo y
los responsables por el vil asesinato del compañero Carlos Muñiz
Varela.

Los terroristas de esas organizaciones tienen nombre y apellido,
cuentan con licencia e impunidad, fomentan la corrupción y participan
en el tráfico ilegal de drogas.  Es el gobierno estadounidense el que
le da licencia, santuario, impunidad, recursos y dinero.  Son sus
mercenarios y sus terroristas.  Son esos viles y brutales canalladas
los que cinco compañeros estaban tratando de parar.

La libertad de los cinco es nuestra libertad.  Que ellos vuelvan a su
Patria y nosotros a la nuestra.  La lucha sigue...Filiberto vive. 
¡Qué viva Puerto Rico Libre!

En resistencia y lucha,

Oscar López Rivera
17 de septiembre de 2007


Oscar López Rivera es prisionero político puertorriqueño desde el 29
de mayo de 19981, hace 26 años.

_______________________________________________________________________________

MENSAJE EN EL GRITO DE LARES 2007 DE Carlos Alberto Torres
Prisionero político puertorriqueño desde el 4 de abril de 1980, hace 27 años.

Un saludo lleno de aprecio y calor patriótico a todos los presentes
que hoy unidos conmemoramos esta fecha tan gloriosa en nuestra
historia.

Hoy celebramos la valentía y compromiso con la patria, recordamos a
nuestros héroes y mártires que por amor a nuestro pueblo nos
brindaron el más supremo sacrificio.  En este día sagrado que
pertenece a todos los puertorriqueños que aman la libertad, rendimos
homenaje a ese noble hijo de la patria, el comandante Filiberto Ojeda
Ríos.  Su ejemplo de valor y sacrificio fue lo que los asesinos no
pudieron, ni jamás podrían, matar.

Recordamos también a los preso políticos puertorriqueños, a los
cubanos, que hoy comparten con nosotros las rejas y alambres
carcelarias que mejor caracterizan el comportamiento del gobierno de
los Estados Unidos contra los pueblos que luchan por el progreso y
bien de su gente.

Compatriotas, Lares simboliza la esperanza.  La fe que podemos sentir
por nuestra capacidad en superar los atropellos y contratiempos que
nos imponen los enemigos de nuestra libertad.  Lares simboliza la
solidaridad humana que no sólo ata a los puertorriqueños uno al otro,
sino, a todos los pueblos latinoamericanos que forman una gran
familia de seres.  Lares es símbolo de la dignidad humana que aspira
la independencia.

Porque Lares es símbolo de nuestro amor por la libertad, saludo con
gratitud a todos los Lares de este planeta: a Venezuela, a Cuba, a
Bolivia, a Chiapas y  todos los lugares dónde se lucha por la
libertad.

¡Viva Puerto Rico libre!
¡Viva la memoria del comandante Filiberto Ojeda Ríos!
¡Libertad para los presos políticos puertorriqueños y cubanos!

Carlos Alberto Torres
17 de septiembre de 2007

Update on/from Daniel McGowan

From: Family + Friends of Daniel McG <friendsofdanielmcg@yahoo.com>

Date: September 23, 2007

Hi all,

Daniel has been getting settled into FCI Sandstone and has made a number of calls to friends and family. He's back on his 300 phone minutes a month and is able to start responding to letters, although he may not be able to respond to every single person. Daniel's job (all federal prisoners must work for the prison) is a clerical position in the psychology department. He starts it this week. He's been playing "pickle ball" (not quite sure what that is) and has been eating a lot better than at previous locations. We're relieved to hear he's doing OK, getting into a routine, and passing his time.
Daniel's latest "blog" entry is pasted below. You can also see past entries here: http://www.supportdaniel.org/prisonlife/blog.html. We're working on getting a real blog on the website soon.


September 18, 2007

Whew, so I finally made to FCI Sandstone — a low security prison in northern Minnesota and my home for the next couple of years. It’s been a rough couple of weeks — 2 flights, 2 long days in a bus, 11 days in the hole and not having a clue when I would be moved. Transit in the federal prison system is disorienting and frustrating but I’m here now and things are starting to normalize. Big thanks to everyone who wrote me in Oklahoma, Terre Haute, and Oxford — the letters are starting to catch up with me this week. I am way behind on correspondence and at times feel like I will be for a while.

How to describe Sandstone. Well, it has fences and barbed wire but it's not Oz! The first couple of days here were tough — trying to figure out what to do, where to go, how to do mundane things that others know already. With some help, I’m adjusting and each day gets easier by far. I hear once you learn how everything works, the boredom sets in but I’m doing all I can to keep busy by reading, preparing for my master’s program, running and signing up for classes.

I want to thank everyone who came out for the September 1st benefit in Brooklyn, NY that was held to help me pay for tuition. From what I heard, it was a lot of fun and really successful — I can’t wait to see the photos.

Finally, I want to ask you for your participation in this year’s Leonard Peltier Annual Holiday Toy Drive for the children of the Pine Ridge reservation in South Dakota. This project has gone on for years and I’m happy to be part of it this year in a supporting capacity. My support crew will be creating a registry of toys that will make it simple for you to buy a toy or two for the Native children on the Pine Ridge reservation. I’m honored to be working on a project initiated by Native political prisoner Leonard Peltier and run by the Leonard Peltier Defense Committee — true allies in the struggle for political prisoners and environmental protection. Please participate as much as you can to make a real difference in the lives of these children who live on one of the poorest reservations in the nation and also by lending your support to the struggle to free Leonard Peltier. Check www.supportdaniel.org and www.leonardpeltier.net for more information in the near future.

Thanks for all the letters and support!
Daniel

http://www.supportdaniel.org/prisonlife/091807.html


Daniel McGowan is an environmental and social justice activist. He was charged in federal court on many counts of arson, property destruction and conspiracy, all relating to two incidents in Oregon in 2001. Until recently, Daniel was offered two choices by the government: cooperate by informing on other people, or go to trial and face life in prison. His only real option was to plead not guilty until he could reach a resolution of the case that permitted him to honor his principles. As a result of months of litigation and negotiation, Daniel was able to admit to his role in these two incidents, while not implicating or identifying any other people who might have been involved. He was sentenced to 7 years in prison on June 4, 2007 and began serving his time on July 2, 2007.

write rod coronado's judge a letter asking he not be re-tried

Next week the court will hold a status meeting to determine what

the next steps in Rod's indictment will be. PLEASE please please take the time to

send a quick email to Gerald Singleton, Rod's lawyer, which can then be forwarded to U.S. Attorney Karen Hewitt, who will make the decision of what to do with this

case. The decision will be made imminently, so this calls for immediate action!

email address:

geraldsingleton73@yahoo.com

Here is a good template for the letter, putting your title on the

letter, and changing the wording will help. Please stress that Rod is not a

threat, and what you know of his redirection toward non-violence.

Mary Concerned

123 Justice Blvd

Tucson, AZ 85705

(520) 777-7777

mc@riseup.net

September 21, 2007

U.S. Attorney’s Office

San Diego County Office

Federal Office Building

880 Front Street, Room 6293

San Diego, California 92101

Dear Ms Karen Hewitt:

I am writing this letter in response to the recent hung jury trial

of Rodney Coronado. I would like to urge you to not waste tax-payer money

with a retrial of this case. According to the jurors, the majority were in favor of

an acquittal in most counts of the indictment. This is evidence that it will be

difficult, if not impossible to change the verdict.

Moreover, Rod Coronado is not a threat to the community, as he has

dis-avowed his belief in arson and violent means to make social change. Publicly,

he has made clear his intentions to work for sustainable development, and

raising a family. He is no longer involved in the movement, and is not someone the

government needs to worry about.

Cordially,

Mary Concerned

Support Eric shirts now available!

Shirts to support Green Scare defendant Eric McDavid are now available in

four colors and four sizes. Choose from orange on dark brown, green on

dark brown, green on medium blue, or black on medium blue in small,

medium, large or extra large. You can find them locally in NYC at Moo

Shoes, 152 Allen St., and in Brooklyn at 123 Tompkins Ave. They are also

available via mailorder from the In Our Hearts network. Contact

inourhearts@gmail.com for ordering information.

Eric McDavid was arrested in Auburn, CA on January 13, 2006 as part of

the government’s ongoing Green Scare campaign. He now faces two

decades in prison. Eric has been held in solitary confinement at the

Sacramento County Main Jail since the day of his arrest. He was arrested

along with Zachary Jenson and Lauren Weiner, and all three were charged

with “conspiracy to destroy property by means of fire or explosives.” The

government’s case is based on the word of a single FBI informant who was

paid approximately $75,000 to fabricate a crime and implicate the trio.

Both of Eric’s co-defendants have since caved under the threat of being

imprisoned for 20 years and plead guilty to a lesser charge. In doing so,

they also agreed to testify against Eric and cooperate in every way

possible, including testifying in front of secret grand jury proceedings.

Eric has been repeatedly denied bail. He has only been allowed to leave

his cell for a few hours per week and receives very little contact with

the outside world. He needs your support now more than ever, as his trial

is currently underway (as of September 10th). Go to

www.supporteric.org for more information about the case.

All proceeds from the sale of these shirts go to Sacramento Prisoner

Support. While his support team has secured the money needed to cover his

legal costs up to the time of the trial, he will likely be in need of

additional legal or commissary funds soon. Eric has remained on a vegan

diet since he has been in jail despite major difficulties in gaining

access to vegan meals. Commissary funds allow Eric to maintain vegan diet

throughout his imprisonment. Wearing the Support Eric shirt is also a

great way to raise awareness not only about Eric's case but about the

ongoing Green Scare campaign. Thanks for your support and tell your

friends!

Author of 'Dead Man Walking,' others speak out against capital punishment

September 22, 2007

By Gina Gallucci, Frederick News-Post

After her first child was born, Vicki Schieber wrote a list to God asking
for certain qualities in her newborn daughter Shannon.

"She was the light of (my) life," Schieber said.

While at college in Philadelphia, a man broke into her home and raped and
murdered 23-year-old Shannon.

"There are no words to explain the insurmountable tragedy," Schieber said.
"Nothing prepared me."

After police caught the man they believe committed the crime, prosecutors
told the family they would seek the death penalty.

"We said, 'Not in our name,'" Schieber said. "By executing him, it would not
bring our daughter back."

Schieber was one of four speakers at the St. John the Evangelist Roman
Catholic Church on Friday evening. The event was sponsored by the coalition
Maryland Citizens Against State Executions.

The keynote speaker was Sister Helen Prejean, best known for her Pulitzer
Prize-nominated book "Dead Man Walking: An Eyewitness Account of the Death
Penalty in the United States." The book was later turned into an Academy
Award nominated film starring Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon. Sarandon won for
best actress.

"Look me up on Google," she said. "I'm the death penalty nun."

Prejean, 68, began doing prison ministry in 1981 and became pen pals with
Patrick Sonnier, an inmate on death row convicted of murdering two teenagers
in 1977.

She told the standing room only crowd Friday that prior to meeting Sonnier,
she was nervous and clutched her cross.

"I thought, 'He writes nice letters but everybody writes nice letters,'" she
said. "My plan as a nun did not include going to death row but we don't plan
these things."

When she first saw him, it struck her how human his face was, Prejean said.

"The time flew by," she said. "I didn't have to say much."

She became his spiritual adviser and he helped teach her the road of healing
and forgiveness.

Prejean's face was the last one Sonnier saw as he was electrocuted in 1984.

"I threw up," she said. "I had never seen anyone killed before my eyes."

While Prejean maintains that she abhors Sonnier's crime, that horrible act
should not have resulted in his death.

The U.S. culture tells families that the death penalty will give them
justice for their loved one's murder, she said. Jurors sometimes feel it
would dishonor the victim's family or the victim if they do give the accused
the ultimate penalty.

Kirk Bloodsworth, 46, told the crowd Friday about his brush with the death
penalty.

He was convicted twice of raping and murdering 9-year-old Dawn Hamilton near
Baltimore in July 1984 and spent nearly 10 years in jail, including two
years on death row.

All the while, he proclaimed his innocence.

"Nobody listened," he said. "All those days sitting in a metal box."

While serving his time, he read "The Blooding" by Joseph Wambaugh, a former
police officer, which discusses DNA evidence.

Bloodsworth suggested the small amount of DNA found on the girl's panties be
tested. The results eliminated him as a suspect and he became the first
person on death row exonerated by DNA evidence. He was freed in July 1993.

Bloodsworth is a vocal opponent of the death penalty and tried to persuade
state lawmakers in the past legislative session to repeal the death penalty.
The repeal failed, but the issue could be introduced in the upcoming 2008
session.

Maryland has had the death penalty since 1978.

Bloodsworth told the crowd that if being accused of a crime happened to him,
an honorably discharged U.S. Marine with no criminal history, it can happen
to anyone.

---

Source : Frederick News-Post

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/news/display.htm?storyID=65426

The ABCF Update, Issue 48, Summer 2007 is now out!

The ABCF Update, Issue 48, Summer 2007 is now out!

The Update is a quarterly publication produced by the Anarchist Black Cross Federation. It is one of the few publications designed specifically for news/articles about and from political prisoners and prisoners of war in North America.

The present issue has the following items:

Updates on:
• Zolo Azania
• Daniel McGowan
• Kamau Sadiki
• Jamil Al-Amin
• William Gilday
• Roisin McAliskey
• Mutulu Shakur

Articles about:
• Fred Muhammad Burton's Current Appeal Process
• Rod Coronado’s Deadlocked Trial
• San Francisco 8
• Omaha 2 Retrial Hearing
• Chip Fitzgerald’s Transfer and Parole Hearing
• Love Park 4
• Morristown 3
• Jena 6
• Ahmad Sa’adat’s (PFLP leader) New Trial
• FARC trials
• Running Down the Walls Reports

You can download a copy from the ABCF site at:
www.abcf.net/abcf.asp?page=pdfs . All hardcopy subscriptions can be order by contacting LA-ABCF at: la@abcf.net

Two Americans charged with anti-HLS actions - SUPPORTNEEDED

Urgent ELP! Bulletin (20th September 2007)

Dear friends

Two activists from Philadelphia have been charged with acts of
sabotage against HLS (Huntingdon Life Sciences) targets in New
Jersey. One of the two activists, Nick Cooney, faces a mandatory
minimum of 3 years if convicted. Funds are needed to provide
competent legal defense. Please do what you can to help these
dedicated activists avoid prison.

A full statement from Nick is below.

PayPal all donations to:
usababylon at hotmail dot com

or mail to:
720 North 38th Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104

********

From Nick:

Hi,

In July of 2005 my friend Janice and I were arrested and charged with a
variety of charges in connections with two vandalisms in New Jersey. The
alleged actions were in relation to the HLS campaign. For reasons
unknown to us, the case has sat for about two years but now is
proceeding forward. Janice and I were indicted last week (meaning, a
grand jury in NJ [not the scary kind of grand jury] found there to be
enough evidence that we should be put on trial), so there will be
upcoming appearance dates and court dates relatively soon. If this goes
to trial and I'm found guilty of the main charge (3rd degree criminal
mischief), there's a 3 year mandatory minimum for me because of my prior
convictions (6 1/2 year max for all charges, for both of us).Janice's
situation isn't quite as bad in that there's no mandatory minimum, but
both of us are facing jail time and desperately need money for our
attorneys ASAP. We need to raise about $3,500 each for the case, and
very quickly. After being released on bail back in 2005, we never set up
any support websites or put out calls for assistance since the SHAC-7
trial was going on and support was much needed there; and, because our
case was for some reason not going forward. Now, we really are in need
of help from the animal rights community to help us fight these charges
with competent counsel.

If anyone can help out in any way - organizing fundraisers, donating
yourself, or letting any well-off animal rights supporters know, it
would be very much appreciated.


Thanks,
> Nick

Hung Jury in Favor of Acquittal in Rod Coronado Free Speech Case

San Diego, Calif.-After more than two full days of deliberation, a

12-person jury informed Judge Jeffrey Miller they were hopelessly

deadlocked and determined that further deliberation would not

deliver unanimity. Outside the courtroom, attorneys were informed

that the majority was voting for acquittal of the environmental and

animal rights activist on trial for a speech he gave in San Diego

in 2003. In order to convict under the obscure statute, (18 USC §

842 (p)(2)(A)), which makes it a crime to demonstrate how to build

a destructive device with the intent that it be used in furtherance

of a crime of violence), the jury would have had to determine on

three criteria: that his speech was instructive, that he had intent

to incite those present to violent action, and that the incitement

was to imminent action. Otherwise, such speech is protected under

the First Amendment. A status conference was scheduled for

September 28 in the same court to determine whether the case will

continue. Rod Coronado is headed home to Tucson, Arizona with his

wife to reunite with his children and return to his job.

Omar Figueroa, an attorney on the legal team said, “We had a good

jury and they upheld the Constitution. It’s a great day for

Constitutional Rights.”

Attorney Tony Serra, also part of the legal team said, “If these

prosecutors opt to re-try this case, then they are the puppets we

know they are, in the business of suppressing Constitutional

rights. We hung the jury probably 10-2 or 9-3 (that specific

information was not available from the jurors), so we know they can

never win. So they would be fools to retry, but this is political

and their agenda is political. If they re-try, we will win again.”

Attorney Jerry Singleton reminded those present that Coronado has

not been an advocate of direct action since 2006, and in fact

renounced the type of direct action he formerly participated in,

and is opting instead to work on building sustainable communities

with his family.

For more information, please visit supportrod.org

Oppose Expansion of Measure 11

Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:52:16 -0500
From: "Denise Welch"

Tell the Oregonian You Oppose Expansion of Measure 11

Kevin Mannix, author of Measure 11, wants more mandatory minimum sentences for Oregon. Reporter Ashbel Green’s story in the Saturday, September 15th Oregonian shows clearly why we need to fight the proposed Mannix measure and the mandatory sentences it requires for non-violent property crimes. You can read the Oregonian story here:

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregonian/stories/index.ssf?/base/news/11898267317590.xml&coll=7

The new Mannix measure would increase sentences to a minimum of three years for drug offenses and property crimes, according to Green, and would cause Oregon’s prison population to swell by 3,000 to 6,000 prisoners by 2011 at an annual cost of $200 to $400 million.

We need you to write a letter to the editor of the Oregonian to let other Oregonians know that this Mannix measure is bad public policy and bad for Oregon. Below are a few facts and talking points that will help you write your letter:

►The mandatory sentencing measure is clearly an over-reaction as the FBI reports that property crime is significantly down in Oregon for each of the past two years. Property crime in 2006 is estimated to be down 14.4% in Oregon’s three largest cities.

►Mannix’s mandatory sentencing measure would force Oregon to build at least two additional prisons at an estimated cost of $600 million per prison for construction and debt service.

►More money going to building and operating new prisons means we’ll have less money for schools, health care and other essential services. Let’s spend our money where it is truly effective – for schools, colleges, health care, Head Start and other programs that create healthy and safe communities.

►There are far better alternatives to reducing property and drug crimes than incarceration. Both drug and alcohol treatment and early intervention programs for at-risk youth are far less expensive and work more effectively at preventing crime.

►Mannix’s mandatory sentencing measure is one of 20 initiatives already filed by Mannix for the 2008 election; a clear abuse of the initiative system. Our initiative process seems to be making money for him. The Oregonian reported last year that since 1996, Kevin Mannix has paid over $800,000 to himself, his law firm and other businesses from political committees and foundations he controlled.

►After failing four times to be elected to statewide office, Mannix is trying to become politically viable again. But this is a bad strategy that takes us down the wrong path. We need smarter solutions to our criminal justice problems.

Remember, limit your letter to 150 words or less and include your name, address, and daytime phone number. The Oregonian won’t print your address or phone number, they just need it to verify that you wrote the letter. Read the 7 Tips for Writing Your Letter to the Editor for useful suggestions that will help get your letter published.

http://www.safetyandjustice.org/getinvolved/howto/story/822
Letters to the Editor of the Oregonian should be emailed to letters@news.oregonian.com or faxed to (503) 294-4193.

Thank you for being a part of the Oregon Action Alert Network!

Coronado Trial: 9/17/07 Court Notes

Notes form Closing Arguments – Rod Coronado trial 9/17/07

The day began with Jury Instructions, summarized in part below.

The burden of the Jury is to deliver a verdict based on the charges,
returning a not guilty verdict if not convinced beyond a reasonable
doubt.

The burden of the government is to prove that:
The defendant taught or demonstrated the making or use of a
destructive device.
The defendant intended that the teaching or demonstration of the
device would be used for, or in furtherance of, a federal crime of
violent activity.
At the time, both the intent and tendency of his actions were to
provoke or incite an imminent crime of violence.

The Judge defined the defendants theory of defense as that he did not
have intention, and that his actual words did not incite an imminent
crime of violence.

The judge also added that an incendiary device is a destructive
device, that arson is a federal crime of violence, that past
speeches, and demonstrations have been admitted to help establish
intent (Note: there were lots of these: the American University
speech, more inflammatory that the 2003 speech at issue, 60 minutes
interview, and even the 2003 condo fire that took place 15 hours
before Rod was in San Diego.

Closing remarks by prosecuting U. S. Attorney John Parmley:

Parmley described Rod as a recruiter and mentor of arsonists, that
his intent in the San Diego speech when he commented on the fire that
morning was to glamorize it as a success because it got media
attention. In this regard, Rod made arsonists out to be heroes and
thus influenced his audience to do such actions.

Numerous citations from events other than the speech at question were
used to paint Rod in a negative light, including:
1. undated writings taken from his personal computer in which Rod
calls for the revolution to begin, and where he admits to teaching
people how to build firebombs.
2. an interview with 60 Minutes, where Rod admits to wanting people
to be courageous enough to act on their beliefs.
3. a speech at American University, prior to the San Diego speech,
where Rod describes having no faith in writing letters and espouses
the philosophy of life over property and profits, and calls
corporations eco-terrorists.
4. an editorial in the Earth First! Journal entitled “In Case of
Fire, Let It Burn (Baby).

The prosecutor attacked the defense witness who asked Rod the
question, suggesting her testimony is disingenuously naïve. Parmley
described Rod as a traveling arson recruiter, in San Diego for a few
short hours and with a focused mission to recruit more arsonists for
his causes. Regarding the legal requirements of imminent threat in
the charges, the prosecutor took Rod’s statements about the extreme
planning and caution to protect life in his past actions to suggest
that seeds of relatively imminent arsons, subject to a similar
planning process, could have been sown at the San Diego lecture.
Much of the prosecution’s closing, as in the trial itself, sought to
play on the emotions of fear, present the most inflammatory
statements and images available to them, including a lengthy ending
image of the fire in San Diego the morning of Rod’s talk.

Defense’s closing arguments by Tony Serra:

In sharp contrast to the government’s sensational imagery and
displays of incendiary rhetoric, Tony Serra weaved together an over
two-hour riveting presentation of the essence of the language of the
statute in question, the actual evidence in the trial, and the
responsibility of the Jury relative to the nature of the US legal
system.

Repeating the Jury instructions, he reminded them that their decision
is not to be based on personal likes or dislikes, and that the
question before them is essentially if the defendant’s actions, and
only the actions of August 1, 2003, intended to cause an imminent act
of violence. He displayed on the overhead screen sections of the
judge’s jury instructions a number of times.

To back up Rod’s innocence, he stated that Rod had not come to San
Diego as a recruiter, but rather had given a standard speech about
his life’s work, and ideology, and the question which led to the
charge against him was spontaneous. In glowing praise of the US
judicial system, he appealed to the jury to apply logic and reason
and examine the facts of the case. The law is constant, a beautiful
thing, it protects us from harm. One does not surrender common sense
when one enters the portals of the courts system.

Serra then goes into the heart of the defense, the failure prove that
an imminent lawless action was provoked by Rod’s words. Listing
myriad synonyms of the word imminent, the point was driven home that
the exception to protected free speech covered in the statute under
which Rod is charged (the “Brandenberg” exception) has the purpose of
preventing immediate violent action and harm, incited by words. Such
words would clearly be a direct call to immediate action (“Follow me!
Let’s go burn it down!”) Serra’s dramatic and elegant oratory skills
were quite effective in illustrating examples of protected versus
unprotected speech in hypothetical reenactments of turbulent US
social struggles. Imitating the voices of The Boston Tea Party,
vigilante justice in the racist South, the  Longshoremen’s labor
struggle of 1930’s, and an uprising in the Castro District in San
Francisco in the 60’s following two murders of progressive leaders;
Serra exemplified ways in which the words of those events could have
“crossed the line” between protected and unprotected speech.

Concerning some of the prosecution’s evidence, Serra qualified that
Rod was once in a point in his life where he committed illegal acts,
and for which he went to prison. He then became a movement
spokesperson, and thus an advocate. In doing this, he was protected
by the First Amendment; even though his speech was political, and
offensive to some, allowing that it was likely offensive to some on
the jury, it was protected. Serra stated that a free society, to
avoid becoming totalitarian, must allow all to espouse their
ideology, and seek to protect the speech and ideas that offend us
most. To the Jury: “Although you may hate his ideology, love the
concept that protects his freedom of speech.”

Regarding the question asked of Rod in 2003: the person who asked the
question demonstrated no intent or desire to actually commit an
arson, and testified to that as well. Tony reminded the jury that Rod
hade also cautioned the audience about the risks involved in such
actions, citing Jeff Luers, who received a 22-year sentence for
burning three SUV’s at a car dealership; those words were a red
light, not a green light, said Serra. No one at that talk was
inculcated with the mentality to go out a commit violent crime.

In order for the Jury to judge intent, they need to understand the
law clearly, to induce or deduce. They must by completely sure in
order to reach a conviction on his intent. If it was possible to them
that his intent was to incite imminent action, or even probably,
they  must deliver a finding of not guilty. A preponderance of
evidence, still requires not guilty. Only if the Jury believes that
beyond all reasonable doubt that it was intention to incite imminent
action should he be found guilty. The hallmark of reasonable doubt:
reject that which points to guilt, embrace that which points to
innocence. The only way to reach a conviction in this case would be
for the Jury to reject the qualification of imminence, and throw that
part of the instructions out the window.

On the Prosecution’s “Red Herrings”:

Fire instills animal fear, is deep within our psyche. The prosecution
is playing on that fear with sensationalized imagery and conjecture,
making the prosecution’s motive questionable.
Rod’s ideology is unfairly on trial. They play up crimes in the past,
portraying him as a threat, rather than showing that his heart seeks
to protect the health of the earth and the animals.
We expect to side with law enforcement, because we are beholden to
them for our safety,yet they have proven unreliable at best in this
case. “The thin blue line has become a thick blue wall. What law
enforcement wants, law enforcement gets.”

“The foundation of the criminal justice system is honesty, integrity,
candor and impeccability of law enforcement. They are the brick and
mortar we pay for and depend on. To err is human. We are not punitive
in our judgment of mistakes. Let us visit Detective Joseph Lehr. He
awoke early on August 1 to a devastating fire. He saw the ELF banner.
He was traumatized. Lehr went to Rod’s talk that night, undercover.
He may have had anger, animus, may have lost clarity – officers are
not supposed to do these things. He knows the significance of words.
He puts in his report the words “bomb for an action.” Heavy words. An
indictment of the individual. When caught, he admits to misstating
the words. Why are we here then?  We would not be here without these
words. That was the case. This is s a great misstatement. This is a
tragedy. This is at a minimum a wanton disregard for the truth. This
is treason by a seasoned officer. If you measure in your mind the
potential harm to a society when a police officer grossly misstates
something that is at the heart of the case, isn’t that something that
presents more potential harm than someone presenting the words of the
ELF or ALF? What is worse I ask you? The one has first amendment
protection; the other has the potential to be gross political
malfeasance. There will never be a more concrete, more dramatic form
of impeachment than this. Do not brush it off. It is unacceptable.”

Addressing specific evidence from the Prosecution:

The undated letter seized from Rod’s computer lauds direct action,
but ends with “My friends, I cannot tell you what you must do. Only
your heart can now do that.” This is not a call to action. The San
Diego speech was also not a call to action.

In the 60 Minutes interview Rod says he is “asking people brave
enough to take the risks…” This is not a call to action. Likewise,
the American University does not cross the line by calling for
immediate violent action. Plus those are not what he is charged with,
but they were presented.

In addition to this history, Rod was under intense police scrutiny
for years. They knew where he was and what he was doing. They were
monitoring his speeches before and after August 1, 2003. There were
at least six police officers involved in monitoring his talk in San
Diego. At some point, it went to a Federal level. They were following
him, but he committed no crimes. What does the two+-year delay in his
arrest signify? He is clean. He wasn’t arrested until 2006 – was it
merely a tactic to silence him? (Objection/sustained)

Remembering the words of Voltaire, “I disagree with what you say but
will fight to the death to protect your right to say it.” This is a
terrifically important case. The two most beautiful words in the
criminal court are “not guilty.” In a system where everyone is
guilty, that is the beginning of totalitarianism. In the American
way, we don’t punish ideology, we punish crime.


Rebuttal by Prosecutor Skerlos:

One of the most beautiful things to me is the evidence. Cites the ATF
agent testimony about the destructive power of fire, and Detective
Lehr; for you the Jury to consider whether he is truthful.  Case
boils down to the evidence of what he did and what he intended to do.
Suggests that Defense witness Kari Shaw, who testified about the
question she asked Rod, was in collusion with Rod to ask the question
for him to answer.

Eric McDavid Court Report, Days 4 and 5, Sept. 17th and 18th

Day 4: September 17

Testimony of FBI Special Agent Krause

The day began with testimony from FBI Special Agent (SA) Richard Krause.
He testified on his background, his training and the search of the Cabin
that Eric, Zach, Lauren and “Anna” occupied. SA Krause said that he has
been in the FBI 4 ½ years and is currently posted in Houston. In January
of 2006 he was posted in Sacramento and participated in the search of the
Dutch Flat Cabin on January 14. He stated that he learned how to properly
execute a search warrant from a class at the FBI academy and that he had
participated in roughly a dozen prior searches. He testified that the
cabin was secured by a highway patrol office monitoring it on video from
the time the trio were arrested on January 13 and the time of the search
on January 14. He described the protocol for executing a search warrant
and explained the role of the custodian of evidence. SA Krause was the
custodian of evidence in this search and he stated that his job was to
look at evidence in the location in which it was discovered in order to be
able to testify about it later. United States Attorney (USA) Ellen
Endrezzi presented SA Krause with a variety of photographs labeled
government exhibits 35A-35BB. These photos were of various items found in
the cabin. The items included mason jars, bleach, car battery, spray
paint, sugar, Vaseline, shotgun shells, laptop, chemistry set, sifter,
salt substitute, nimbus fish hatchery brochure, an article about Ryan
Lewis, IDs and Zines. SA Krause indicated that over 100 photos had been
taken but that not all evidence was photographed. On his cross examination
SA Krause indicated that many of the photographs shown in court were not
of photographs of objects in the locations in which they were found.
Different items were grouped together and photographed by the FBI agents
conducting the search.

Testimony of Lauren Weiner

Lauren’s direct examination was done by United States Attorney (USA) Steve
Lapham. The USA asked her if she was getting anything in exchange for her
testimony and she said that she was getting a deal with a 5 year maximum.
She testified that she planned using explosives on different sites and
that she conspired with Eric and Zach to do so. She discussed how she met
Zach and Eric at a biotech protest in Philadelphia in June of 2005. She
stated that she wanted to start a house, do banner drops and graffiti. She
stated that at the time she felt protesting was not working but she wanted
to make change. She testified that Eric told her that he and Anna
discussed direct action and that she should contact Anna. Lauren stated
that she and Anna talked a lot and that she was a “good friend”. She said
that when she talked with Zach and Eric they discussed “boom”. The USA
asked her what “boom” was and she said it was explosives. The USA asked
her why she didn’t use the word explosives and she said “it’s a scary
word”. The USA asked her if she knew Eric and Zach’s real names and she
said that she did not know Eric’s but that she did know Zach’s. Lauren
stated that when she told Anna about meeting with Eric and Zach to discuss
their ideas Anna acted surprised and excited. She testified that Zach and
Eric had left town at the end of the summer but that she kept in contact
with them through myspace and e-mail respectively. She said she was having
trouble with her roommate, hated art school and wanted out of
Philadelphia. She testified that she missed “the boys” and hoped to go out
west to see them because “I wanted to continue traveling like we were last
summer”. She said that she asked Anna for a ride “because I had no other
way out there”. Lauren testified that Anna called her and said she had an
extra plane ticket and “that it was a free plane ride to California and I
missed the guys” and “I didn’t see what I had to lose”. Lauren stated that
when they all met in November they were excited to see each other and
catch up. She said that Eric and Anna slept in the living room together.
She stated that the next night they hung out and talked about ideas for
direct actions, justification for them, the ELF and various possible
targets. Later in her testimony, Lauren claimed that Anna purchased wine
for the group that weekend and that she thinks everyone drank some (she
was not 21 at the time). Lauren stated that Eric quoted something Derrick
Jensen said and she asked him for the interview. Lauren said she recalled
Eric saying what they were talking about was illegal and that they could
go to jail. When asked by the USA what she thought of that she said “at
that point in my mind, everything seemed illegal”. Lauren said they talked
about scouting out cell phone towers as targets and that she had some
photos of cell phone towers in New York. The USA asked Lauren about who
brought up the “tree factory” or the Institute of Forestry Genetics (IFG)
as a topic. She stated that Eric and Anna had discussed it. At that point
the USA asked her if it was Eric’s idea and she said she did not know. The
USA showed her a government exhibit which was an article about genetically
modified trees and asked her if she remembered it. He asked her who
brought it and she said she didn’t know. The USA pressed her further on it
and she said they had all brought zines and she didn’t know whose zines
were whose. The USA asked Lauren about Eric’s explosive recipe. She said
that it sounded “more like a heresay recipe than anything concrete” and so
she decided to look for recipes herself. The USA asked Lauren about “going
underground”. She stated that a loose discussion took place on this issue,
but that “nothing was really decided upon”. She said that she and Eric
both discussed how they were dealing with difficult family issues and
would have a hard time not having contact with their families. The USA
asked Lauren to explain “security culture” to the jury and she described
it as not talking about illegal activity. The USA asked her about the
discussion about claiming their actions for the ELF and she said it never
came to any conclusion. He asked Lauren if it was clear to her that
everyone knew the ELF guidelines and she said “I don’t know”. She said
that their attitude about that was: we’ll see when we get there. The USA
asked her what her plan was for their next meeting and she said it was to
start planning. She testified that after their meeting in California in
November of 2005 she bought “The Poor Man’s James Bond” and “The Survival
Chemist” with her credit card online. Lauren stated that Anna came to pick
her and Zach up in DC so they could come out to California in January. She
testified that she believed Eric really loved Anna and thought for a long
time that they were in a relationship. Later she testified that it always
seemed like they had secrets with each other. She said that they had all
talked about not getting together since they would be living in close
quarters. The USA asked Lauren how the burn book was created. She said
Anna showed up with the “burn book” and had written six explosives
recipes. She said that she was surprised and disturbed because she didn’t
want to write things down. Lauren stated that Anna replied they would burn
the book when they were done with it. She said Eric immediately agreed
with Anna even though he had opposed writing things down on an earlier
occasion. The USA then asked Lauren about if they all discussed the death
of civilians. She said yes, that “it scared the shit out of me to think
about it”. He asked what Eric’s feeling about it were and she said “to
take all necessary precautions to avoid it”. He asked her what actions
they discussed and she said the following: unspecified action against
world bank, going into a bank and burning all the money, going to a bank
and gluing the locks and ATMs, cause a blackout in the bay area, IFG,
Huntington Life Sciences action, gas stations, getting rid of dams by the
ocean so salmon can spawn and hijacking a truck full of jam and spilling
it all over the road to jam up traffic. She stated repeatedly throughout
her testimony that they never came to any agreement on a target(s) at
anytime. She said that government buildings were not really discussed. She
stated that they went to the Nimbus fish hatchery and discussed blowing
the gates off the fish ladders “somehow”. Lauren testified that they
looked at the dam from the bike trail and she said they should go out in
the desert and try pouring concrete and testing an explosive on that.
Lauren also said that she went with Anna, Eric and Zach to the Institute
of Forestry Genetics (IFG) and presented themselves as students at
American River College. She said that the person who gave tours was not
available and so they did a self guided tour until they ran into the tour
guide. She states that she was looking at the positions of the cameras and
Eric was sketching the layout of the place. Lauren stated that they all
went to San Francisco together to visit friends, to go to the library to
do research and to look for supplies. She said they weren’t able to find
what they were looking for and so they had to go to a Walmart along the
way, but still couldn’t find everything. She stated that due to these
circumstances one more shopping trip was required.
Lauren testified that she met Zach and Eric at a bike space in
Philadelphia and that they later introduced her to Anna at a really really
really really free market in a park. She stated that she let Eric, Zach
and Anna stay with her and talked to them about how/why they traveled. She
testified that Zach, Eric and herself all had very little money and
dumpster dived, begged, hopped trains, hitch hiked and ate at soups
kitchens at various points in time. She further testified that Anna bought
them meals and groceries whenever she saw them, that she drove them from
West Virginia and to Bloomington for the 2005 crimethinc convergence and
that once they were there she bought them tents. She also loaned Lauren
money at that point and stated that she had lots of money because she was
a stripper. Lauren testified that when Anna stayed at her house during the
biotech protest of June 2005 she bought them all goggles and vinegar and
said they should use it if they got tear gassed. Lauren testified that
Zach and Eric were good, gentle people who always shared and were honest.
Eric’s attorney Mark Reichel asked Lauren how she felt about flying and
she stated that it was painful for her because she had inner ear problems
and had panic attacks in places like airports. Mark asked her about about
her time in jail and her agreement to testify. She said that she was in
solitary confinement and that she was miserable. She stated that she was
granted bail but began cooperating before she left jail. She said she
agreed to cooperate to get a sentence reduction. She acknowledged that the
government keeps postponing her sentencing until after Eric's trial, and
that she doesn't want them to be unhappy during her sentencing. She
testified again that there was not agreement on targets, on claiming the
action for the ELF or on a definite time to meet again. She stated that
after the November meeting Eric was reluctant to meet, that Anna was
trying to get in touch with him and that he was difficult to keep in touch
with. Lauren testified that the night before their arrest Anna got angry
at them and left because of “lack of plans”. Lauren testified that she
worked with Zach and Eric on a schedule to prepare for an action in order
to appease Anna. She also testified that she and Eric were extremely high
at the time that this document was written in the “burn book”. She said
“It was very good marijuana and I was not in a good state of mind so I
don’t remember much”. Lauren stated that they never reached an agreement
on a recipe that they should use. She was also upset that the group had no
fixed goals and no target agreed upon. She said that Zach was hesitating
and reluctant to move faster, which also upset Anna.
Lauren testified that “Anna paid for most group things” including the
items they tried unsuccessfully to make explosives with. Lauren said “She
had lots of $100” and would give them to Eric to go in and buy things, so
that he would be paying for stuff but it would be her money. Lauren stated
that Anna also brought a big chemistry set to the cabin, though no one
asked her too. Lauren testified that Anna taught Eric how to make fuses
with gun powder and trick candles. Lauren also testified that she felt
Eric was unsophisticated when it came to explosives and that his “heresay”
recipe sounded unworkable. Lauren testified that Anna wanted everyone to
identify targets and that she was the main person interested in this.
Lauren said “she kept saying everyone needs to be a part of this” in
reference to mixing explosives and “I remember Zach having a panic
attack”. At this point Eric told Anna to “chill out.” Lauren testified
that Eric paid for no groceries while in Dutch Flat and that no one gave
Anna money for the cabin. Lauren stated that she had no other place to
stay, no transportation, no plane fare and too much stuff to carry hitch
hiking, so it would be very difficult for her to survive without Anna’s
patronage. Lauren testified that they gave up on the Nimbus Dam as a
target and did not agree on the IFG as a target. When Mark asked her who
their leader was she said “there was no leader.” When Mark asked her about
the sleeping arrangements in the cabin, she said that she and Eric were
sleeping in the master room together because she got scared alone at
night, and that there was no sexual content at all. She claimed that Eric
slept next to the wall and she slept near the door. She says she does not
remember Eric crawling over her on the night of the 12th to get out of
bed.
Lauren stated that the reason they did not set a date for their meeting in
January is that “we didn’t even know if we had a place to stay, how we
would get out there or when we would leave”. The USA said “so there were
some variables” and Lauren responded “There were tons of unknowns”. All of
these problems were solved by Anna. Lauren said “I had thoughts about
quitting but I wanted to slow down and think about it more”. Lauren also
said “Anna was like a big sister to me”. Mark asked her “were you acting
to make Anna happy” and Lauren said “Yes”. Lauren said she wanted “to
impress” Anna and that she wanted Anna to think that she was dedicated.
Lauren said “She wanted me to come outside and mix explosives and I really
didn’t want to” In regards to targets Lauren testified “we never picked
one, we couldn’t decide” “that became a conflict as well”.

Testimony of Stephen Fowler

Officer Fowler testified that he has worked for the Vallejo police
department since 1995 and is a member of the Joint Terrorism Task Force.
He conducted the computer forensic exam on the laptop that the four used
in the Dutch Flat cabin. Officer Fowler indicated in his testimony that
the training he received in computer forensics was a 30 minute
conversation with an FBI computer specialist named Art Dorell. He
described the process as imaging the hard drive of the computer and then
using software to look at all the different pathways on the hard drive to
indicate what internet searches had been done on the computer. Officer
Fowler testified that there were various internet searches done on
scientific supply stores, potassium chloride and hydrometers. When asked
by Eric’s attorney whether there were any searches done regarding the ALF
and the ELF he said he couldn’t remember. When Mark tried to ask him about
what he did remember he replied “I just recall what was put in front of
me” indicating the papers the USA gave him. He said there was no way for
them to know who was using the computer at the time of the searches.

Testimony of Zach Jensen

Zach stated that he was arrested at the G8 in Brunswick, Georgia and that
he started using the nickname Ollie. He stated that he has been cited for
marijuana possession several times and used to smoke marijuana heavily. He
testified about the conditions of his pretrial release and his job as a
pizza delivery boy in Washington. He also claimed that he has been allowed
the use of a computer (without internet access) so he can work on a book
he is writing about his travels. He testified that he is no longer an
anarchist “because anarchist politics pales in comparison to the higher
experiences of life”. He stated that he ran into Anna on the way to court
and has no harsh feelings towards her. That the terms of his plea
agreement require him to testify and that if he is not truthful he can
have his original charges reinstated, be charged with perjury or
obstruction of justice and all the information he gave the government can
be used against him. He said that he hopes the government gives him a good
recommendation when it is time for sentencing. Zach testified that he met
with the USA four times for three hour sessions to prepare for his
testimony. When the government attorney asked Zach what the Number 1 rule
of testifying was he replied “Tell the truth.” He stated that the four of
them talked about burning buildings and creating explosives. He said he
met Anna at G8 and Eric at the crimethinc convergence in Des Moines in
2004. He described Eric at that time as “pretty friendly,” “good energy,”
“charismatic,” and “magnetic.” At this point the government attorney began
questioning Zach about Eric's current partner, who was also in attendance
at the Crimethinc convergence and the RNC. Zach claimed that the two
stayed in touch during this time and that she had a way of contacting Eric
that he did not (cell phone). This is a curious statement in light of the
fact that Eric's lack of a cell phone seemed to be of serious concern to
the judge during Eric's bail hearing. Zach said that later he met up with
Eric at the Republican National Convention protest and that they discussed
Molotov cocktails. She asked him who’s idea it was and he said he didn’t
remember. At that point the court adjourned for the day.

Day 5

Upon arriving in court this morning, Eric's lawyer, Mark Reichel announced
that he had injured his back this morning and needed to go see a doctor,
as he was having trouble breathing. Because of this, court was in recess
for the morning session. As of right now (1:00), it appears that we will
not be in court again until tomorrow morning (Wednesday, September 19) at
9 am (501 “I” Street, 15th floor, room 3). If you are planning on
attending trial, please come dressed appropriately for court. No food or
drinks are allowed in the courtroom, and please make sure you turn off
your cell phones and other electronic devices. Also, it is in the best
interest of Eric's case that no one speak with the media.

Vegan Food
Eric is still being denied vegan meals! Please keep calling the jail and
request that Eric be provided with food he can eat. When you call be
prepared to sit through lots of transfers and ringing. The person who made
the decision to deny Eric food is Lt. Ilg. You can also request to speak
with his superior, Scott Jones. Make sure you have Eric's X-ref number
handy: x-2972521.

Jail administration: 916-874-6905

You can also try writing:
Captain Scott Jones
651 I St.
Sacramento, CA 95814

http://www.supporteric.org

Sign Petition for Chip Fitzgerald

Below is a online petition for political prisoner,
Chip Fitzgerald. Thirty-eight years in prison is
reason enough for you to sign it. The fact that he is
innocent of the crime that put him in prison gives you
no excuse not to.

http://www.petitiononline.com/freechip/petition.html

Free Chip,
LA ABCF

Support Ethiopian PP Daniel Bekele

From: merone <labella929@yahoo.com>

Date: September 12, 2007 10:34:38 AM EDT

Dear friends,

On October 8 2007, less than a month from today, my cousin Daniel Bekele will be judged by an Ethiopian court on charges of treason. As you know, Daniel has been a political prisoner for the past two years. If he is found guilty, he could receive the death penalty or life imprisonment.

We want to thank you for all of the support, hard work and incredible attention that you have helped to bring to Daniel's case! We have come this far and we want to ask you once again to help us to ensure that on October 8th, justice prevails and Daniel is released from prison.

Let us honor the resilience and the courage of the 80 million Ethiopians, including Daniel, who suffer daily under the current regime by calling for the respect of human rights and the release of all political prisoners.

Attached and enclosed is a letter about Daniel and his case. Please read it, forward it to your contacts and ask people to get involved!

This past June, 38 other political prisoners were released. It is imperative to understand that it was the constant attention on the gross human rights violations committed by Meles Zenawi and pressure from the Diaspora, from the Continent and from people just like you from around the world that compelled the regime in Ethiopia to release the opposition members.

Let us do the same for Daniel! Write, call and fax and demand that Daniel be released!

Below is some contact information.

His Excellency Prime Minister of Ethiopia Meles Zenawi
P.O. Box 1031, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia,
Tel. 251 11 552044 or 251 11 113241
Fax. 251 11 552020

cc: Hon. Ato. Assefa Kessito Minister of Justice,
P.O. Box 1370, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia,
Tel. 251 51 515099/ 251 51 157950,
Fax: 251 51 517755,
E-mail: justice@ethionet.et

His Excellency Seyoum Mesfin,
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ethiopia
Email: mfa.press@ethionet.et

His Excellency Kemal Bedri,
President of the Federal Supreme Court and Chairman of the National
Election Board
Email: nebe@ethionet.et

Be sure to also contact your representative in congress! Meles Zenawi's regime receives billions in aid from the U.S. and they should be held accountable for supporting his atrocities.

Go to www.justforeignpolicy.org or
http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/justforeignpolicy.org/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=11855

Join Daniel's family and friends as we call for the end of political incarceration and to a new millennium where human rights and freedoms are respected in Ethiopia.


Free them all,

Meron Wondwosen

__________________________________________________________________________

THE DANIEL BEKELE PROJECT

October 8, 2007. To many, that day holds no particular meaning or
significance. On that day, many people will go on with their daily
lives. They will go to work and spend time with family and friends.
Some may celebrate a special event, such as a birthday or an
anniversary. However, in an Ethiopian court on October 8th, it will
be a somber day where judges will determine the future of Daniel
Bekele, a human rights attorney, activist, scholar and a Prisoner of
Conscience who has been incarcerated in an Ethiopian jail for two
years. We are writing to request your legal, social and political
intervention to secure his freedom so we may memorialize that date as
the day justice prevailed for not only Daniel and Prisoners of
Conscience throughout the world, but for a society that values human
rights for all.

At the University of Oxford, Daniel is a Ph.D. candidate with a
Masters Degree in Legal Research, in addition to a L.L.B. in Law and a
Masters Degree in Development Studies from Addis Ababa University. As
an attorney, Daniel's fields of expertise are in Public International
Law, Human Rights Law and Law in Development. Daniel actively
participated in the Global Call to Action Against Poverty and he
worked as a policy and advocate manager at ActionAid Ethiopia, the
South Africa-based international development organization, where he
pushed for civic engagement in Ethiopian society. He also published
papers with a focus on the freedom of _expression and the application
of international human rights law in his homeland of Ethiopia.
Daniel's contributions and his passion for peace illustrate dedication
to his belief in a peaceful and democratic change in Ethiopia.

In the May 2005 national election, although ninety percent of
Ethiopians voted for the opposition party, Prime Minister Meles
Zenawi's ruling party rigged the election in its favor. Leading
members of the opposition party, Coalition for Unity and Democracy,
protested the electoral fraud. Clashes with Zenawi's ruling party led
to the murder of 86 protesters and the wounding and illegal jailing of
tens of thousands of civilians in the June 8th and November 1st Addis
Ababa massacres. Ethiopians faced displacement and the
destabilization of the country at the hands of the Zenawi regime,
while it seemed that the international community turned a deaf ear to
Ethiopians' cries for help.

Those who are entrusted with the force of governmental power should
apply that power with justice and equity, not to silence those
individuals who express views contradictory of the government's
stance. Many Ethiopians chose to oppose the repression of the Zenawi
regime through political activism, peaceful protests and strikes. The
regime retaliated with the arrest of thousands. Ethiopian Security
Forces brutally pistol-whipped Daniel two weeks prior to his arrest.
His sole crime was allegedly making statements critical of the regime.
Daniel and others who did not participate in the demonstrations were
later arrested on the suspicion that they had fomented the alleged
civil unrest. On November 1st 2005, Daniel, with 128 people and four
organizations, was officially charged with the 'crime of outrage
against the Constitution and the constitutional order'.

Individuals, such as Daniel, should not be condemned to harassment,
intimidation, unlawful imprisonment and death for expressing their
beliefs in a lawful manner against the Zenawi regime. Amnesty
International believes that Daniel is a Prisoner of Conscience who
should not be facing charges carrying possible death sentences.
Capital punishment or the threat of death should not be used as
vengeance against the opposition and those unpopular with a
government.

The Zenawi regime proclaimed that Daniel and others have received a
fair trial. Yet they have denied Ethiopia's citizens the freedom of
assembly and _expression while simultaneously replacing human rights
with systematic murder, repression and brutality. Although the Zenawi
government claimed that all defendants were treated properly, Daniel
was subjected to continuous psychological and physical torture. He
faced sleep deprivation and officers forced him to sleep in a shipping
container. He was ultimately moved into a crowded cell with more than
250 inmates. As a result, it was exceptionally difficult for him to
adequately prepare for his trial.

On July 20, 2007, 38 prisoners were released only after they signed a
document asking for clemency for crimes they did not commit. The
Zenawi government came under strong international pressure to release
these prisoners. However, the prisoners were freed only after signing
an apology admitting to organizing violent election protests. Zenawi
stated that these pardons proved 'that the sorry saga was now fully
behind us". However, Daniel remains in prison due to his refusal to
sign the government's document because of his belief that justice
would prevail and that he will not be found guilty for crimes he did
not commit.

A fair and just government should correct social and political
injustices. It should advocate a humanitarian sensibility, not
degrade and undermine the humanity of an individual and society as a
whole. The Zenawi regime raises crucial questions of freedom, liberty
and justice. The injustices committed in Ethiopia should shock the
conscience of the global community so as to propel it into action to
end the massive violations of human rights by the Zenawi regime. We
must safeguard fundamental principles and human rights regardless of
an individual's nationality.

The internalization of human rights sets in motion a legal and moral
obligation not to disregard the gross human rights violations in
Ethiopia because these violations are outside our borders. We cannot
condone human atrocities in the mistaken belief that those actions
committed beyond our borders do not involve us because they do not
occur in our backyard. Democracy and the belief that every being has
the inalienable right to justice and freedom requires us to accept
that the world is our backyard and we must protect it against the
injustices and inhumanity perpetrated by any government against its
citizens.

Silence is not golden. It is non-reactive, unproductive and inhumane.
We risk our humanity by allowing ourselves to close our eyes to the
atrocities that are committed by the Ethiopian regime. Moreover we
share in the complicity of a government's crimes against humanity if
we do not speak out on behalf of those who have fought for the human
rights of others. It is crucial, not only for Ethiopians, but for us
as an international community to recapture the moral authority that
vanished in the wake of the Zenawi regime. The evil is not that the
laws are wanting, but that they cannot or will not be enforced. We
must regain a commitment to redress the wrongs against humanity and
justice. To paraphrase Jean Jacques Rousseau, to renounce liberty is
to renounce one's humanity and such a renunciation is incompatible
with the nature of humankind.

Today, Daniel Bekele's future, and most importantly, his life hangs in
the balance. We can no longer dismiss or disregard the emotional and
mental violence that he has succumbed to during his imprisonment. We
can never erase the imprint of this violence on his life, but we can
end his suffering by making sure that justice prevails in his case.
We seek your help in addressing the human rights violations already
committed by the Zenawi regime. It is imperative, however, that
Daniel's future path is a freedom from imprisonment and not a path to
the death chambers of Ethiopia. We must not only save Daniel, but
save the principles of humanity and justice for all.

FREE 'EM ALL.

RISE ETHIOPIA RISE!!

www.danielbekele.blogspot.com

Endorse the Cuban 5 Month

The ProLibertad Freedom Campaign is proud to forward this mesage in
solidarity with the Cuban 5 and the FRee the Five Month with the
Cuban 5...PLEASE FORWARD OUT FAR AND WIDE!!

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
_______________________________________________________________________________

Between Sept. 12th-Oct. 12th, The Popular Education Project to Free
theCuban 5 is building a calendar of events throughout New York
City/otherciities for the Cuban 5 and we wanted to know if we could
work together on an event for the 5 and endorse this calendar.

FREE THE CUBAN 5 MONTH SEPT. 12TH-OCT. 12TH, 2007

Initial Endorsers:
The Popular Education Project to Free the Cuban 5
International Committee to Free the Cuban 5
The New York Free the Five Committee
The International Action Center
The ProLibertad Freedom Campaign
Frente Socialista-Comite de Nueva York
The Venceremos Brigade
Young Socialists
NYC Anarchist Black Cross
NYC FRee Mumia Coalition
Socialist Worker's Party
Rainbow Solidarity with the Cuban 5
The December 12th Movement

"Ours may be one of the most ridiculous accusations of espionage in
thehistory of this country"-Gerardo Hernandez Nordelo, The Cuban 5

THE FULL FREE THE FIVE MONTH CALENDAR IS COMING!!

This September 12th, 2007 will mark the 9th year anniversary of the
arrestof the Cuban 5; five US held Cuban political prisoners
incarcerated forprotecting Cuba from U.S. sponsored terrorist
actions. Last year, President Ricardo Alarcon, of the Cuban
Parliament, declared Sept. 12 th through October 6th to be a period
of time to raise awareness onthe case of the Cuban 5.

The Popular Education Project to Free the Cuban 5took this
proclamation as a call to action. By publishing this callthrough
various list serves and community mediums, we were able to
motivateorganizations, individuals, teachers, clergy and students to
organize aseries of events throughout the U.S., Latin America and the
Caribbean.

The Popular Education Project to Free the Cuban 5 is committed to
building an international movement for the Cuban 5 by making Sept. 12
th-October 12th"Free the Cuban 5 Month." We have extended the period
of time incommemoration of the 40th anniversary of Ernest "Che"
Guevara'sassassination by the Bolivian army, under the direction of
the CIA.

We are asking organizations in New York City to endorse "Free the
Cuban 5Month" and to organize an event dedicated to the Cuban 5
within yourcommunity or for your constituency. Our goal is to
organize a calendar ofevents throughout New York City and
internationally that can be circulatedthrough colleges, communities,
unions, and churches. O

ur goal is to educate, organize and mobilize as many people as
possible to support thework to free the Cuban 5. In order to endorse,
email the Project at: freethecubanfive@hotmail.com and let us know
which date within the month you will organize your event. Join us in
building the worldwide movement to free the Cuban 5. Cuba iscalling
for our support and solidarity; we cannot stand by and let thisperiod
of time go by without action, education and fund-raising.

Email us with your endorsement and your activity as soon as you possible.

FREE THE CUBAN 5!!
Benjamin Ramos,
Frank Velgara,
The Popular Education Project to Free the Cuban 5

American Animal Rights Prisoner

Urgent ELP! Bulletin (18th September 2007)

Dear friends

An American, Joshua Rosenberg, has been arrested and remanded into
custody accused of damaging windows of a resturant selling foie gras.

Please send letters of support to:

Joshua Rosenberg - 11/16/1977
Travis County Correctional Complex
3614 Bill Price Road
Del Valle, TX 78617
USA

Please note Josh's name and date of birth must be included on the
envelope. Unless he makes bail, it looks like he'll be held until at
least October 3 (see below article).

Hearing set for man charged in restaurant vandalism
Arrest made in foie gras case.

By Dale Rice
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

A court hearing has been set for Oct. 3 in the case of Joshua
Rosenberg, who was arrested last week and charged with criminal
mischief in connection with the vandalism of Restaurant Jezebel.

Bail for Rosenberg, 29, who remained in the Travis County Jail on
Monday, was set at $20,000 on the felony charge. He was arrested
Sept. 10 by Austin police.

The charges stem from an incident that occurred in late August,
when Rosenberg participated in an evening demonstration against the
serving of foie gras (the liver of force-fed ducks or geese) in
front of the restaurant. He is accused of returning about eight
hours later to deface the restaurant windows with acid after
cutting power to the building.

Video cameras on backup battery power captured the vandalism, and
Jezebel chef-owner Parind Vora turned over the information to
police.

That damage followed an earlier round of vandalism, when someone
spray-painted slogans on Jezebel and four other restaurants that
serve foie gras or veal: Aquarelle, Fleming's Prime Steakhouse,
Ruth's Chris Steak House and Spaghetti Warehouse. Under the name
"Vegangstar," someone put photos on the Internet and took credit
for that vandalism.

The vandalism occurred after Central Texas Animal Defense launched
a campaign against foie gras this summer in Austin, with Jezebel as
its primary target. Noah Cooper, coordinator of the campaign, said
Monday that it was unfortunate that the suspect was linked to his
organization.

"We tried all along to make it clear that's an approach we don't
want to take," he said. "We don't want to be associated with that."

Cooper said Rosenberg attended the Jezebel demonstrations
sporadically and never discussed any potential vandalism with other
members of the group, which intends to continue its protests
outside Jezebel, at 914 Congress Ave., every Tuesday and Friday
during dinner, Cooper said.

Although the campaign hasn't succeeded in removing the fare from
Jezebel's menu, it has had an educational value among those who
walked by the restaurant and learned about the process, he said.

Cooper said fear of a similar campaign may have prompted other
restaurants to take quick action. The effort against the serving of
foie gras recently expanded to San Antonio, he said, and two
restaurants there have removed the dish from the menu.

Closing Arguments in Coronado Free Speech Trial on Monday

From: Support for Rod Coronado <info@supportrod.org>

For immediate release – September 17, 2007

Contact: Karen Pickett on-site cell: 510-316-2722; message phone 510-548-3113

Case expected to go to jury by Monday afternoon

San Diego, CA- Attorney Tony Serra for the defense and the government’s attorney will
present closing arguments in activist Rod Coronado’s First Amendment trial at 9 a.m.
Monday morning in room 16, 5th floor of the Federal District Court, 940 Front St.,
San Diego, California. Preceding closing statements, the judge will issue jury
instructions. The case will then be in the hands of the jury.

On Thursday Sept. 13, testimony of a San Diego police officer present at the
speech at issue, was impeached, as a key piece of new evidence was introduced.
After undercover San Diego counter-intelligence cop Joseph Lehr insisted that
Coronado responded to a question about making a “bomb for an action,” a
recently-surfaced audio recording clearly established that the
question from the audience on August 1, 2003 did not include the words “bomb”
or “for an action.” The exact wording of the question following the environmental
speech is central to the case, since government charges are based on Coronado’s
answer.

The government is prosecuting Coronado under an obscure statute (18 USC § 842
(p)(2)(A)), which makes it a crime to demonstrate how to build a destructive
device with the intent that it be used in furtherance of a crime of violence.
They say he intended to foment criminal activity based on his answer, and that
his speech is not protected by the First Amendment. In order to deny that
protection, however, the government must prove his intent.

The Supreme Court has carved out three famous exceptions to free speech: the
“fighting words” exception (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire), the obscenity
exception (Miller v. California), and the “clear and present danger” exception
(Brandenburg v. Ohio). However, each exception is extremely limited. The
Brandenburg decision states the incitement to violence must be
imminent—unlike, one assumes, the public call for assassination of Venezuelan
president Hugo Chavez by Christian fundamentalist and broadcaster Pat Robertson
in 2005.

After the audio recording played for the jury with a transcript on screen on
Thursday, the defense called as a witness Cari Shaw, the young woman who
actually posed the question. She corroborated the words on the recording as a
question about how an incendiary device is made, and testified that her
impression was that Rod’s explanation of incendiary devices was a recital of
his and others’ acts of the past, rather than a specific call to action. Two
subsequent witnesses, also present at the 2003 speech, both testified to an
absence of incitement to immediate action by Coronado’s words.

The jury seated in this case includes seven women and five men, with two
alternates, one Hispanic male and one Caucasian female. The jury includes one
African-American, one Hispanic, one Filipino; the remaining jurors
assumed to be Caucasian.

A press conference will be held in front of the courthouse after the
verdict is delivered. Press packets with background information are available
electronically and at the courthouse through Karen Pickett.

More info at http://supportrod.org

John Bowden & The Battle of Lewisham

On the 13th of August 1977 the fascist National Front attempted to march from New Cross in London to Lewisham. The march through an immigrant area was deliberately provocative, and protected by a huge police presence. Both the NF and the cops however bit off more than they could chew that day as thousands of antifascists and local people mobilised to confront the march. For the first time, riot shields were used by British police (who had previously only used them in the north of Ireland) and there was fierce hand to hand fighting, with more than a hundred antifascists arrested. But the march was utterly smashed, and the NF routed. It was a decisive event in British antifascist history, and one from which the NF never recovered.

One of the many antifascists arrested that day was John Bowden. In the weeks before the march, John had been involved in mobilising support for the counter-demo, and was arrested on the day for throwing a smoke flare at the NF as they lined-up to march from New Cross.

Last Saturday saw a commemorative event for the 30th anniversary of The Battle of Lewisham, with a walk along the route the fascists planned to take. As John Bowden was unable to attend the event himself, a supporter (also a veteran of the battle) spoke about John's role, and 'Free John Bowden' stickers lined the enitre route.

New anarchist prisoner in Greece

The night of September 8th during the Thessaloniki "Helexpo"
international fair some 30-40 youths wearing masks and helmets
lifted a banner with a slogan against the upcoming elections in
Greece and the forest arsons marked with an A circled outside the
Helexpo area.

 Then there were some clashes in this area close to the
universities between youths and undercover policemen that raid the
universities and arrested a 19 y.o. anarchist woman outside the
university library. 2 more persons under arrest were taken
back-liberated by other youths during the clashes, three cops got
beaten up and a police car damaged.

 The anarchist's name is Christina Tonidou, and she has written a
letter on her arrest that can be found here:
http://athens.indymedia.org/front.php3?lang=en&article_id=763532

 On the morning of 13.09.2007, Christina Tonidou was set in
pre-trial detention. According to greek law she can be held up to
18 months without a trial. She is charged with two felonies and
eight misdemeanours.

you can also find a report on the Sept 8th clashes here:
> http://directactiongr.blogspot.com/2007/09/clashes-at-helexpo-thessaloniki.html

Sadie and Exile Book Wishlists

From: solidaritywithsadieandexile@gmail.com

Date: September 16, 2007 9:54:54 AM EDT

Sadie and Exile now have updated booklists on Amazon.com, albeit

rather short ones due to restrictions on the number of books the are

allowed to have. They are both always really grateful for the gift of

reading material. If you can, and do decide to send one, it would be

great if you could let us know so we can try to keep the lists updated

to avoid duplicates. Thanks!

Sadie:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/registry.html/105-1018301-2800416?ie=UTF8&type=wishlist&id=R1132UCY4TRE

Joyanna Zacher #36360-086

FCI Dublin

Federal Correctional Institution

5701 8th St - Camp Parks - Unit F

Dublin, CA 94568

Exile:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/wishlist/1DO25RRIKJRJZ/ref=cm_wl_rlist_go/102-9540250-6496151

Nathan Block #36359-086

FCI Lompoc

Federal Correctional Institution

3600 Guard Road

Lompoc, CA 93436

La. appeal court overturns conviction in `Jena Six' case

http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?s=7077263

NEW ORLEANS -- A state appeals court Friday tossed out the aggravated battery conviction that could have sent a black teenager to prison for 15 years in last year's beating of a white classmate in the racially tense north Louisiana town of Jena.

Mychal Bell, who was 16 at the time of the December beating, should not have been tried as an adult on the battery charge, the state Third Circuit Court of Appeal in Lake Charles ruled late Friday.

Bell is one of six black Jena High School students charged in an attack on fellow student Justin Barker, and one of five originally charged as adults with attempted second-degree murder.

The charges brought widespread criticism that blacks were being treated more harshly than whites after racial altercations at their school.

He was to be sentenced this coming Thursday in a case that has brought international attention to Jena. Civil rights leaders, including the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, have been planning a rally in support of the teens that same day.

While teenagers can be tried as adults in Louisiana for some violent crimes, including attempted murder, aggravated battery is not one of those crimes. Defense lawyers had argued that the aggravated battery case should not have been tried in adult court once the attempted murder charge was reduced.

"The defendant was not tried on an offense which could have subjected him to the jurisdiction of the criminal court," the three-paragraph ruling said.

The case "remains exclusively in juvenile court," the Third Circuit ruled.

Report from Running Down the Walls

Report From Los Angeles Running Down the Walls 2007

On September 8th, LA ABCF had a great success with
this years Running Down the Walls (RDTW). We had the
event at Whittier Narrows Regional Park, a large and
beautiful park right in the heart of El Monte, CA. The
route circled around two lakes, which provide a great
opportunity to reflect on the purpose of the day. At
the beginning of the run, participants were reminded
of the other solidarity runs taking place USP Big
Sandy, MCI Walpole, Boston and West Massachusetts.
While the main part of the run began at 10:15 am, the
actual event took place over several hours as people
came throughout the day to support the event and enjoy
the weather. In the past, we have had Rob Middaugh and
Sara Jane Olson at our runs. Both supported the event
prior to their imprisonment. This year, former
political prisoner, Matt Lamont, was at the run. We
hope this changes the trend from future political
prisoners to former political prisoners at Running
Down the Walls.

Also joining us at the event was LA Food Not Bombs,
who graciously provided food the event. We wish to
personally thank them for their efforts. While we are
taking the time to recognize people, we would like to
take a moment to recognize two participants of the
run: Ami who raised the most amount and Brian who put
everyone in his dust, taking first place in the run.
Both received $25 to be used at AK Press. We wish to
also thank AK Press for their generous prizes.

In all thirty people joined us at this year's run,
contributing close to $1,700.

Funds raised will be given to the ABCF Warchest and
the Black Rider Liberation Party. Once again thanks to
all that participated in LA's RDTW.

Reports from all the runs will be posted at the LA
ABCF site at:
http://www.abcf.net/la/laabcf.asp?page=lardtw

"Leaderless movement proves illusive: University researcher probes for motivations behind"

From EurekaAlert

Leaderless movement proves illusive: University researcher probes for motivations behind
'ecoterrorist' group

Ask the FBI, and they will contend that a dangerous wave of “ecoterrorism” has swept North America in the past decade. Ski resorts, new condominium developments and corporate logging headquarters have all been the target of arson attacks, pushing the damage tally of a shadowy organization called the Earth Liberation Front past the $100 million mark. The FBI’s concern has reached such a fervor, in fact, that it labeled environmental terrorism as the number one domestic terrorism threat in 2005.

A new study by University of Alberta researcher Paul Joosse cautions against any surety about the ideological motivations behind the arsons, however. “While many of the acts were purportedly done in the name of the Earth Liberation Front, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the acts were actually committed for environmental reasons,” says Joosse. The reason for the confusion" The Earth Liberation Front (or ELF, for short) uses an organizational strategy called ‘leaderless resistance,’ whereby small cells choose when, how, and against whom to act—and then make a claim of responsibility on behalf of the mother group. This means that the individual arsonists are not bound by the ethical guidelines of the larger organization, and that they may be acting for entirely personal reasons. “In the past, people have spoken in the name of the group” says Joosse, “but actually it’s a movement bereft of leaders, so you can’t pin the movement to a single issue, or even a common ideology.”

When perpetrators have been caught, however, they often bear the full burden of being associated with and “eco-terrorist organization.” Take the case of Jeffrey Luers, for example. In 2000, he was sentenced to a 22-year prison term for his role in fire-bombing three SUVs, causing $60,000 in damages to property, but harming no one. He never claimed affiliation with the ELF, but because his actions looked very much like them, his sentence ranked in the same category as those regularly given in the state of Oregon for attempted murder, manslaughter one, rape one, and kidnapping. Other convicted ELF arsonists have been subjected to a ‘terrorism enhancement’ clause that has added decades to their sentences.

Many in the environmentalist community have described Luers’ and others’ sentences as draconian, and have decried the bullish surveillance and investigative practices of state agencies such as the FBI. “To them, we are in a time of the ‘green scare’” says Joosse—an allusion to the ‘Red Scare’ of the McCarthy era earlier in the twentieth century. American state agencies, on the other hand, have justified their investigative practices as being necessary in the time of the “war on terror,” and maintain, as FBI Director Robert Mueller did, that “Terrorism is Terrorism, no matter what the motive.”


###
Joosse presented his research at the Western Society of Criminology’s annual meeting in Scottsdale, Arizona, and the study was recently published in the journal, Terrorism and Political Violence.

Free the Jena 6

Dear friends,

If you haven’t yet heard about the movement to Free the Jena 6, stop what you’re doing and read this: http://www.revcom.us/a/101/jena-en.html (or scroll down for the basics on this case).

I am writing in some urgency to solicit your help in contributing and raising the money to send a busload of students, Harlem residents and revolutionaries down to Jena, Louisiana next Thursday for the sentencing of Mychal Bell. He is the first of six Black high school students facing decades in prison after a grotesque Jim Crow trial for standing up against NOOSES hung from a “whites only” tree in their schoolyard.

On Thursday, September 20th, Mychal Bell – convicted before an all-white jury without a single witness being called on his behalf – will be sentenced. He has been in jail since December 4th – already having done more time than the police officers who shot Sean Bell 50 times.

A line must be drawn and the Jena Six must go free!

The Revolution Clubs in Harlem and Revolution Books have been out on the streets in Harlem, on campuses and in classrooms around the city spreading the word about this case and the profound struggle needed to defeat it. Now, they are organizing a bus to get down to Jena next Thursday (see a picture below). We have to draw a line in Jena – and we can. This case has struck a nerve. They’ve spoken in front of 400 students at a Bushwick High School (where 35 were arrested for going to a friend’s funeral last year) where they’re working on logistics to get 25 youth on the bus and among 200 people we met in Harlem who expressed interest to get on the bus, 2 homeless men have put down $7 deposits to hold their seats while they try to raise the $200 they would each need. And all of that just happened in one day.

You can make a critical difference. Nooses must not be allowed to fly. Not in 2007. Not ever.

1. Get on the bus to be in Jena on Thursday, September 20th. (Busses will be leaving NY on Tuesday night.) Spread the word. Wear black on Thursday. Walk out of school or work. Send a message: Drop all the charges! Free the Jena 6!

2. Give a contribution towards a bus of Harlem residents, students, revolutionaries and others to be in Jena. In order to sell tickets for $25 – 100 each we need to raise donations of $10,000 (and this is just to fill one bus).

Go to Revolution Newspaper’s website, www.revcom.us for updated information on the case.

This legal lynching cannot be allowed to go down.

_________________

BUDGET (call me at 917.971.4588 if you can contribute, as the contributions will go directly to the bus company):

Bus for a 22-hour trip each way – $9,000

Food and shelter for 45 people – $1,000

Bus parking in Manhattan or transportation to Newark for 45 people – $1,000

Ticket price at present: $200 a ticket

________________

All Out! Support National Days of Protest to Free the Jena Six

Posted at http://www.revcom.us/a/100/jena-edit-en.html

“This is an outrage!”

“This is appalling in every sense of the word.”

“This should not be tolerated…any longer!”

“This injustice, inequality and racism infuriates me.”

“These young men gotta be freed!”

“What can I do?”

This is what people SAY when they hear about the case of the Jena 6.

AND NOW THIS MASS SENTIMENT MUST BECOME A MATERIAL POLITICAL FORCE TO STOP A GREAT INJUSTICE.

The “Jena 6” are six Black students in Jena, Louisiana, who could go to prison for decades because they stood up against deeply entrenched racism.

This all started on September 1, 2006. Black students at Jena High sat under what had been, in 2006(!), a “WHITE ONLY TREE.”

The next day, racist students hung three NOOSES from the tree.

For all to see, a straight-up racist threat: KKK. Lynching. Black bodies at the bottom of the river.

Dozens of Black students stand together under the tree in a courageous, defiant protest. A school assembly is called where a white district attorney tells the Black students to keep their mouths shut about the nooses. Then he threatens them: “I can take away your lives with a stroke of my pen.” When racist white students jump a Black student walking into a party in Jena, one white student gets probation. Later, when a Jena white threatens a Black student with a gun, and the Black student disarms him, it’s the African-American who is arrested. And then when a fight breaks out that sends a white student to the hospital for an hour, the law comes down on six Black students, charging them with attempted murder.

16-year-old Mychal Bell has already been convicted—by an all-white jury, without a single witness being called on his behalf—of second-degree battery and conspiracy to commit second-degree battery. He faces up to 22 years in prison. And the system continues to threaten to ruin the lives of the other five youth who still face serious charges.

The railroading and persecution of these young Black men doesn’t have anything to do with who did what to whom in a schoolyard fight—they are being punished because they, and the other Black students in Jena, dared to stand up against outrageous discrimination!

Up Against a System

The case of the Jena 6 concentrates the situation that still exists throughout this country—where racism and segregation is the status quo and white supremacy is enforced in unofficial but also OFFICIAL ways this whole system operates. School officials, police, courts, authorities, and government officials have worked together to persecute the Jena 6. And this was approved from the highest authorities in the land when a representative of the US Justice Department came to Jena and said they could find no violation in the way Jena High authorities have handled things and that in fact “all of their procedures were ‘regular’ and not ‘irregular.’”

No real punishment for white students who hang lynch nooses on a schoolyard tree: REGULAR. Threatening Black students who protest this racist threat: REGULAR. Giving a slap on the hand to white students who attack Black students: REGULAR. Black students facing decades of prison time for fighting with white students: REGULAR.

This is the REGULAR workings of a white supremacist system. A system whose very foundations are deeply entwined with the outright slavery and oppression of Black people.

A system which has no future for the masses of Black youth—for millions and millions of Black youth, what they can expect is a future of low-wage jobs at best, along with incarceration, police murder, demonization, and full-out criminalization. And for those who do “make it out,” there is still the continual battle against discrimination and oppression at every turn.

Time to ACT!

It is not enough for many people to just know about the Jena 6. It is not enough for people to just be outraged about this case. It is not enough for people to read about it, or for a few well-known people to “shine a light” on it. It will take a truly mass struggle by the people to FREE THE JENA 6. A struggle that is broad, diverse, and determined. And every person of conscience must ask: WHAT AM I DOING TO STOP THIS GREAT INJUSTICE?

Across the country people are beginning to organize protests demanding Free the Jena 6. We are calling for people to support these protests, including two NATIONAL DAYS OF ACTION TO FREE THE JENA 6 ON SEPTEMBER 12 AND 20 —DETERMINED, DEFIANT ACTION THAT SAYS:

NO TO WHITE SUPREMACY. WE DEMAND: FREE THE JENA 6. WE WILL KEEP ON FIGHTING UNTIL ALL THE CHARGES ARE DROPPED. THIS SYSTEM OWES THESE YOUTH AN APOLOGY!

SEPTEMBER 20 – The day Mychal Bell is scheduled to be sentenced: Join with and build the broad call that has gone out for people to COME TO JENA! PEOPLE FROM ALL OVER THE COUNTRY, FROM ALL WALKS OF LIFE, OF ALL NATIONALITIES – CHARTER BUSES, CAR POOL, BUY A PLANE TICKET, AND COME TO JENA FOR A MASS PROTEST. People all over the country and the world: find ways to boldly and in a mass way manifest and stand in solidarity with the struggle in Jena.

FREE THE JENA 6!

DROP ALL THE CHARGES!

Coronado trial Sept. 13 court report

Sept 13 Court Update: Rod Coronado Trial

Kelly Stewart, Sheriff Dep’t. undercover cop still on stand.
Prosecutor Parmley brings up that there is new evidence—this is the
audio that the defense uncovered, of the *question* in question, and
subsequent answer. (Background: it is an audio recording whose
existence was apparently heretofore unknown. Likely a small recorder   in
someone’s pocket.)

Prosecution gets Stewart to establish that the government did (and   she
participated in) investigations and questioning of people,
including Grand Juries and search warrants to locate additional
recordings, but this recording had not come to light (or sound). It   is
poor quality, but comprehensible. The government made a
transcript. Once established that the tape exists, it is played in   court.

The words: “Can you really explain to us, how to, at some point, how   to
assemble an incendiary device?” And then Rod’s rather long answer
discussing two kinds of such devices, and the demonstration using the
apple juice jug.  (Partial: incendiary devices are devices that do   not
explode, but consist of a timer, 2 wires....(much more) when 2   wires
connect, it completes electrical
circuit...filament...windproof matches, can of fuel, etc.  He says   “More
popular today, however”, and then discusses jug method using   the
Martinelli’s half gallon jug from the potluck that evening and a
cassette tape as props and discusses using lamp oil, sponge, stick
incense.)

He says “It’s dangerous. A person could do serious prison time,
citing Jeff Luers case, emphasizing that his sentence was more than a
rapist would get. Rod says (on tape) “I began as a strict
liberationist...but I saw that when we set the animals free, the labs
just go to Marshals catalog and order 1200 more...that’s why we use
other tactics...”

Tony Serra checks for accuracy of words in re cross examination.   Stewart
admits to participating in the investigations of the
government, but not until two years after the speaking engagement.

GOVERNMENT RESTS

Defense launches. Re-calls undercover officer Joe Lehr
When Tony Serra asks Lehr is he has seen the transcript, Lehr replied
that it was laying on the witness stand when he took his seat, to   which
Serra replies, “Don’t you mean LYING?!!”  Tony then proceeds to   impeach
Lehr through exposing his on-stand lie (made up quote from   Rod,
different from real quote.)

Tony quotes his previous testimony where Lehr said the woman asked,   “Can
you tell us how to make a bomb for an action?”
Tony asks Lehr if he has been exposed to the audio of the actual
question. Lehr reads transcript.
T: Do you see lack of reference to bomb or action?
L reads.
T: Does that now refresh or shock your memory?
L: No, I do not recall that being asked.
T: Is that why it isn’t in your report?
(They are dancing around the fact that Lehr LIED and made up a
question because the prosecution believed until today that no audio
existed. So it would have been the cops’ word against the activists’
word.)
T: isn’t it a fact that you substituted *bomb* for incendiary device,
and that you added “for an action” Doesn’t that change the entire
meaning of the phrase?
Lehr admits to the substitution.
You misstated the truth in your report! (obj/sus)

On re cross, Skerlos asks Lehr whether he is familiar with the
federal statute under which Rod is chrged, Lehr says not very familiar.
Tony comes back to this and gets out “another mis spoke” before the
objection arising from govt’s table is sustained.

First defense witness Cari Shaw. Questioned by Omar Figueroa
Cari is the person who asked THE QUESTION in question.  She testified
that she did not really know Rod and when he came to their house   prior
to his speech, they didn’t discuss upcoming speech and
certainly did not plan a question (absolutely not, she said.) They   get
to the question that she asked that night, and Omar asks whether   she
asked about a bomb for an action. She says no and that she would   not
have.

When Skerlos crosses her, he is aggressive, rude, and dives into   grand
jury matters, citing fact that her husband, David Agranoff was   called
before the Grand Jury. Cari says it was never clear to her   what the
purpose of the Grand Jury proceedings was. After Skerlos   says “Let’s
talk about the GJ,” the lawyers go up for a long side bar.

In continuing unfriendly questioning of this key witness, it is
established her question was spontaneous, and than she does not,   infact,
agree with many of Rod’s stated positions and politics.
Skerlos asked what sparked (haha) her interest to ask a question—was   it
something that was said that made her want to learn how to  make   an
incendiary device?
She said “I didn’t necessarily want to learn.” The way she recalled   his
answer she said was that it was more about what had been done   than “how
to”. She also said that she feels she bears responsibility   for the
situation whereby Rod ended up in court in San Diego. She is   a calm and
cool witness, though obviously inexperienced in this sort   of thing. It
makes her all the more credible.
Next witness is Michelle Luneau, questioned by Jerry Singleton.
She is a student at UCB and attended the speech, bringing her 13 year
old brother. She was also called before the S.D. Grand Jury.  Jerry
asked if anyone ran out saying “Let’s Burn It Down!”  No. She and the
following witness established that it was a crowd of ordinary people   who
happen to care about the environment that attended Rod’s speech,   and no
one felt the crowd was incited to take immediate action based   on
suggestions by Rod.
The next and final defense witness was Colleen Deisel, again
questioned by Jerry. She has a recycling business and runs the Green
Store. She too was subpoenaed by the GJ.  Apparently she had told the   GJ
the two “most radical” speeches she had heard were Rod’s 2003   speech and
one by Paul Watson.  But despite the fact that she
maintains she considers herself radical and is passionately non-
violent, on cross examination, Government prosecutor said “I am
defining radical as being violent” so that it would follow that Rod’s
speech was being characterized as one of the most violent. She did   not
say this, and somehow, Parmley gets to rewrite Miriam Webster   undeterred
by the judge. After she said, in response to her friend’s   shock at Rod’s
strong words, “He served his time; he has the right to   talk about things
he did. He was relating information about
incendiary devices with a historical perspective, the defense case   wraps
up.

DEFENSE RESTS.
Closing arguments and jury instructions on Monday Sept. 17. Case is
expected to go to the jury by mid-day Monday.

Notation:
In 9/11/07 tv coverage of the start of the trial, the teaser (played
about 6x) and lead image to the story was the 3 am Aug. 1, 2003 fire
claimed by ELF. Through this was 15 hours or so before Rod’s speech   and
ha nothing to do with his charges, the link continues to be made   by that
media who care little about accuracy, and government
prosecutors who have never cared about accuracy. They played video
footage of the fire for the jury.

Death Row Rights web-site

Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 01:30:25 EDT
From: Honupapi@aol.com
Subject: Death Row Rights web-site

Hello,
Our web-site consist of information on our lawsuit against the P.L.O. at
San Quentin State Prison. We are engaged in a class action suit for Death
Row inmates Civil rights. And we hope that you can help us get the word out
so the public in general are informed. Please take a look at our web-site"
_www.deathrowrights.org_ (http://www.deathrowrights.org/) " .

And let us know if you can help us in any way by linking our web-site to
yours..

Sincerely,
Jamy Serna Death Row Rights President

Kenneth Foster's new address

Hello All.

Kenneth Foster has been moved to his new facility, the McConnell Unit,
located about 100 miles south of San Antonio.

Kenneth's friend Adam reports:

"I just got off the phone with the McConnell Unit and that is where he will
be staying. They couldn't tell me why, but he is in the lowest custody level
(G5) which means he has the most restrictions. He is allowed only 2 visits
per month and cannot have contact visits. He will have a review every 6
months to determine if they will move him up but I think they are just
messing with him. Also they said because of lack of space he is being held
in closed custody which is solitary. They don't know when or if he will be
moved to population. G5 is supposed to be in population.

You can write to him at:

Kenneth Foster Jr. #1451768
McConnell Unit
3001 South Emily Drive
Beeville, TX 78102"

“Today’s terrorist is tomorrow’s freedom fighter.”
— SHAC leader Kevin Kjonaas, at the Animal Rights 2002 convention

Myspace: http://www.myspace.com/humansrcruel

Oct 27th march against the death penalty in Houston

From: Massoud Nayeri [massoud1@alltel.net]

Dear Friends:

Good News. Just today, two more executions have been stayed (see below). If
you get close to the big wall these days you will see a big crack on it. We
only have to recognize it. let's build up the Oct 27th march against the
death penalty in Houston.

I have made the new endorsement form and Dan has already posted on the web
site, please visit:

www.marchtoendexecution.org

Please print minimum of 10 copies of this form and get 10 new endorsements
from your churches, community centers, organizations, local - national and
international human rights leaders and activists.

OCTOBER 27th, is the day that Texas will end the death penalty. It is
possible.

Massoud

FYI: Partial notes from Rick Halperin <rhalperi@mail.smu.edu>:

1) The execution of Ralph Baze Jr., convicted of the 1992 slayings of two
police officers, has been stayed by the state Supreme Court. .....

2) The scheduled Thursday night execution of a Texas prisoner for his part
in the slaying of 2 workers during a robbery was stopped after the Dallas
County district attorney's office asked that the execution order be
withdrawn. .....

“Today’s terrorist is tomorrow’s freedom fighter.”
— SHAC leader Kevin Kjonaas, at the Animal Rights 2002 convention

Myspace: http://www.myspace.com/humansrcruel

Hard Hitting Mumia Abu-Jamal Film Launched

'In Prison My Whole Life' will screen during London Film Festival

Amnesty International

A new documentary film on the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal will screen at the
London Film Festival next month. The film has the support of Amnesty
International as part of its international campaign to abolish the death
penalty.

The feature-length documentary, 'In Prison My Whole Life', examines the
controversial case of Mumia Abu-Jamal, a former Black Panther Party activist
who has been in prison for murder in the United States since 1981, much of
that time facing a death sentence. There are serious doubts about the
fairness of Mumia Abu-Jamal's original trial and he is currently appealing
against his conviction. Amnesty international is calling for fresh trial.

The 90-minute film profiles Mumia Abu-Jamal's case through the eyes of
25-year-year-old William Francome, born on the day of Abu-Jamal's arrest.
'In Prison My Whole Life' was directed by Marc Evans and produced by Livia
Firth and Nick Goodwin Self. The acclaimed actor Colin Firth is the film's
executive producer. The film also features interviews with writers Alice
Walker and Noam Chomsky, as well as the musicians Mos Def, Snoop Dogg and
Steve Earle.

Livia Firth said:

'The film illustrates another example of the many reasons why the death
penalty is never an acceptable form of punishment.

'Amnesty International has contributed to the making of the film, having
previously called for a new trial for Mumia Abu-Jamal and we are thrilled
that they have agreed to support the film as part of their ongoing worldwide
campaign against capital punishment.'

Amnesty International UK Director Kate Allen said:

'It's shocking that the US justice system has repeatedly failed to address
the appalling violation of Mumia Abu-Jamal's fundamental fair trial rights.

'We've documented Mumia Abu-Jamal's plight several times before and we
strongly welcome this film as a fresh opportunity to focus attention on his
situation. We hope that the film's viewers will back our call for a fair
retrial for Mumia Abu-Jamal - and also support our work opposing the death
penalty in the US and around the world.'

'In Prison My Whole Life' screens simultaneously at The Times bfi London
Film Festival and at Rome's International Film Festival on Thursday 25
October.

---

Source : Amnesty International

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=17442

marco camenisch - hungerstrike 9/16-9/29

Urgent ELP! Bulletin (13th September 2007)

Dear friends

ELP has just learnt that Swiss Eco-defence prisoner, Marco Camenisch,
is on hungerstrike.  Please send urgent messages of support to:

Marco Camenisch
Postfach 3143
CH-8105 Regensdorf
Switzerland

For more details on the hungerstrike please see the e-mail below:

dear comrades,

from 9/16 to 9/29, eco-anarchist prisoner marco
camenisch (prison of pöschwies nearby zurich -
switzerland) will go on hungerstrike to support the
international mobilisation in solidarity with
anarchist prisoners josé fernandez delgado and gabriel
pombo da silva, who are confined in aachen and
rheinbach (germany) under harsh conditions. for more
infos about the mobilisation, please see
http://www.escapeintorebellion.info/index.php?newlang=english

solidarity is a weapon!
friends and comrades of marco camenisch

marco's adress:
marco camenisch
postfach 3143
CH-8105 regensdorf
switzerland

this is marco's statement, why he'll go on
hungerstrike on 9/16 (in german, though - sorry):

"Vom 16. bis 29.9.07 möchte ich mit einer erneuten
symbolischen Initiative (Hungerstreik) als
revolutionärer grünanarchistischer Gefangener zur
internationalen Mobilisierung in Solidarität mit den
aus Spanien stammenden anarchistischen Revolutionären
José und Gabriel und allen kämpfenden Gefangenen am
29. September vor den Knästen Rheinbach und Aachen,
Deutschland, beitragen und erneut meine Solidarität
mit allen kämpfenden Gefangenen und insbesondere den
revolutionären Gefangenen und mit allen Menschen, die
lebendigen Widerstand leisten und widerständisch
leben, ausdrücken. Mehr Infos zur Initiative in
Deutschland und zu Prozess und Knastkämpfe der
obengenannten Genossen vermutlich auf
www.escapeintorebellion.info.

Diese Initiative ist selbstverständlich Teil des
internationalistischen und tendenzübergreifenden
sozialrevolutionären Kampfes gegen einen sich immer
verschärfenden, mörderischen und
spektakulär-lügnerischen (siehe zB Kampagne gegen die
RAF in Germoney) Repressionsterror. Er ist auch ein
drinnen und draussen gemeinsam geführter Kampf für die
Freilassung der revolutionären Gefangenen, der kranken
Gefangenen, der Langzeitgefangenen, der (zB
palästinensischen) gefangenen Kinder und Frauen, gegen
Isolation und Folter. Das heisst auch Kampf gegen die
Todesstrafe, denn das Ganze, wie auch Knast,
Einschliessung, Ausgrenzung und Verfolgung (zB in der
Schweiz die krass nazifaschistisch und rassistisch
geprägte AusländerInnen- und Asylabschaffungspolitik)
sind eigentliche Formen von staatsterroristischer und
institutioneller Folter, Todesstrafe, Massenmord als
Teil des allgemeinen imperialistischen Krieges gegen
innen und gegen aussen.

Dieser Kampf kann selbstverständlich bloss als erste
Schritte bis hin zur Abschaffung aller Knäste,
jeglicher Herrschaft, jeglicher Ausbeutung begriffen
werden, und muss revolutionär und radikal sein, wo die
für sich alleine reformistischen Teile und Ziele und
die Berufungen auf "Errungenschaften" der Kämpfe von
unten und der Zivilisation, die zB Verfassungen,
Menschenrechte und pazifistische Methoden, wenn, dann
nicht als strategische sondern als rein taktische
Mittel, Methoden und Ziele begriffen werden müssen.
Sich für Menschen- und andere "Rechte" als
strategisches Mittel und Ziel einzusetzen heisst,
diese "Regelwerke" der Herrschaft der Zivilisation und
des Kapitals nicht genau durchgelesen zu haben, da
schon ihre zentralen Punkte wie "Recht auf Leben" oder
"Verbot von Zwangsarbeit" durch ihre
Aufnahmebestimmungen, bzw. kein Recht auf Leben im
Falle von Aufstand und kein Verbot von Zwangsarbeit
für "verurteilte Straftäter", sie zum vorne herein als
immer zur Disposition stehende kraftlose,
opportunistische und willkürliche Instrumente zur
Legitimierung von Herrschaft und Ausbeutung entlarven.

In diesem Kampf müssen wir uns immer auch unbedingt
der grundlegenden zivilisationskritischen Frage der
stählernen und unauflösbaren Einheit von Krieg,
Technologie und Ausbeutung stellen. Diese Einheit mit
allen ihren Ausdrücken und Mitteln wie Terror, Staat,
Autoritarismus, Kolonialismus, Imperialismus,
Kontrolle, Patriarchat, Anthropozentrismus, Sexismus,
Rassismus, usw. kann nur als Ganzes bekämpft,
aufgelöst und schlussendlich abgeschafft werden. Nur
durch ihre Abschaffung als Ganzes kann die davon
verursachte kapillare und allumfassende Zerstörung des
Lebens, der Lebensgrundlagen und schlussendlich des
Planeten aufgehalten werden und Raum geschaffen werden
zum Überleben, Leben, zum Wiederaufbau von
Gesellschaften, in denen weder Unterdrückung noch
Ausbeutung noch Zerstörung die Menschenwesen
unauslöschlich prägen und Grundlagen ihrer
Gesellschaften sind. Diese Prozesse und Zustände
werden als "Fortschritt" verkauft und massenweise auch
von uns mit Emanzipation verwechselt. Zivilisation und
Technologie sind, grundlegend, in allen ihren
Äusserungen und Prozessen allenfalls scheinbare
Emanzipation. Sie sind aber immer und immer
offensichtlicher und brutaler bloss Zwang, Zwang zum
Konformismus, Entmündigung, Abhängigkeit, Kontrolle.
Es ist der Weg zur totalen und allgemeinen Zerstörung
des Planeten, also Selbstzerstörung!

Lasst uns nie vergessen, was die Herrschenden uns
immer wieder vergessen machen: Macht über das Leben
anderer, über anderes Leben und die Natur ist
Sklaverei und Herrschaft! Freiheit ist Macht über sich
selbst und ursprünglich wurde uns und allen Wesen ein
furchtloses und unzähmbares wildes Leben gegeben!

Die einzige Art, um die eigene Freiheit wieder zu
erlangen, ist für die Freiheit aller Wesen zu
kämpfen!!!

marco camenisch, September 07, aus dem
christlich-sozial-demokratischen
menschenrechtskonformen Zwangsarbeitslager Pöschwitz,
Regensdorf, Schweiz"

===========

British Earth Liberation Prisoners Support Network
BM Box 2407
London
WC1N 3XX
England
www.spiritoffreedom.org.uk

Eric McDavid Update and Court Report from 9/12

From:    sacprisonersupport@riseup.net
Date:    Thu, September 13, 2007 1:56 pm
To:      undisclosed-recipients:;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yesterday was the third day of Eric's trial.  Below is a very long,
detailed report about what happened.  Here is a quick summary:

The day started with Mark's (Eric's lawyer) cross examination of Anna, the
Cooperating Witness in the case.  This lasted all morning, and continued
on after lunch.  After Anna's testimony, the government called FBI Agent
Matt St. Amant, a member of the CHP and the JTTF who participated in the
arrest.  After a quick testimony from St. Amant, the government called
Ricardo Torres, an FBI agent from Philadelphia who was also Anna's
handler.  Mark finished his cross of Agent Torres and we adjourned for the
day.

Please remember that we will not be in court again until Monday, September
17.  The government has indicated that they will be calling Lauren Weiner
on Monday, and we expect Zachary Jensen to follow.  Court starts at 9 am
at 501 I Street, 15th floor, Courtroom No. 3.  We would love for everyone
to come and show their support for Eric.  It's been really great for him
to have so much love and strength backing him up during this last week.
Please remember to come dressed appropriately for court.  You will need
your ID to get into the courthouse.  We cannot have food or drink in the
courtroom, and please remember to turn off your cell phones!  Also, please
keep in mind that it is in the best interest of Eric's case that no one
talk to or engage with the media.

Also – Eric is still being denied vegan meals!  Please keep calling the
jail and request that Eric be provided with food he can eat.    When you
call be prepared to sit through lots of transfers and ringing.  The person
who made the decision to deny Eric food is Lt. Ilg.  You can also request
to speak with his superior, Scott Jones.  Make sure you have Eric's
X-ref number handy:  x-2972521.

Jail administration:  916-874-6905

You can also try writing:
Captain Scott Jones
651 I St.
Sacramento, CA 95814
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Court Report from 9/12/07

The morning began with Mark’s cross examination of Anna.  She confirmed
that she met Eric in August of ’04, but had been undercover prior to that
time.  Mark then brought out his first exhibit – an email that Anna had
posted on a militarywoman.org website in July of 2002, stating her
interest in military counter intelligence.  At this point in time, Anna
was 15 years old.  She said that it had “always been a dream” of hers to
join the military.  When Mark asked her about this statement she responded
that it had been a goal for her when she was younger, but that her goals
changed.  The online post also said that she would be enlisting in a few
weeks.  You can read these online posts at:
http://militarywoman.org/forums/search.php?searchid=5827

Mark then began to move back through the timeline of her undercover
career.  She was undercover at FTAA, which she agreed was a “political
protest.”  She affirmed that she knew she would have to assume a role to
do this.  She also said that she knew there was violence between the
police and the protesters at the event and that there was a lot of media
about it.  When Mark asked her about police misconduct, she responded “I
think the city handled it very well.”  She affirmed that she had to sneak
in to the planning meeting, and had to fool the other protesters to be
involved.  From here Mark jumped forward to her interview with the FBI in
Sacramento in November 05.  At this interview, which was not recorded,
Nasson Walker gave Anna instructions on how to conduct herself during her
investigations.  She stated that she considered this information to be
important, but that she did not take notes.  She reaffirmed those
instructions from her previous testimony- don’t be a leader, don’t give
instructions, don’t push or cajole, don’t manufacture.  Then Mark returned
to the timeline.  In late November/early December of 03 the FBI asked her
to do work for them.  It was her first official job for them – the RNC,
DNC, and G8.  She clearly stated “my job was not to look at political
protesters” but at “certain violent segments.”  When asked if she had any
law enforcement training at that time, she said no.  When asked if she has
had any law enforcement training at this time, she said no.  She made it
clear that she was not an agent, but that her mission was to keep her eyes
open for illegal activity and to observe.  She did not keep a log, but
reported back to the FBI through real time with cell phone calls and text
messages.  She said she participated in protests at the G8, which is also
where she met Zachary Jensen.  She said she witnessed a breakaway march,
which she claims was allowed to disburse.  Anna stated that she was
“relieved” that she hadn’t been found out at the end of the protest.  Next
she went to the DNC, where she had adopted the persona of a medic because
she knew that protesters needed medics and perceived them to be people in
a responsible role.  Anna has had no formal medical training.  When Mark
asked her how she handled this, she told him that she wore the attire, but
if someone approached her for help she would “pass them off” to someone
else.  Next she went to Des Moines Crimethinc, where she met Zach and
Eric.  She affirmed again that her role involved A LOT of lying.  She
spent 3 days in Des Moines with Zach and Eric, sleeping upstairs in a
farmhouse with them.  She said she couldn’t recall whether Eric slept
right next to her.  She stated that at this time, she viewed Eric as
non-threatening, inconsequential, and that he looked “gentler” than the
other people there.    Because of this she buddied up with him.  Despite
viewing Eric as “inconsequential” she nonetheless reported back to the FBI
about him.  She exchanged emails with Eric and they agreed to see each
other in New York for the RNC.  At the RNC she reunited with Eric and Zach
and spent just as much time, if not more, with them.  She claimed that
during the RNC Eric made comments about illegal activities, which she
reported, but after the RNC she did not report him as someone that needed
to be followed.  She then claims to have had no contact with Eric until
June 19 of 05.  Mark then asked her why she would have written people in
May asking about him.  (He had an email from someone whom she had emailed
in May asking Eric's whereabouts)  She responded that, at the request of
the FBI, she was attempting to use old contacts to get back into protest
circles.  In the email Mark was referencing, she had written about the
Halliburton protest and said, “i'd love to have a party, if you know what
i mean”  “You gonna' come play with me, then?”  In the same email string
she wrote “Do you guys need anything?  Supplies, paint, chains, nails,
pipe, anything?  Tar and Feathers?  Like I said, disposable income, so ask
around all your contacts.  It'd be safer to bring from outside as well.
So what are we gonna do? :)”  Mark referred back to the guidelines she
mentioned in her previous testimony and asked if this was a “suggestion.”
Anna  responded that it was a “question about what supplies they might
need.”  Mark asked if Eric had written her love letters, to which she
responded that he had indicated his interest in her between August and
May.  Anna told Weiner in January of 06 that Eric had written her three
love letters.  Mark then asked her about a meeting on Weiner's balconey
during the bio conference in Philly.  She said that she did have an
interaction with him on the balconey, just the two of them.  She affirmed
that he had written her a love email on October 26, so she was aware of
his feelings for her in October of 05.  Anna  said she couldn't recall if
he had written her previously.  As a CS, she was supposed to give the FBI
any important communications, so Mark pressed her about where the other 2
love letters had ended up.  She said she couldn't recall.  Mark asked her
if she spurned Eric's advances and she said that answer would require an
explanation.  But it is clear that he did not tell him to knock off the
romance talk in her email response.  She claims that she was in the
process of leaving her work with the FBI when she was in Philly, but soon
after she went to West Virginia to pick up Eric and they traveled to
Crimethinc in Bloomington, IN, where she reported on activities there to
the FBI.  Mark pointed out that Anna claimed Eric was on their persons of
interest list in Sacramento, and now instead of tracking him down they
could have Anna watch him.  This was before the FBI had given her any
instructions on conduct.  In her testimony on Tuesday, Anna claimed that
Eric had voiced approval at Bloomington for blowing up federal buildings.
Mark then referenced a conversation in January in which she asks Eric
about that statement and he tells her he wasn't at that skillshare.  Mark
asked her if she wanted to get something on tape about it, which she
affirmed.  But the opposite happened, he said.  Correct, she said.  Then
they went back over her testimony about Ryan Lewis.  She said that Eric
told her Lewis had done his action too close to home, and if he was going
to do something it wouldn't be so close to home.  Anna was not wearing a
body wire at this time, which means this conversation is not recorded and
the only “proof” is her word.  Mark  then got her to agree that she had to
be very good at deception, at participating in a lot of lies.  He asked
her what kind of training she had received on how to lie.  None.  What
classes on how to lie?  None.  He asked her if it was a difficult thing to
do, lying all the time.  She said yes, but she overcame it.

The cross then moved to the meeting in November of 05.  Mark questioned
her on conversations that she had with Weiner about the meeting.  She said
that Weiner initially expressed reluctance about coming out to California
due to money problems.  At first Anna said that she never saw them with
large sums of money, but then stated that they often had expensive
equipment, such as camping gear.  Since the FBI wanted her on the west
coast, Anna volunteered to pay for Weiner's plane ticket with the
understanding that Weiner would pay her back for it.  But Anna even went
so far as to pay for Weiner's cab fare.  She said she didn't recall that,
but in an email she clearly states that she will.  In one email she states
“I'm taking care of everything.  Trust me.”  On November 4, Anna sent
Weiner an email stating that she had an “awesome, devious” plan to get
them all to California.

Mark then referenced several conversations between Weiner, herself, and
Eric in which she was complaining that Eric was “selfish” for not being
willing to take a day off from “family time” to meet with the group.

At this point Anna had not received any specific instructions from the FBI
on how to conduct herself, only general.  Mark asked her if they went over
the attorney general's instructions with her.  She said that they had gone
over the instructions with her in a telephone conversation from the Philly
FBI office in October or November of 05, but did not provide her with a
copy of the guidelines.  She says that they have not talked to her about
them since, including in the last two weeks.  She said that Agent Ricardo
Torres was her “handler” and that he was theone responsible for her
following the rules.  She claims that he did go over them with her in June
of 05, as did the agents in Miami before her work there.  She said she has
never read the entire section.  The age requirements state that a person
must be no younger than 18 (she was 17).  She affirmed that she was not
supposed to go to stricly political meetings or report on people doing
strictly political things.  She said she signed an “FBI Admonishments”
form in Miami and Philly.  In December of 05 she was granted Otherwise
Illegal Activity authorization (OIA), which gave her approval to
participate in criminal activity.  She claimed she had not engaged in any
criminal activity prior to this, but then admitted she had sat down in the
street at G8 at one point.

At the November meeting, Anna picked Weiner up at the airport, and Zach in
Sacramento to drive them to Eric's family's house.  There was no agreement
at this time to use the ELF tag, according to Anna.  There were no
specific dates set, and no decisions about what to use.  They did decided
that they would reconvene in January, after the New Year.  They were given
specific “tasks” to work on at the meeting.  Jensen was tasked with honing
his “ninja warrior” skills.  Weiner was tasked with procuring the book
Poor Man's James Bond, which contains various explosive recipes.  Anna was
tasked with finding them a place to live.

In January, Anna drove Weiner and Jensen across the country in her car to
California.  Mark asked her if she remembered a conversation between
herself and Jensen in which Jensen said “D is not our leader.”  she said
yes.  He then asked her if she remembered Jensen saying “you're our
leader.”  She said she doesn't recall.  When Mark said “The FBI had asked
you to come to California to get these guys going on something” she
replied “correct.”

Mark then returned to the meeting on the balconey at Bio.  She said that
Eric had expressed romantic feelings for her at Bio.  In a conversation
between Anna and Weiner, Anna says “I kinda'  called him on how much he
had changed.  And he said, yeah well, I had a lot of big influences.  I
asked him “like what?” And he goes, “you for one”  I about near fell over
and died.  'I knew you for a week!'  So...”  at which point Weiner stated,
“cause he loves you...”

Mark then asked Anna about the recipes she had provided the group in the
so-called “Burn Book.”  According to Anna, all the recipes were duds –
created by explosives experts at the FBI.  After reaffirming that
everything she did was to prevent her being found out, she claimed that
she wasn't concerned that Eric would realize the recipes were duds.

When Mark asked Anna who paid for the group's supplies – who physically
reached in to their pockets and paid, she responded that she did.  After
an immediate objection from the AUSA, and a nervous glance in the AUSA's
direction, she changed her answer and responded that the money came from
Eric and Weiner's pockets.  She claimed that the group had a jar for money
and shared costs.

Anna claimed that her undercover operation was planned to last an entire
month.  Asked why it was ended so abruptly, she claimed “the group moved
so fast we didn't need a month.”

Mark then moved the conversation to an event that took place on January
10, when the group saw Eva Holland (one of the people involved in the
arson with Ryan Lewis) at a cafe.  Eric was visibly shaken by this event,
and, as Mark said, it probably harkened him back to his original
statements to Anna about not wanting to do anything too close to home.
Anna admitted that Eric was concerned about this event and that her
attempts to comfort him didn't relax him.

When Anna reiterated that she was feeling “excluded” from the group, Mark
asked her what might have happened if she left the group.  He made the
point that she was not about to be physically pushed out of the group.  He
talked about the groups inability to get something done, which Anna
confirmed.  He said it was “late in the game and you're feeling
uncomfortable,” to which she replied “true.”  He said “you name it you've
been able to fool them,” and she again responded “correct.”  She said she
just didn't feel like she could handle the stress for the rest of the
month.  Anna claimed that she never felt like they were going to ask her
to leave and keep the cabin for themselves.  She kept referring to the
arguments the group had as “growing pains.”  She then claimed that when
she left the cabin on the night of the 12th, after the big argument, that
she found out the FBI was already planning on arresting them the next day.

Mark asked her if the group's attitudes toward her had changed.  She said
yes.  He asked her if there was something going on, if she was trying to
get them to do something they didn't want to do.  This was in reference to
the event on the 12th when the group allegedly attempted to prepare a
mixture for an explosive.  Anna insisted that Weiner and Jensen came out
to the porch on their own to participate.  Mark had Anna confirm that she
was trying to get everyone to identify targets and work out a schedule –
that they had schedules they weren't following and that she asked them
why.  She affirmed that when she left the evening of the 12th to meet with
the FBI that she was concerned they would find her out.

AUSA's rebuttal

The AUSA asked Anna if the “plot” was falling apart.  She said no.  She
said that after she left that evening, the group prepared a new schedule
to structure their days and that they followed it the next morning.  She
said the group was irritated with the CHP stop the day before.  The fact
that the group would be arrested the following morning greatly reduced her
stress.  Then the AUSA asked Anna if anything else happened the night of
the 12th to increase her stress again.  Anna then claimed that she woke up
in the middle of the night with Eric waving a knife over her head.  She
claims that Eric then said “I'm sorry” and left, and that she went right
back to sleep.

AUSA then asked Anna about the encounter with Eva Holland.  She said she
was aware of certain elements of ELF that would commit violence against
snitches, and claimed that Eric told her Eva was a snitch.  She claimed
that she never had any romantic relationship with Eric, and that she had
discussed how to handle his advances towards her with the FBI.  The FBI
had her fill out a behavioral analysis of Eric and returned to her a
series of responses she could give for his advances.  She said that both
Weiner and Jensen had indicated romantic interests in Eric.  She
referenced a conversation between Jensen and Eric in which Jensen said to
Eric “when you get drunk, you get horny.”  Eric replied “yes, but you like
it.”  She also said that Eric indicated a romantic relationship with
another individual, and that she thought Eric, Jensen and this other
individual were in a relationship together.  She reiterated that Weiner
and Eric slept in the master bedroom together, and that Jensen later moved
into the bedroom with them, sharing the queen bed between the three of
them.  She then said that Eric had made advances towards her in November
and that she had used the FBI's talking points in that conversation.

AUSA then asked Anna about the instructions given to her by the FBI
regarding her conduct as an undercover.  She said that when she was asked
questions by people in the group that she was allowed to respond.  Since
Eric had asked her directly for bomb recipes, she was allowed to get them.
 She was directly instructed by the FBI to bring the group out to
California in November.  The FBI had become concerned (with the addition
of Jensen and Weiner to the group) about the growth of the group and
wanted to see how serious they were.  She admitted that she was a minor
when she started her work, but that she got special approval to continue.
She said that every communication she sent to the group was vetted by the
FBI after she became a CW (cooperating witness).  The reason she wasn't
wearing a body wire early on was because she didn't change her status from
CS to CW until November of 05, and a CS is not allowed to wear a wire.
She said that she did do contemporaneous reports at that time, however.
She purchased a plane ticket for Weiner with the understanding that Weiner
would pay her back for it.  Weiner indicated in her emails that she was
saving money for their trip out west.  Anna claimed that Weiner started
the conversation about Eric being “selfish” for not wanting to take a day
off from family time for the meeting, and that the “stressed vibes” she
was getting from him stemmed from his “dealing with family issues.”

AUSA asked her about the online posting to militarywoman.org.  She said
that she did have an intention to join the military early in her life
because she wanted to do “patriotic service” to her country.  It was the
same for her work with the FBI.  She claimed again that she had no
expectation of being paid for her work, and that there was no contract for
payment.  She simply did it because it was “the right thing to do.”

Mark's Redirect of Anna

Anna admitted there were some transcripts she hadn't reviewed.  Mark asked
her how many times the group used the word “plot” (the prosecution used
this word continuously throughout their time with Anna), and she said that
Eric did not use that word, but that they did use the word “cell” and
“conspiracy.”  He asked her why she would have reason to lie on the
militarywoman.org website, and she said that she had none.  She said when
she wrote that she intended to join the military in a few weeks (she was
15 at the time and would not have been able to join), it was just a
misunderstanding.  She thought she was joining the JROTC.  But she did
not.  He then asked her if she got the feeling that Eric was going to back
out after seeing Holland at the cafe.  She said no.  She did say “I
suppose it could have” when Mark asked her if that event might have made
Eric feel like backing out.  She said she got training on how to handle
Eric's advances in November of 05 – this was after Bloomington, after the
event in Philly, and after Eric's email to her in October.  She said the
email is what made her seek out advice.  She said she was still working
for the FBI when she lost the other two love letters.  She affirmed that
she did  have to report anything significant from Eric to the FBI.

Mark then asked her if she went right back to sleep after Eric allegedly
waved a knife over her head the night of the 12th.  She said “Correct.”
She said she had not seen any written reports of the event. Anna testified
that she had no contract for payment and said again that she had no
expectation of payment. For the end of her testimony the government played
a tape of Eric and Anna in the car, which she characterized as a record of
Eric coming on to her and her  putting him off. The tape was a converstion
with Eric asking about the mixed signals Anna was sending him and her
continuing to lead him on. At one point she says:

A: I definitely, I don't not like you. I don't really like you- I
definitely like being around you- our energies really mesh well together
E: mm
A: what you said at bio I thought was nice, and appropriate
E: mhm
A: twim souls

Later on

A: we're just. All of us are just friends and all of us aren't together
and all of us, I mean  one of us doesn't like the other person, we all
just love each other
E: yeah
A: and I like that
E: yeah
A: and I'm not sure if I'm ready to add that kind of relationship, sexual
dynamics that kinda'.....to screw it up
E: ok
A: I'm not sure if I'm ready to do that yet
E:no I totally hear that

While the tape was playing Anna stared at Eric and grinned, almost to the
point of laughing.She said “I was instructed to placate him the best I
could without shooting him down."  Then Anna stepped down.

Government Examination of Matt St. Amant

The next witness was California Highway Patrol officer Matt St. Amant, who
is part of the Joint Terrorism Task Force in Sacramento. He testified that
when Eric was arrested he had a small knife with a caribiner on it on his
belt. Mark asked him if that was catalogued in evidence and he said yes.

Government Examination of Ricardo Torres

FBI special agent Ricardo Raphael Torres was the next to testify. He was
Anna's handler at the Philadelphia FBI. He testified that he put out a
call to the FBI  for informants to use at the Biotech protest in Philly.
He said that they did this because “people associated with anarchists, the
ALF and the ELF engaged in violent actions” at the biotech protests in San
Francisco, such as riding their bikes through traffic. The Miami FBI
responded to his request with Anna.  Torres said that she was “tasked to
work within the anarchist elements of the protesters” and to “get out
their and see who was going to do bad things to the city”. Torres said she
was “extremely helpful”. His example was that there were allegedly
protestors who had bottles of bleach that they were going to throw on
cops. He said she alerted him and he alerted the police who sent in snatch
squads to get the individuals. He also talked about the cop that died of a
heart attack and said he died because he was “wrestling” with protesters.
He said that some people felt sad about it and wanted to have a vigil and
the people that were glad that the cop died went to the “Lost Film
Festival” where they were showing films on how to make molotov cocktails.
Mark objected to that comment and the judge ordered the jurors to strike
it from their memory. Torres said that Anna's two tasks were to report on
people at the protest and stay as close to Eric as possible and report on
his movements, plans and associates. Torres said that he did an FBI
database search and found out that Eric  was wanted for questioning in
Sacramento. He testified that after Anna dropped Eric off in Chicago she
called him and told him that Eric was planning a bomb campaign in winter
of 2006 and that he had threatened to kill her if she was a cop. He said
that she was not wearing a wire because she was still a (CI) confidential
informant. Torres testified that they made her a (CW) cooperating witness
when they found out that Zach and Lauren were involved and that she was
then allowed to wear a wire. Anna testified that at this time she was
living in Pennsylvania. Torres testified that at this point the FBI
ordered her to get Eric, Lauren and Zach together to “set the stage for a
meeting of the conspirators”. Torres testified that Eric wanted bomb
recipes from Anna. Torres testified that he and Anna looked at “open
source” information on explosives on the internet” and then met with
Philly FBI bomb experts to create a recipe for something that was just an
initiator, meaning that it will create a small flash that would only work
if it were next to a large amount of explosives.

Torres said he was at the FBI command post the evening of the 12th,
monitoring the activities inside the cabin in real time during the
argument the group had.  He said that Anna was extremely upset and crying
when she arrived at the post.  Torres told Anna they were going to arrest
the three the following day.
The AUSA then asked Torres if an incident happened later that night.
Torres said that Eric was hovering over Anna, “twiddling” a knife.  He
claims that he then called her cell phone, which she kept on vibrate on
her chest while sleeping, to wake her up.  He said he was leaving the post
for the cabin when she woke up, said something to Eric, and Eric left.

Mark's Cross

Torres said he had last had FBI training in 2003 at Quantico.  The
original training to become an agent took 4 months, but there is
additional training required to become an undercover.  He said there is a
“cameo role” provision that allows someone to do a brief stint as an
undercover without additional training.  Mark, in reference to the
training, said, “there is a reason for that, right?” to which Torres
responded, “yes.”  Anna did not go to training, but did have a
“discussion” with an undercover agent about the job.   Mark then asked
about the Attorney General's Guidelines on the Use of Undercovers, and
stated that Torres would need to know them so he wouldn't violate them,
which Torres affirmed.  Torres stated that he had not read all of the
literature on informants, and that he was not aware of the Office of
Inspector General's (OIG) report from 2005 on FBI informants (a
particularly damning report about the use of undercovers by the FBI).
Mark asked Torres when was the last time he had read the Attorney
General's guidelines, to which Torres responded, “12:45 this afternoon.”
He said that the Philadelphia office had faxed them over to the AUSA's
office and that he had reviewed them prior to his testimony.  He said that
he didn't recall anything in the Atty. Gen. Guidelines about political
protests, but that it might be in the FBI's guidelines.  He stated that
they could send informants to political protests with cause, and that it
only violates the guidelines if they record it.  As her handler, Torres
was responsible for Anna and for making sure she did not violate the
guidelines.  When asked if Anna was allowed to solicit people to come to
political protests, Torres said he didn't know.  When asked if an
informant can't do anything that an agent can't do, Torres again responded
that he couldn't recall.  When asked if the rules allow a CI (confidential
informant) to do things an FBI agent can or can't do, Torres responded “I
don't know.”

Nasson Walker and Torres discussed general guidelines with Anna, but he
couldn't recall if there were any rules about entrapment.  Neither Torres
nor Anna took notes from that discussion, and they did not give her a copy
of the guidelines.  He claimed that Anna did not sign a contract with the
FBI because the FBI doesn't have informant contracts.  Torres claimed she
can't sign an agreement because they need to protect her ID.  He claimed
that the document they went over with her was two pages long.  Mark asked
if they maintained a file on Anna, and Torres got visibly uncomfortable.
He said that they do, that they gave the defense everything in discovery,
and that the “official” copy is in Philadelphia.

After this exchange, the witness was excused and the jury left.

Other Matters Before the Court

At this time, the government stated that they might have to ask for jury
instructions that nothing Anna did was illegal.  The judge made it very
clear that he would not issue jury instructions until the very end of
arguments, when he had the whole picture of the case in front of him.  He
then went on to say that the entrapment defense requires a clear showing
that the defendant was not “predisposed” to commit a crime, which he
stated has nothing to do with the presence of government misconduct.

Federal prosecutors want to shutter public access to plea agreements

Marcia Coyle / Staff reporter
September 17, 2007 National Law Journal

WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice has asked the federal judiciary to eliminate public Internet access to plea agreements in criminal case files and all related docket notations.

The judiciary currently provides public Internet access to all nonsealed plea agreements in electronic case files. This policy has been in effect since November 2004, but most courts did not implement it until they adopted an electronic case file system, typically at some point between 2005 and 2007.

In response to concerns raised by the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys in a letter to the Judicial Conference of the United States, the conference has called for public comments on whether it should change its Internet access policy for plea agreements.

The Executive Office, in its letter, said that as a result of twin developments — an increased number of violent crime prosecutions in which cooperating defendants and witnesses are needed to assist law enforcement, and increased Internet access to court records — "We are witnessing the rise of a new cottage industry engaged in republishing court filings about cooperators on Web sites such as www.whosarat.com or the clear purpose of witness intimidation, retaliation and harassment."

The department made three recommendations to the judiciary: a uniform policy removing all plea agreements — including docket notations — from Internet access via PACER; the posting of notices on PACER and ECF log-in screens warning against republishing or other use of court records for illicit purposes, and endorsement of a nationwide policy restricting the use in courtrooms of cellphones and other electronic devices capable of photographing, videotaping or recording witnesses or parties.

Sealing plea agreements is not sufficient, said the letter, signed by then Executive Office Director Michael Battle, because "for anyone with Internet access, a PACER account and a basic familiarity with the criminal docketing system, the notation of a sealed plea agreement or docket entry in connection with a particular defendant is often a red flag that the defendant is cooperating with the government."

Defense bar divided

Veteran criminal defense attorney Peter Goldberger, of counsel to the Law Offices of Alan Ellis in Philadelphia, said defense lawyers as a group are not of one mind on this issue. Individual defense lawyers don't have the same concerns when they are representing a cooperating witness as when they are representing someone who is a target of cooperating-witness testimony, he said.

From his perspective, Goldberger said, the costs of restricting public Internet access to plea agreements outweigh the benefits. It would increase defense costs, make investigations more difficult and hinder the defense's evaluation of the case against the client, he explained.

The Justice Department's approach "presumes every cooperating witness is in danger and every accused person not cooperating is a danger to witnesses," he added. "The fact is it's a rare occurrence."

It would seem possible to write plea agreements in ways that don't expose cooperating witnesses to danger, said Kent Scheidegger, general counsel of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation.

"I understand fully there is a need to limit access to protect victims and witnesses, including informants," he said. "But I don't understand why that identity information needs to be in a plea agreement."

And because the judiciary has indicated that plea agreements, unless sealed, still would be accessible at the courthouse, Scheidegger said, "People who are intensely interested enough in a particular case can still get the information. If your purpose is to protect witnesses from retaliation, then you're protecting them from someone who is intensely interested in a particular case and it seems a small margin of additional protection."

Four years ago, the Judicial Conference adopted a privacy policy for criminal case files that provided the same level of public access to electronic case files as was being given to paper case files.

The 2003 privacy policy and pending federal rules on privacy announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in April require the redaction of certain information from all case files, such as Social Security and financial account numbers, and, in criminal cases, home addresses. The pending rules also allow courts to seal documents or limit public Internet access on a case-by-case basis for good cause.

The judiciary is seeking public comment until Oct. 26 on changing its policy with respect to plea agreements.

Judge unseals arson charges

By Bill Bishop

The Register-Guard

Published: Thursday, September 13, 2007

After three years sealed under court order, charges have been made public against the man who apparently participated in at least a dozen arsons for environmental causes and then worked undercover for investigators who brought down the largest eco-arson ring in the nation. Jacob Jeremiah Ferguson, 34, is charged with one count each of attempted arson and arson stemming from the first of at least 20 attacks in five states by a group that became known as "The Family." Court records indicate that Ferguson made a deal to cooperate with prosecutors in order to avoid jail. No date has been set for his appearance in federal court in Eugene. U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken unsealed the charges Tuesday at the request of federal prosecutors who said secrecy no longer is needed, according to court records. Last month, Aiken completed the sentencings of 10 core members of the arson conspiracy. They received prison terms ranging from just over three years to 13 years. Three less-active conspirators face charges in Washington state. Four other suspects are fugitives. According to court documents and statements made in court, Ferguson began wearing a recording device in 2004 to capture incriminating conversations with eight of his former arson partners. As a result, he was reviled as a "snitch" on Internet sites devoted to radical environmental activism. Ferguson, according to court records, took part as many as 14 of the group's crimes - including the destruction of the Oakridge Ranger Station in 1996, the Cavel West horsemeat packing plant in Redmond in 1997, the U.S. Forest Industries office in Medford in 1998, the Childers Meat Co. in Eugene in 1999, and the Superior Lumber Co. in Glendale in 2001. Court records indicate that Ferguson was an enthusiastic participant in The Family's arsons, traveling widely in Western states to scope out potential targets for attack. Police apparently believed - as it turned out incorrectly - that Ferguson was involved in the arson of 35 SUVs at the former Romania truck dealership in Eugene in 2001. Under pressure from that investigation, Ferguson evidently agreed to cooperate. He is charged in connection with an attempted arson of the Detroit Ranger Station on Oct. 28, 1996, in which an incendiary device failed to ignite, and arson of a pickup truck that was destroyed at the ranger station.

His case is expected to resolve with a court hearing to enter a guilty plea and have the probationary sentence imposed.

Green Scare snitch charges revealed

From The Eugene Register-Guard:

Arson informant won’t serve jail time

Posted: 7:01 PM, Wednesday, September 12, 2007

After three years sealed under court order, charges have been made 
public against the man who apparently participated in at least a 
dozen arsons for environmental causes and then worked undercover for 
investigators who brought down the largest eco-arson ring in the
nation.

Jacob Jeremiah Ferguson, 34, is charged with one count each of 
attempted arson and arson stemming from the first of at least 20 
attacks in five states by a group that became known as “The Family.”

Court records indicate Ferguson made a deal to cooperate with 
prosecutors in order to avoid jail. No date has been set for his 
appearance in federal
court in Eugene.

Read more in Thursday’s Register-Guard.

http://www.registerguard.com/rgn/index.php/rgup/
arson_informant_wont_serve_jail_time/

Editorial opposing the use of prisoners in medical research

Medical exploitation

Inmates must not become guinea pigs again.

Allen M. Hornblum

is an assistant professor of geography and urban studies at Temple University

Osagie K. Obasogie

directs the project on bioethics, law and society

at the Center for Genetics

and Society in Oakland, Calif.

Any day now the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services may decide to turn back the clock to a time when doctors went unchallenged, medical investigators could do no wrong, and vulnerable people were grist for the research mill.

Last summer, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a controversial report recommending the return of federally funded medical research to our nation's prisons. Propelled by historical amnesia and corporate greed, a resurgence of such research may do much harm.

Although Tuskegee (black sharecroppers), Fernald (orphans), and Willowbrook (retarded children) are infamous examples of how medical researchers exploited vulnerable populations, prisoners were scientists' guinea pigs of choice during the 20th century.

Prisoners across the country were routinely incorporated into dangerous medical experiments that were unthinkable for other populations: testicular transplants and radiation studies, injections of live cancer cells, dioxin slatherings, and exposure to psychotropic chemicals and mind-control agents. University of Pennsylvania researchers set up labs inside Holmesburg Prison for easy access.

Commercial interests, the military and the CIA were behind many of these dubious initiatives. It wasn't until the late 1970s that policymakers curbed these brutal practices.

The IOM now thinks that new "guidelines," institutional "transparency" and increased "monitoring" would safeguard today's prisoners from past transgressions. Such views are wildly optimistic.

Prisons are unusual institutions. Oppressive, paramilitary and sequestered from society, they are the reason the Nuremberg Code's first principle precludes those in "constrained" and "coercive" environments from participating in medical research.

Perhaps even more troubling than the recommendation itself is how the IOM came to it.

First, and most shocking, the IOM admits to having visited only one prison during its two-year investigation. How is it possible to make sound policy decisions without taking a thorough look at the conditions faced by those most affected? By failing to acknowledge that nearly every aspect of prisoners' daily lives - from when to eat to when to sleep - is imposed at the barrel of a gun, the IOM committee makes a mockery of informed consent, medical research's foundational principle.

Second, the committee based its decision on a review of articles about trends in ethics since the late 1970s, when current restrictions on research with prisoners were put in place. But decisions of such consequence cannot be based solely on changes in the academic wind. What also needs to be considered is whether the appalling conditions giving rise to the current protections have been eliminated. And all evidence suggests that they have only gotten worse.

Last, the committee isolates its inquiries from other moral commitments relevant to prisoners' well being - namely, human rights. Vesting internationally agreed upon human rights in every person and creating ethical standards for medical research are two sides of the same coin. But with the wide-ranging human-rights violations in today's prisons - including sexual assault and decrepit living conditions - attempts to isolate medical research from human-rights standards can lead one ethical norm to undermine the other, exposing prisoners to even greater abuse.

Bioethical dilemmas involving prisoners will be with us for some time. South Carolina, for example, is considering a proposal to relieve its shortage of kidneys for transplant by shaving 180 days off inmates' sentences if they agree to become donors.

Human biotechnology also might come into play; given the shortage of eggs available to pursue certain types of stem-cell research, it's not difficult to imagine similar incentives being offered to incarcerated women to become egg donors.

These are complicated issues with remarkably high stakes. Medical research with human subjects can retain its legitimacy only if it recognizes its deep kinship with human rights. Regrettably, the impending Health and Human Services decision to loosen restrictions on prison research leads us in the wrong direction.

---

Allen M. Hornblum is the author of "Acres of Skin: Human Experimentation at Holmesburg Prison" and "Sentenced to Science: One Black Man's Story of Imprisonment in America" (coming later this year). Osagie K. Obasogie contributes to the blog www.biopoliticaltimes.org.

Sadie's new address

From: solidaritywithsadieandexile@gmail.com

Date: September 13, 2007 5:49:38 AM EDT

To: solidaritywithsadieandexile@gmail.com

Subject: Another address change

Sadie's unit has been changed once again (now UNIT "F") and writing is

more important than ever after all these long months of moving and

readjustment. Unfortunately, her address book has not followed her so

she would really appreciate hearing from you now so she can pick up

the correspondence. With the long road ahead, being able to maintain

contact with those of you have stood so solidly by her is a major

concern. Thanks so much.

Joyanna Zacher #36360-086

FCI Dublin

5701 8th St. Camp Parks-Unit F

Dublin, CA 94568

New Coronado Trial Update 9-12

September 12, 2007 Update from Rod Coronado Trial

The hearing opened today with the Court redacting admission of parts   of
the videotape of a speech given by Rod Coronado at American
University in January of 2003, on the grounds that they were not
relevant to the case.

Cross-examination of San Diego City Undercover Police Officer Tony   Lehr
then continued. Defense attorney Tony Serra, having established   the day
before that the Officer’s report of the San Diego speech was   “incomplete
and fragmented”, was able to get officer Lehr to admit   that the quote he
attributed to a woman in the audience, one that is   a cornerstone of the
case, was actually paraphrased. Despite that   admission, the officer
repeatedly insisted that he heard the woman   ask Rod “how to build a bomb
for an action?”

The real bomb dropped was Tony Serra’s introduction of contradictory
evidence to Officer Lehr’s sworn testimony. First introduced was the
statement of another undercover officer who attended the event, a   woman
from the San Diego Sheriff’s department, who used significantly
different terminology in describing the question to Coronado (saying   the
woman asked how to make “an incendiary device”, as opposed to a   “bomb
for an action”). Despite this, Office Lehr stuck to his story   that words
he heard were “bomb for an action.” Serra then read the   actual question
posed by the woman, as he introduced the existence of   an audio recording
of the event heretofore unmentioned. It seems   clear that the testimony
of this undercover officer of 18 years, who   has infiltrated hundreds of
San Diego groups, was fabricated. Tony   also got Lehr to admit that he
followed Rod after he and another   person drove away from the event.
Officer Lehr was excused for today   and will be recalled later.

Prosecution then brought an ATF fire investigator to the stand. Brian
Grove was hired by the FBI to test incendiary devices described in   the
lecture given by Rod at American University, and described in an
anonymous pamphlet called “Maximum Destruction not Minimum Damage.”
Lengthy testimony about these tests as well video documentations of   them
informed all about the mechanics of these particular devices.    Defense
attorney Omar Figueroa cross-examined the witness to
determine that his tests did not include tests of the same device   that
was described by Rod in his speech in San Diego, for which he is   being
tried.

Prosecution then introduced the entire recording of the American
University speech by Rod, personal writings of Rod’s seized from his
computer in the raid of his home on February 22, 2006, as well as
excerpt from an interview by Ed Bradley with Rod on 60 Minutes.

The final witness for the prosecution was Officer Kelly Stewart from   the
San Diego Sheriffs Department, who, in an undercover capacity was
assigned to monitor Rod’s speech in San Diego on August 1, 2003.    Much
of Stewart’s testimony completely contradicted the testimony of   Officer
Lehr, including: where the officers were sitting in the
audience, whether the woman who asked the question to Rod was sitting   or
standing, whether there were multiple police agencies involved,   whether
Stewart and Lehr had coordinated their investigations of the   event, and
most significantly, the actual wording of the question,   for which Rod is
on trial.  More contradictions and
misrepresentations are expected to come out when Officer Lehr is
recalled in the morning.

Court recessed early today in order for Counsel and the Court to work   on
Jury instructions. The prosecution is expected to rest its case   Thursday
morning, and there is a chance that the Defense would finish   by late in
the day on Thursday, which would result in Jury
deliberations on Friday. If closing arguments do not finish on
Thursday, the case will go to the jury on Monday, Sept. 17.

Abnaa elBalad condemns the Comrade Mohammad Khalaf injustly sentenced to 12 years of imprisonment.

nur wrote:

Tel Aviv, 11/9/2007 - A panel of 3 judges of the Tel Aviv District Court sentenced today comrade Mohammad Khalaf -Abu-Tahreer, (a 56 years old member of "Abnaa elBalad" movement, carpenter & a grandfather & father of 4 children, the youngest of them 10 years old) to 12 years of imprisonment and 3 years suspended incarceration.

The state prosecution had requested a sentence "much longer than 10 years" for the charge of "contact with a foreign agent" (namely, wael Zakleh from the west bank, who was employed by our comrade as a worker in his carpentry) and "assisting the enemy at time of war" "making a service to terrorist organization" (allegedly buying for Zakleh fertilizers that can be used also to make explosives) & "holding unlawfully firearms"... It's important to note that comrade Mohammad Khalaf was convicted according to a testimony of one witness (!) - Wael Zakleh himself - who gave his testimony during the GSS (General Security Service) interrogation & withdraw from it later at court... The fact that the "assistant" got longer sentence that the "main actor" was explained by the court by the fact that Khalaf is an "Israeli citizen" and the court should "teach" the Arabs that have Israeli citizenship not to join Israel's enemies (e.g. the Palestinian resistance).

Another reason for the harsh sentence was the fact that comrade Mohammad Khalaf refused to enter a plea deal, and plead constantly “not guilty", refusing to "confess" for acts he didn't participated in. He also refused to "take responsibility" or "regret" for the acts that he didn't do...

The environment in the court was very hostile, the court guards prevented the family & friends to speak with Mohammad before the judges entered, and when his 10 years old son, who missed hugging his father for almost 2 years stepped nearby, he was stopped by 2 guards that jumped at the boy (the scared boy refused later to stay in the court room, and preferred to wait outside).

when the sentence was read, the shocked family & friends began to shout that there is no justice in the racist Israeli courts... comrade Mohammad Khalaf raised up and announced that all the charges against him are false, that he was framed by the GSS that look for revenge for his political stands & activity, and that the struggle that he participate in, since he was a youth and until the recent days is a political & mass struggle and not an armed one. He added that the Israeli court system reacts as a puppet of the GSS, that the GSS from his side is writing the files and also the verdicts, and that the state terror, the repression and incarceration will not force him astray from his chosen path of struggle.

In a press release which was issued immediately after the court’s decision, Suheil Sleiby, the deputy general secretary of Abnaa elBalad movement strongly condemns the decision and sees in it a great injustice. He continued: “This sentence is part of the persecution & repression against the Arab Palestinian masses inside the 1948 occupied territories and its patriotic forces in general and specially against Abnaa elBalad movement. The use of false "confession" that was given in the GSS dark dungeons, by interrogation methods that are internationally rejected and forbidden are not new to us. We are aware very well to the praxis of framing patriotic activists with different "terror" charges, our movement has lot of experience in this kind of trials, and one example is our general secretary, comrade Mohammad Kana’aneh, which is incarcerated since February 2004.

Sacramento Bee on McDavid: Defense spars with terror witness

http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/376365.html

Defense spars with terror witness
She crossed the line in conspiracy, attorney says of undercover FBI plant.
By Denny Walsh - Bee Staff Writer
Published 12:00 am PDT Thursday, September 13, 2007
Story appeared in METRO section, Page B1

A key witness in a domestic terrorism conspiracy case against a Placer
County man parried Wednesday with a defense lawyer determined to show that
the witness, while working undercover for the FBI, was more active in the
conspiracy than federal guidelines allow.

On the third day of Eric McDavid's trial, his attorney Mark Reichel also
kept coming back to the subject of his client's romantic aspirations
regarding the witness.

To shield her true identity, the witness testified only as "Anna," the
alias she used while posing as a radical environmental activist opposed to
government and big business. The judge knows her real name, as does
Reichel, who agreed to the unusual arrangement.

McDavid, 29, is charged with conspiring to damage and destroy property,
including government facilities, by means of fire and explosives. His
alleged targets included a U.S. Forest Service genetics tree lab in
Placerville and the Nimbus Dam and nearby fish hatchery in Rancho Cordova.

"Anna," 21, was in the witness chair for the first time in her life, but
she never lost composure and even seemed to warm to Reichel, laughing at
his amusing remarks and indulging the veteran defense lawyer's folksy,
conversational style of cross-examination.

Reichel sought to demonstrate, for example, that "Anna" crossed the line
set out in federal directives when she supplied McDavid and two others
with a notebook containing handwritten bomb-making recipes.

She testified that the recipes had been prepared by FBI agents with one
key ingredient missing. They were duds, to use Reichel's word, but McDavid
and his two cohorts never realized that.

"Anna" also testified that in December 2005, less than a month before she
gave the small, black notebook to McDavid, she received approval from the
FBI to engage in criminal activity. Specifically, she said, she was
authorized to advise the trio on gathering and mixing chemicals required
to make explosives, and to conduct surveillance of potential bombing
targets.

The group of four -- "Anna" and the three people later charged with the
conspiracy -- called the notebook the "burn book," because they agreed to
burn it when they finished a planned nationwide bombing campaign aimed at
government and corporate facilities.

"Anna" acknowledged she encouraged another of the conspirators, Lauren
Weiner, to participate in mixing chemicals, and was insistent that
McDavid, Weiner, and the third conspirator, Zachary Jenson, identify
potential targets they were comfortable with.

Weiner, 21, and Jenson, 22, have pleaded guilty to their roles in the
conspiracy and are expected to testify against McDavid in return for
leniency when they are sentenced.

Reichel elicited from "Anna" that she pushed to meet with the three
conspirators in California in November 2005, ignoring McDavid's plea that
family business had him tied up. She testified she told McDavid she
"wanted to get everyone together to talk."

When Weiner couldn't come up with travel money, "Anna" paid for her to fly
from Philadelphia to Sacramento, where the two women met McDavid and
Jenson at Cesar Chavez Park and then proceeded to McDavid's family home in
Foresthill for the meeting.

"Anna" even paid for Weiner's cab to the airport in Philadelphia.

"Had you been instructed that you were allowed to assume a leadership
role?" Reichel asked her.

"No," she replied.

"Had you been instructed that you could push people to do things they
didn't want to do?" the defense lawyer asked.

"No," she again replied.

On redirect examination by Assistant U.S. Attorney R. Steven Lapham,
"Anna" testified that the FBI wanted her to set up the California meeting
because the bureau was anxious to learn if the three conspirators were
ready to go through with the bombing campaign.

"Anna" acknowledged to Reichel that McDavid told her he loved her at a
protest they joined in Philadelphia in June 2005.

On Oct. 26, 2005, "Anna" received an e-mail from McDavid telling her that
she was "never far from my thoughts and my heart," and "that last embrace
in Philly gave me chills."

On redirect examination by Lapham, she testified she never had "romantic
relations with the defendant," and never had "any romantic interest" in
him.

The October e-mail prompted "Anna" to discuss with FBI agents how she
should handle McDavid's infatuation and she was advised to keep him at bay
by telling him "mission first and romance later," she testified.

"Anna" said she put the advice to use when McDavid pressed the issue when
she visited Foresthill. She told him she was "not ready for a sexual
relationship."

The encounter took place in her rental car equipped by the FBI with a
hidden recording device.

Further questioning by Reichel brought out that "Anna" also told McDavid
on that occasion, "I honestly don't know how I feel right now."

She testified she said that on the advice of FBI agents, who instructed
her not to "shoot him down hard" because "it might cause an unstable
reaction."

Reichel's theory is that without the desire to stay in close touch with
"Anna," which she did not discourage, his client would not have been
willing to continue planning the bombing campaign.

"Anna's" testimony concluded Wednesday.

The trial resumes Monday in the court of U.S. District Judge Morrison C.
England Jr.

Coronado terrorism trial begins

San Diego CityBeat

Coronado terrorism trial begins

Dave Rolland reports live from the courtroom of the so-called
environmental terrorist

The trial of animal-rights activist Rod Coronado got underway Tuesday in
San Diego. Coronado was charged with a decade-old law prohibiting people
from demonstrating how to make an explosive device with the intent to
incite others to commit violence.

The case stems from a talk Coronado gave in Hillcrest on Aug. 1, 2003,
about 15 hours after arsonists burned an under-construction University
City condo complex to the ground and left a banner that said the Earth
Liberation Front (ELF) was responsible. Coronado did more than four years
in prison for destroying buildings and equipment at numerous fur farms in
the early 1990s, and he served as a spokesperson for various militant
environmentalist groups, including ELF.

More... Authorities haven't charged anyone in the arson case. Coronado
wasn't arrested until February 2006, two-and-a-half years after his talk.
An in-depth feature story about Coronado and his case that CityBeat
published a few months ago explores the importance of the case in our
post-9/11 world. Prosecutors would seem to have the burden of proving that
Coronado's intent was to spark a terrorist act. Much will hinge on the
judge's instructions to the jury.

Prosecutors began their case today by first establishing the facts of the
arson and then setting the scene of Coronado's speech. San Diego Police
Detective Joe Lehr testified that he attended the event undercover and
witnessed Coronado telling his audience how to make the type of incendiary
device he used to set a fur farm ablaze.

During a Q&A session after Coronado's talk, Lehr said, "a woman shouted
out, ‘How do I make a bomb?'" Using a jug of apple juice and a VHS tape
provided to him by prosecutors, Lehr then demonstrated for the jury how
Coronado used two similar objects to show his audience how he'd done it.
The tape was a stand-in for a sponge, a component of a homemade explosive.
Lehr recalled that Coronado had said that night that he wouldn't be
surprised if such a device was found at the scene of the fire in
University City.

Coronado has acknowledged showing how the device is made, but he didn't
intend to incite a criminal act.

Prosecutors played for the jury a videotape of Coronado's appearance. The
video captured an hour's worth of the speech—in which Coronado discussed
his Native American philosophy on respect for animals and his efforts to
protect whales, foxes, bobcats and the like—but cuts off before the end of
Coronado's prepared remarks, so there is no visual evidence of his answer
to the woman's question.

Famed San Francisco-based civil-rights attorney Tony Serra, representing
Coronado, began his cross-examination of Lehr near the end of the day,
focusing on when Lehr made his notes from the talk and when he transferred
them to his official report. Lehr said he made notes from memory after the
event while sitting in his car on Utah Street, where post-event
surveillance of Coronado took him. He used the notes to write his report
five days later.

Serra continues his cross-examination of Lehr Wednesday morning. The
prosecution expects to wrap up its case by Wednesday afternoon. Coronado's
lawyers will begin their defense Thursday morning.

After a lunch break Tuesday, prosecutor Mike Skerlos told Judge Jeffrey
Miller that the defense had held a press conference during the break, in
apparent defiance of Miller's request that the parties not discuss the
facts of the case with the media. Miller was annoyed.

"This is really disappointing," he admonished the defense team, saying
their gathering with reporters went "beyond the beyond."

No harm, no foul, though—he asked jurors if they'd witnessed or heard the
press session, and each said no.

9-12-07

Report from Rod Coronado trial

After spending the court day on Monday with jury selection, the 12 person (plus one alternate) was seated Tuesday morning, Sept. 11, and opening statements were made by both prosecution and defense attorneys before Tuesday’s noon lunch break. The jury is mostly white in this conservative town with a large military population, with one African American and 4 Latino, and a seven/five gender split, with two more women than men.

Prosecuting for the federal government are Assistant U.S. Attorneys Michael Skerlos and John Parmley. Rod’s legal team includes San Diego attorney Jerry Singleton, San Francisco attorneys Tony Serra, Omar Figueroa, Ben Rosenfeld and paralegal Steve Christianson. It is a great team that has now been effectively gagged, as the judge admonished the defendant and his lawyers about generating media attention. The judge was upset about an AP story that appeared the first day of court, and after a noon press conference on Tuesday, the defense team was called on the carpet again after the government attorneys went running to the judge complaining. We had misunderstood the judge in thinking he just did not want Rod speaking to media—turns out he wants all lips zipped. Two FBI agents were skulking around the press conference pretending to talk on their cell phones while recording conversations.

Tony Serra was in great form at the press conference however, talking about the government trampling on their own flag, and burning, figuratively, the Constitution, in prosecuting this crime of speech. The government charges are “demonstrating how to make a destructive device” (18 USC 842 (p)(2)(A)), as a result of answering a question posed by an audience member at a speech that Rod gave in San Diego on August 1, 2003. The Dept. of Justice (DOJ) has reportedly used this law only four times, but has used it twice now against political dissidents.



This case is clearly one that revolves around the issue of Free Speech and the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has carved out three famous exceptions to free speech:

· the “fighting words” exception (Chaplinsky v New Hampshire)

· the obscenity exception (Miller vs California), and

· the “clear and present danger” exception (Brandenburg v. Ohio).

However, each exception is extremely limited. As Justice William Brandeis eloquently wrote in 1927: “Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. No danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. The remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”

Defense attorneys made the point today when a San Diego undercover cop was on the stand that although two members of the San Diego Joint Terrorism Task Force were present in the audience when Rod made the speech, they did not arrest Mr. Coronado until 30 months later. Aren’t they supposed to act on observance of commission of a crime?, asked attorney Tony Serra on cross examination.

Prior to the cop’s time on the stand, a video tape of the 2003 speech was shown to the jury and the courtroom. The government had sought to bring in excerpts of the speech—obviously comments that would seem inflammatory when taken out of context. The defense argued to contextualize the excerpts by bringing in the entire speech, so that is what happened. It was truly amazing to have such a strong, passionate speech about biocentrism, an indigenous world view and respect for all species be presented in a federal courtroom. Some jurors appeared to listen raptly.

The prosecution was able to bring in a fire chief and dramatic footage of the fire at the new development that ELF took responsibility for that occurred in 2003 in San Diego about 14 hours before Rod’s speech (and while he was still in Arizona) and that blazing footage was, of course, what made it on this evening’s news report of the trial.

We expect ATF, more cops and more speech excerpts tomorrow. If the prosecution wraps up by the end of Wednesday, as expected, the defense will start on Thursday morning.

The legal team is doing a great job. Government agents are everywhere. Rod and Chrysta and everyone working on this case need and deserve your support and prayers.

Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110

415 863-9977

www.Freedomarchives.org

Questions and comments may be sent to claude@freedomarchives.org

Eric McDavid - Court Report from 9/11

 From Sacramento Prisoner Support:

Yesterday we learned that Eric has finally been given commissary again!
This is the first step towards a stable vegan diet for Eric.

Please continue to call the jail and request that Eric be given vegan
meals. We have been told that Lt. Ilg is responsible for the decision to
deny Eric food. You may want to request to speak to him when you call.

916-874-6752
916-874-6905

Please make sure that you have Eric's x-reference number handy in case
they ask for it: x-2972521


Day 2: Court update September 11

The entire day was taken up by US Attorney Steve Lapham's direct
examination of the government informant known as "Anna". The prosecution
asked for an order that she be referred to as "Anna" through the trial and
that her real name never be used. The defense did not object and the order
was granted. She was sworn in by her real name next to the judge so only
he and the  attorneys could hear her. After being sworn in and identifying
Eric McDavid as "an anarchist I met while working undercover for the FBI",
she told her story of how she came to be an "employee" of the Bureau. She
said she was a 17 year old sophomore at a junior college in Florida who
wanted to impress her political science professor with an extra credit
project. She heard in the news about the FTAA protests in Miami and
decided to infiltrate it for her project. She says that the first day she
when to the protests people were suspicious of her efforts because of her
appearance. She then "went to the goodwill to find the rattiest clothes
possible, something the protesters might like". She said she was accepted
once she began imitating the protesters aesthetic and was able to
infiltrate some kind of group that was planning for the FTAA protest. She
said that "the majority of activists are normal citizens engaging in legal
protests" whereas there is an anarchist minority engaged in "property
destruction, violence, vandalism and trampling people's rights". Anna
stated that she presented the paper on her undercover operation to her
political science class and they liked it. Apparently there was someone
from the Florida investigators office enrolled in the class who was very
taken by her work and approached her to ask if he could share it with his
supervisor. Apparently his supervisor liked it and it went up the chain of
command. At that point the Miami police department called to interview her
along with the FBI. After the completion of that interview she was offered
work with the FBI. At the request of the FBI, 17 year old Anna went to the
G8 in Georgia, the Democratic National
Convention in Boston and the Republican National Convention in New York
City to surveil the protesters. She said that she was asked to give the
FBI "real time" cell phone reports on illegal activities at the protests.
Her examples were giving "breakaway march" locations or "if there was a
rumor that there was a black bloc". She said that at the G8 she was
working undercover at the Independent Media Center. After the G8 she
traveled to Boston before the DNC "to meet the organizers and listen to
their plans". She says that they had no plans for illegal actions. None
the less, she came to Boston for the DNC and met with the organizers
again. In Boston she says that the illegal activities that she advised the
FBI on was a banner drop and a paper mache molotov cocktail. She claims
that she met someone at DNC that invited her to the crimethinc convergence
in Des Moines, which she described as a very exclusive event. She says
that she met Eric at Crimethinc in Des Moines and "at the time I thought
he was inconsequential". When asked by the US Attorney (USA) if she
reported on Eric she said "I mentioned he was there."  When asked by the
USA if that was common she said "I reported on lots of people". Anna
stated that after crimethinc she received a reimbursement for her expenses
and a lump sum payment which she claims was totally unexpected. She says
that her deal with the FBI was only for reimbursements and that the
payments (there was more than one) were always a surprise. After RNC Anna
said "I felt that my obligation to them and my agreement was over",
meaning that after RNC felt she no longer worked for the FBI. She states
that she was asked by the Miami FBI, at the suggestion of the secret
service, to attend the protests against the inauguration in 2005. She
states that she was asked to give reports on anyone dangerous there, but
that "nothing happened". She was then asked by the Philadelphia FBI to
attend the biotech protests in 2005. She claims that she had not kept in
touch with Eric after Crimethinc and heard from him sporadically. She
wanted to meet up with him in Philly because as she said "I was going to
use him to gain access to protesters there, enhance my credibility and
gain access to the convergence center".   She met with Eric and Jenson in
Philadelphia, where they all stayed at Lauren Weiner's apartment (this was
the first time Anna and Weiner had met).  Anna claims that at this point
Eric seemed "radicalized" since the time she had seen him in Des Moines.
The USA brought up an incident in Philadelphia where a cop died of a heart
attack during a protest, and Anna claims that Eric expressed wishes he
could have
participated in the cop's death.  There is no recording or other evidence
of this statement, which the government refers to often in their case
against Eric.  Anna claims that at the Bio protests, Eric told her he had
missed her and had things to tell her but that there were "too many ears
around."  She reported this back to the Philadelphia FBI who then did a
background check and Eric came up on a FBI "persons of interest list" from
Sacramento.  Apparently this was due to an investigation of a friend of
Eric's named Ryan Lewis who was accused of participating in property
destruction in Auburn, CA.  The FBI told Anna to pursue Eric at this point
to try to find out about illegal activities in California. Anna next went
to the Crimethinc convergence in Bloomington, IN, after picking Eric up in
West Virginia.  She reported that this convergence was much larger than
the last, with a wider range of skill shares and workshops.  Upon her
arrival in Bloomington she found time to sneak away and meet with the FBI,
who were particularly interested in her reporting to them on any possible
illegal protests surrounding the construction of the I-69 highway.  During
this Crimethinc convergence, Anna claims that Eric took her to a prison
support workshop, where he told her he had a buddy looking at 40 years
(which she claims was a reference to Ryan Lewis).  Anna claims that  Zach
Jenson and Eric attended an Urban Guerrilla Warfare workshop (she did not
attend the workshop), where  attacking federal buildings was discussed.
Jenson allegedly said he thought it was a great idea, and Anna says Eric
"nodded vigorously" in agreement.  After the Crimethinc convergence, Anna
drove Eric to Chicago.  During this car ride, Anna claims that she asked
Eric about what he had said in Philadelphia about "something big."  She
also asked him about Lewis.  Eric told her about Lewis, and said that
Lewis had performed his actions too close to home.  Anna asked Eric if he
had been involved and he allegedly told her no, but that he had his own
plans.  Anna claims that he listed a number of targets.  At this point
Anna alleged that Eric threatened to kill her if she was a cop.  This is
another claim the government has made repeatedly about Eric, with
absolutely no proof (other than Anna's word).  This conversation was not
recorded.  Anna alleges that at this point Eric asked her to join him in a
bombing campaign in the winter, in her role as medic.  Anna saw Eric again
in August 2005, very briefly, outside of Weiner's apartment.  At this time
Anna told Eric that she was interested in joining him, and he allegedly
asked her to find him a chemical equivalency list.  She agreed.  Anna did
not see Eric again until November of 05, and claims to have had sporadic
email contact with him during this time period.  The FBI wanted her to
gather more information and find out where he was at the time.  (Anna
claims that during her time undercover, she had to find the "dirtiest
clothes" she could produce, and that "I was quite disgusting.")  In
November, the FBI became "concerned" that Eric hadn't made contact, so
they "formulated" a plan to get the group to the west coast where Eric
was.  Anna made contact with the members of the group and asked if they
could meet and discuss their plans.  At this point she began insisting on
flying Weiner to California.  Upon her arrival in California in November,
Anna met with the Sacramento FBI, who told her to attend the meeting,
listen to any mention of targets and tactics, and to keep her safety in
mind.  They also allegedly gave her further instructions as to what her
role in the group should be - specifically that she should never suggest,
don't be a leader, and not to give info unless she was asked for it.  Anna
picked Weiner and Jenson up in Sacramento then drove them Eric's family's
home, where the 4 were meeting.  Eric allegedly gave the group copies of
an interview with Derrick Jensen, which she claims was the basis for much
of his thought.    During the evening the group sat around a fire pit on
the back porch, where they allegedly talked about their "plot," recipes,
targets, etc.  Anna claims that  at this time her body wire was not
functioning because she had accidentally switched it off earlier in the
evening.  She claims that during this time Eric made a statement that even
by having the conversation they were participating in a conspiracy and
that it was bordering terrorism.  Eric allegedly told the group that he
had a recipe for C4 and that he wanted more recipes.  The group also
allegedly had discussion about how they would claim responsibility after
their actions (whether or not to use an ELF tag).  During the weekend, the
group decided to meet after Christmas.  Anna volunteered to procure a
cabin for them (which she had been instructed to do by the FBI - allegedly
for her safety).  The government then spent a fair amount of time going
over an email between Anna and Eric which had been coded - the email was
from Anna to Eric and contained a recipe for explosives.  Eric allegedly
asked Anna for the recipe at the meeting in November.  Anna claims that
the recipe was a "safe bomb" recipe - that the FBI would never give them a
real, working recipe.  In January, Anna drove Jenson and Weiner from the
east coast (DC) to the cabin in Dutch Flat, CA.  At this point Anna
introduced the "Burn Book" to the group, telling them that they should
record any recipes, plans, shopping lists, etc.  Much of the first part of
the book is taken up with recipes that Anna wrote in.  There are also
lists of discussion topics (such as "Select targets" "Surveillance" and
the accidental death of civilians).  Anna claims that Eric brought up the
"accidental death of civilians" topic and that he voiced his opinion that
it was ok if civilians were killed because they were just "fence sitters."
 The government played a surveillance recording to back up this claim.
The group traveled to Nimbus and Folsom dams, then to the Institute of
Forest Genetics.  They were allegedly doing reconnaissance at these
locations and assessing their value as possible targets.  On the 11th of
January, the group traveled to San Francisco to visit chemical supply
stores, to do research, and to allow Jenson to sell some of his writings.
None of the chemical supply stores were open to the public, so the group
stopped at a Wal-Mart in Sacramento on their return to Dutch Flat, where
they allegedly purchased materials to construct an explosive device.  On
January 12, Eric was playing with the stereo in Anna's car and the
recording device hidden there fell out into Eric's hand.  Anna was able to
play it off as an old car falling apart, but claims that she was very
shaken by the event.  Later in the day, the group was pulled over by a CHP
officer when Anna ran a stop sign.  She claims the group was a little
upset with her, and that they were all shaken up by it.  After another
shopping trip, the group returned to the cabin where Anna claims Eric
began "tearing into" the salt substitute and "mixing in earnest."  She
also claims that he began emptying the powder from shotgun shells and
testing fuses.  Anna claims that Weiner and Jenson were reluctant to
participate at first, but then began to actively participate. This was
after the government played a tape of Anna berating Lauren and Zach for
not being involved  After heating the mixture, the glass bowl they were
using busted and their days work was lost.  Anna claims that harsh words
were exchanged the night of the 12th.  They had an argument about people's
level of involvement, and Anna said the argument escalated until she no
longer felt comfortable in the group.  She said a great amount of evidence
had been lost, her stress level was sky high, her role as an undercover
had been compromised, and that she felt "excluded" from the group.  She
said she was confused about the conversation - that it had come out of
left field and that the group seemed cohesive before that.  She said
everything was "coming apart at the seams" and that she felt like she was
on the outside.  She says she left the cabin to go for a walk and be
alone.  (At this point the government played a recording of the argument)
During her walk to be alone, Anna met with the FBI agents and told them
that she didn't feel as if she could continue much longer.  When she left
the meeting with them, she knew that the other three would be arrested the
next day.  The USA asked Anna if the argument was an indication that the
plot was coming apart.  She said no.  When she returned to the cabin, the
group told her that they had put together a schedule of how each day
should be structured (meeting times, use of space, etc), which they said
was a "gift" to her.  She said this was an indication of the group
preparing for the plan to go forward.  Eric, Weiner and Jenson were all
arrested the next morning outside of a Kmart shopping center.  The USA
concluded his direct examination of Anna by going back over her
compensation from the FBI.  She said she received approximately $65,000
over two years.  $35,000 was for reimbursable expenses (gas, food, hotel,
flights) and that $31,000 (plus change) was given to her in lump sums,
sporadically throughout her work.

After today, we will not be in court again until Monday, September 17 at
9am.  Please come show your support for Eric!  Make sure you come dressed
appropriately for court.  And keep in mind that in the interests of Eric's
case, it is best for no one to speak with the media except for Eric's
lawyer.

Daniel McGowan at FCI Sandstone

Hello Friends,

Daniel has finally reached his designated facility - FCI Sandstone in Sandstone, Minnesota. This is his final destination, as far as we have been told the last few months.

Please send all your letters you've been holding onto and resend ones you've just sent!

DANIEL McGOWAN
#63794-053
FCI SANDSTONE
FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
P.O. BOX 1000
SANDSTONE, MN 55072

Let's help welcome Daniel here as much as possible.

Thanks!

Daniel McGowan is an environmental and social justice activist. He was charged in federal court on many counts of arson, property destruction and conspiracy, all relating to two incidents in Oregon in 2001. Until recently, Daniel was offered two choices by the government: cooperate by informing on other people, or go to trial and face life in prison. His only real option was to plead not guilty until he could reach a resolution of the case that permitted him to honor his principles. As a result of months of litigation and negotiation, Daniel was able to admit to his role in these two incidents, while not implicating or identifying any other people who might have been involved. He was sentenced to 7 years in prison on June 4, 2007 and began serving his time on July 2, 2007.

Activist says arrest was an attempt to silence her

'Chilling effect'
Activist says arrest was an attempt to silence her
by Kelly Davis San Diego CityBeat

Danae Kelley still isn't sure why she spent four days in jail last month.
On Aug. 18, the 23-year-old joined a dozen animal-rights activists in
picketing the La Jolla home of billionaire-philanthropist Ernest Rady.
Rady, Kelley said, is on the board of directors of Wachovia Bank; Wachovia
invests in a company called Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS), and the group
wanted to let Rady--and, by default, his neighbors--know that Huntingdon,
which runs animal-testing labs throughout the world, does terrible things
to its test subjects. The goal was to get Rady to convince Wachovia to
divest itself of Huntingdon stock. Kelley said she didn't know that Rady
and his wife had been the victims of a home-invasion robbery in February.
If she'd known, she would have called off the protest, she said.

While tactics of some protest groups (mostly in Europe) against Huntingdon
employees and investors can be extreme--slashed tires, death threats and
significant intimidation--Kelley insists that no one did anything in La
Jolla beyond chanting and leafleting, and they were in front of Rady's
house for only 10 to 15 minutes.

"We're all pretty respectful," she said.

Picketing a residence is a misdemeanor under San Diego's municipal code,
said San Diego Police Lt. Brian Ahern. But, Ahern explained, Rady would
have had to file a complaint (he didn't), or the police would have had to
witness the protest (they didn't).

Police stopped the group as it was leaving the neighborhood. Members were
searched, questioned and photographed, but only Kelley was arrested. A
detective told her she was being charged with two felonies: stalking and
making a terrorist threat (her booking sheet shows she was charged only
with the latter). She was taken to Las Colinas jail and held on $50,000
bail until Wednesday, Aug. 22, the deadline for the district attorney to
either arraign her or let her go. She was home by midnight.

Kelley said she knew the charge wouldn't stick. "We have audio of [the
protest]--we replayed the audio, and there were no threats."

Compared with two years ago, Kelley's August jail stint was brief. In
summer 2005, Kelley and two other activists were jailed for several weeks
after they refused to testify to a grand jury about a talk given by
environmentalist Rod Coronado in Hillcrest on Aug. 1, 2003. Coronado's
talk happened the same day an early-morning arson fire in University City
burned down a condo building that was under construction. A sign left at
the site attributed the fire to the eco-saboteur movement Earth Liberation
Front. Coronado, once an unofficial ELF spokesperson, was at home in
Arizona when the fire happened and didn't know about it until reporters
swarmed him before his talk.

But prosecutors got him anyhow. This week, he went on trial in San Diego
federal court because, at the talk, he picked up an apple-juice jug and
explained how, in his more radical days, he'd turn a similar container
into an incendiary device. Prosecutors argued that someone could take that
information and use it to commit a crime. Coronado's attorneys counter
that bomb-building instructions are available online and their client was
responding to an audience member's question--proof that making a bomb from
a juice jug wasn't part of his planned speech.

No arrests have been made in the arson case, but authorities still have
their eye on Kelley. Police and FBI agents contacted at least four
activists from the La Jolla protest, Kelley said. The activists told her
they were asked not about the protest but about Kelley, Coronado and the
2003 arson. Several told her that while she was being arrested, a police
detective said to them, "Do you know what kind of a person [Kelley] is?
I've been following her for two years."

That detective, J.K. Hudgins, said Kelley's arrest is part of an ongoing
investigation, so he can't discuss it.

Kelley said she has no connection to the arson: "No--god, no," she said.
She added that she doesn't claim affiliation with any activist group that
engages in criminal activity. She might share the same motivations, but
she prefers "leafleting and outreach" to get her point across.

Kelley sees her arrest as part of a larger movement by law enforcement to
silence activists. While she was being handcuffed, she heard Hudgins say,
"We're making an example out of her."

Hudgins denied saying that. "It's [against] a policy of the police
department," he said.

Kelley has talked to Jerry Singleton, an attorney representing Coronado,
and plans to file a wrongful-arrest lawsuit against the police department.
Troy Pickard, a senior law clerk for Singleton, said the fact that
Kelley's been a subject of an ongoing investigation only makes her case
more interesting.

"The police have no business keeping tabs on political demonstrators," he
said, "even leaders who are not committing any crimes."


Write to kellyd@sdcitybeat.com and editor@sdcitybeat.com.

Activist's intentions at center of case

Three words disputed in bomb-making discussion
By Greg Moran
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

September 12, 2007

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO – The basic facts concerning the prosecution of Rodney
Coronado, environmental and animal-rights activist and current defendant
in San Diego federal court, aren't in dispute.
Prosecution and defense lawyers agree that Coronado was in San Diego on
Aug. 1, 2003.

While here, he delivered a speech to a small group in Hillcrest,
recounting his “direct action” activism sinking whaling ships in Iceland
and setting fire to animal research facilities in Michigan.

And in a question-and-answer session after the speech, Coronado was asked
how to make an incendiary device. Using an apple-juice jug, he
demonstrated how it could be used to burn down a building.

While there is little dispute about that, the core of the case, which
began yesterday in front of Judge Jeffrey Miller, is not so much what
Coronado said – though that is important – but what he intended to
communicate.

And that means the case against Coronado is not so much a “whodunit,” but
a “what did he mean by it?”

It also means the case raises pointed questions pitting government
investigators against free-speech activists.

Coronado's speech came hours after an early moring arson leveled a huge
apartment complex under construction in University City. The arson caused
an estimated $50 million in damage, and the Earth Liberation Front – a
radical, loosely-knit environmental group Coronado was once tied to – took
credit for the blaze. The ELF has taken credit for burning ski lodges,
housing developments and other projects across the country in the past
decade.

But Coronado is not charged with anything related to that fire. In fact,
no arrests have been made in connection with the blaze.

Instead, in 2006, more than two years after the blaze, federal prosecutors
obtained an indictment against him under a rarely used law.

That law makes it a crime to teach or demonstrate how to make a
destructive device with the intent that people hearing or seeing it would
go out and commit an act of violence.

Prosecutors will have to prove that when he answered the question,
Coronado wanted his listeners to act on the information he was giving
them.

They will show jurors excerpts from previous speeches Coronado had given
and passages from his writings, Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Skerlos
said.

Skerlos told jurors those past comments will help show that Coronado's
intent in Hillcrest was to “encourage people to follow in his footsteps.”

But Gerald Singleton, one of several lawyers for Coronado, said Coronado
had no intention of inciting anything that night. He acknowledged that
Coronado is a “very passionate” activist and speaker who has said some
things in the past that jurors might find offensive.

He pointed out that the remarks Coronado made were not part of his
prepared speech but came in response to a question. While FBI agents
attended the speech and recorded part of it, and another person videotaped
it, the crucial passage is on neither tape.

The prosecution and defense disagree on the wording of the question from
the audience. Singleton said the government contends the question was how
to make a device “for an action,” but the defense says those three words
were not part of the question.

Singleton said the defense will call the person who asked the question,
who will back the defense. The issue is key, he said, because the phrase
could be used to support the prosecution's theory that Coronado intended
the demonstration to be used for a violent act.

Outside of court, Tony Serra, a veteran civil rights attorney from San
Francisco who is part of Coronado's defense team, assailed the
prosecution's arguments as an assault on free speech by the government and
an attempt to silence a vocal activist.

Coronado faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted. He has already
served a four-year sentence for the arson fires in Michigan, and recently
has said he no longer supports illegal direct action, such as arson, to
effect change.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Greg Moran: (619) 542-4586; greg.moran@uniontrib.com 

Sacramento Bee: Student's path to FBI informant

Student's path to FBI informant
Using alias, woman tells of alleged terrorism plot.
By Denny Walsh - Bee Staff Writer September 12, 2007
Story appeared in METRO section, Page B5

An FBI undercover informant spun a compelling account Tuesday for a
Sacramento federal court jury of how she went from being a 17-year-old
Florida college student four years ago to the government's key witness in
the trial of a man accused of plotting domestic terrorism.

To shield her true identity and protect her from retribution, the woman
testified only as "Anna," the alias she used in her undercover work. The
judge knows her real name, as does the defense attorney, who agreed to the
unusual procedure.

Dressed in a white suit and pale blue blouse, the dark-haired 21-year-old
told her story in a cool, matter-of-fact manner.

She said that in the fall of 2003, as research for a class project, she
dressed in "grunge" clothes and mingled with protesters at an
international free trade conference.

After she presented a report to the class, the witness recalled, a fellow
student who was a state law enforcement officer asked for a copy of the
paper she had written about her experiences.

The paper found its way to the FBI in Miami, and she was recruited to
infiltrate the "anarchist movement" that consistently has a presence at
anti-establishment demonstrations, she said. The bureau's proposition that
she report all violent and criminal activity she witnessed at these events
"intrigued" her, she said.

"Anna" was instructed "never to assume a leadership role, never suggest
anything, and give information only when asked," she testified. She kept
in touch with FBI agents primarily by cellular telephone.

Between January 2004 and January 2006, the FBI paid her $31,000 in
compensation and $35,000 to cover her expenses traveling the country from
protest to protest and from one "anarchist" meeting to another. She said
she wore the "dirtiest, smelliest" clothes she could find, dyed her hair
every color of the rainbow, and never wore makeup or jewelry.

Her first assignment was the 2004 Group of Eight, or G8, summit in
Georgia. The organization is a forum for the governments of eight major
countries, including the United States. Its annual summit is attended by
the heads of government of the member countries.

"Anna" next was a demonstrator at the Democratic National Convention in
Boston and later the Republican National Convention in New York City.

She met the defendant in the Sacramento trial, Eric McDavid, at an
"anarchist" conference in summer 2004 in Des Moines, Iowa. The main item
on the conference's agenda was "sharing skills on how to spot undercover
law enforcement people."

"At that time, I thought he was inconsequential," the witness said of
McDavid.

The 29-year-old McDavid, of Foresthill, is charged with conspiring to
damage and destroy property, including government facilities, by means of
fire and explosives. His alleged targets included a U.S. Forest Service
genetics tree lab in Placerville and the Nimbus Dam and nearby fish
hatchery in Rancho Cordova.

"Anna" testified that McDavid envisioned a nationwide bombing campaign
against perceived enemies of the environment for which he would credit the
Earth Liberation Front. The FBI has identified ELF as a terrorist movement
dedicated to violent attacks on what its followers believe are symbols of
society's destruction and exploitation of the environment.

"Anna" testified that McDavid invited her into his conspiracy, along with
Zachary Jenson, a transient and regular on the demonstration circuit who
was then 19, and Lauren Weiner, a student at the Philadelphia College of
Arts who was then 18.

Wearing a body recorder, driving a car rigged with video and audio
recording equipment, and living with the trio in an isolated cabin in
Dutch Flat that the FBI wired for video and audio recording before they
moved in, "Anna" recorded hours of conversations about possible bombing
targets, recipes for homemade explosive devices and the purchase of
material needed to make the bombs.

Jenson and Weiner have pleaded guilty for their roles in the conspiracy
and are expected to testify against McDavid in return for leniency when
they are sentenced.

On Jan. 12, 2006, "Anna" had a bad day. On a trip in her car from Dutch
Flat to Auburn a recording device popped out of the dashboard. McDavid
cradled it in his hand and looked at it with some curiosity.

She grabbed the device from him and shoved it back in the dashboard and
used a profanity to describe her vehicle's mechanical state.

It was especially unnerving because McDavid had once told her he would
kill her with the hunting knife he always carried if she turned out to be
an undercover law enforcement operative, she testified.

On the return trip, "Anna" ran a stop sign on the Interstate 80 offramp at
Dutch Flat and was pulled over by a California Highway Patrol officer, who
let her go with a warning.

The others were apoplectic at having been stopped by a law enforcement
officer so close to where they were living.

Back at the cabin, "Anna" and Weiner quarreled, and the witness testified
she felt like she was being treated as an outsider.

"My stress level was such that I didn't feel like I could continue in my
role," she recalled.

That evening she walked to where FBI agents were watching the cabin and
told them she didn't believe she could go on. They assured her they would
arrest her three companions the next day, and they did.

The Bee's Denny Walsh can be reached at (916) 321-1189 or dwalsh@sacbee.com. 

Birthdays for September and October

September

SEKOU KAMBUI (W. TURK)
113058 / Box 56 SCC (B1-21)
Elmore, AL 36025-0056
September 6, 1948

LEONARD PELTIER
89637-132 / PO Box 1000
Lewisburg, PA 178371
USP Lewisburg
Sept. 12, 1944

CARLOS ALBERTO TORRES
88976-024 / Box 1000
Oxford, WI 53952
FCI Oxford
September 19, 1952

BRIAN MCCARVILL
#11037967
Oregon State Penitentiary
2605 State Street
Salem, OR 97310
September 27, 2004

October

JAMIL ABDULLAH AL-AMIN
#99974-555
USP Florence ADMAX
P.O. Box 8500
Florence, CO 81226
October 4, 1943

DAVID GILBERT
83A6158 / Clinton Corr. Facility
P.O. Box 2001
Dannemora, NY 12929
October 6, 1944

MICHAEL DAVIS AFRICA
#AM4973
Box 244
Graterford, PA 19426
October 6, 1955

HERMAN WALLACE
#76759
CCR Upper E #4
Louisiana State Prison
Angola, LA 70712
October 13, 1941

ROBERT SETH HAYES
#74-A-2280
Wende Corr. Facility
P.O. Box 1187
Alden, NY 14004-1187
October 15, 1948

ANTONIO GUERRERO
#58741-004
U.S.P. Florence
P.O. Box 7500
Florence CO 81226
October 18, 1958

JALIL MUNTAQIM
{Anthony Bottom} 2311826
850 Bryant St
San Francisco, CA 94103
October 18, 1951

EDWARD GOODMAN AFRICA
AM4974 / SCI Mahoney
301 Morea Road
Frackville, PA 17932
October 21, 1949

KEVIN KJONAAS
93502-011
Unit I / Box 1000
Sandstone, MN 55072
FCI Sandstone
October 31

Prison Was Created For The Poor - New Leeds ABC Pamphlet

New Pamphlet From Leeds ABC

PRISON WAS CREATED FOR THE POOR

Mothers & Sons: From FIES to Aachen

Pastora & Xose Tarrio Gonzalez

Julia & Gabriel Pombo da Silva

Prison Was Created For The Poor focuses on two tireless militants of the Spanish prison struggle, Xose Tarrio Gonzalez and Gabriel Pombo Da Silva, who fought against the brutal F.I.E.S. isolation units. Xose was killed by a life behind bars, and Gabriel now rots in a German prison. The main part of this book though, is written by neither Xose nor Gabriel, instead it is the text of an interview with their mothers, Pastora and Julia. Through this medium, they tell a powerful and emotional story, which not only takes us inside the world of Spanish high security prisons, but reflects on jails throughout the world. Prison Was Created For The Poor is a compelling read.

32 pages. £2 plus 50p UK postage. Please contact us for trade and international rates.

Leeds ABC, PO Box 53, Leeds, LS8 4WP. England.

leedsabc@riseup.net

Eric McDavid - Trial Report from 9/10/07

From: sacprisonersupport@riseup.net

Date: September 11, 2007

Court Report September 10, 2007

1.Jury Selection

2.Government's Opening statements

3.Defense Opening Statements

4.First Government Witness

5.Anna to testify

6.Vegan food for Eric

Yesterday (Monday) was was the first day of Eric's trial. The morning was

taken up by jury selection and then a break for lunch. After lunch we

heard both sides' opening statements and the first prosecution witness.

Jury Selection

To select jurors the judge asked them a variety of questions about their

background and whether or not they could be fair and impartial as jurors.

The most notable question was when the judge asked the jurors if they were

members of PETA, the ALF or the ELF, if they were supporters or if anyone

they knew are members or supporters. After the judge finished questioning

the jurors, the lawyers were allowed to do their peremptory challenges,

the process that allows each side to dismiss a set amount of jurors

without cause. Twelve jurors (7 men and 5 women) and two alternates (men)

were instructed on their obligations as jurors and empaneled and then the

court recessed for lunch.

Government's Opening Statements

After lunch the US Attorney Steve Lapham began his opening arguments,

which he describes as a preview of the government's case. The US Attorney

(USA) began his preview with the words "this case is about an ecoterror

plot to use fire and explosives to attack targets in Northern

California". He said that Eric was the leader of this conspiracy and that

he recruited the three, pumped them up and provide "philosophical

indoctrination". Not long after that he described the ELF, which he claims

Eric is a part of, as a "leaderless resistance". He then went on to

describe "Anna" as "a person who managed to make friendships and

acquaintances in the anarchist and radical ecoterror movement". "Anna"

apparently turned 21 last month. According to the government, Anna's

involvement with the FBI began in 2003 when Anna a was 17 year old

sophomore at a community college in Florida. She decided to do an

undercover project infiltrating a group of people preparing for the FTAA

protest in Miami. Allegedly, an investigator who was enrolled in her class

was impressed by her report which he showed his supervisor. His supervisor

apparently offered her work for "over a year attending protests where

illegal activities were expected to take place". The US Attorney claims

that she believed she was done after that, but then was called up by the

FBI in Philadelphia and asked if she would work undercover at the biotech

protest in Philadelphia in 2005. The US Attorney talked about her

interactions with Eric at Biotech in Philly, Crimethinc in Bloomington and

Pointless fest in Philly during the summer of 2005. The USA said that the

conspiracy began over the course of these three events. The USA said that

Eric, Zach, Lauren and Anna came out to California in November of 2005 to

discuss their alleged bombing campaign. Anna bought Lauren a plane ticket

to California. The USA says that to convict someone of a conspiracy they

have to prove these three elements:

1)that there is an agreement between two or more people to do something

that the law forbids

2)became a member of the conspiracy knowing its object and intending to

accomplish them

3)that there was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy

The USA says Eric/Zach/Lauren/Anna talked about claiming their action for

the ELF and going underground afterwards. The USA states that Anna

furnished the three with recipes to make explosives, but that they were

fake recipes and could never have made an explosives device "the FBI would

never give them a real one". USA said they planned go down to an

"anarchist commune" in Fresno but that the FBI didn't want to "lose

control" of them, so she got them a cabin in Dutch Flat wired by the FBI

with audio/video bugging devices. USA discussed how Anna introduced the

"burn book" to the group. This was supposed to be a book where they could

write down all their ideas, that would get burned at the end. USA says

that Zach and Lauren downloaded google maps to look at satellite photos of

possible targets and that this was one of the overt acts. USA says another

overt act was boiling bleach in a pyrex container that eventually broke.

This was allegedly to make explosives from Anna's fake bomb recipe. USA

says they targeted Nimbus Dam. He says they visited it to do

reconnaissance but "I believe they looked at the Dam and decided they did

not have the wherewithal to do it". He also said they target unspecified

cell phone towers and power stations and the Institute of Forestry

Genetics (IFG). USA says they visited IFG and used fake names and a fake

stories to get a tour and do reconnaissance. Then USA said it was

"important to talk about why this case comes to a termination when it

does".

According to him this was a series of three "stressful" events. The first

is that they got pulled over by the CHP and she was afraid her cover was

going to be blown. The second is that Eric found a small recording device

in her car attached to her tape player, though she was able to convince

him it was just a component of her car. Apparently the final decisive

incident was that Anna had an argument after a pyrex bowl in which the 4

boiled bleach broke. The stress of the day caused a huge argument with

the other three because she felt they were not moving fast enough and did

not have a plan. This led to her leaving the house for two hours and

telling her FBI handlers that she was through. Apparently they convinced

her to go back for one more night and agreed to end the operation and

arrest Eric, Lauren and Zach.

Defense Opening Statements

"What is essential is often invisible to the eye"

Mark Reichel, attorney for Eric McDavid, began his brief opening statement

with the above quote from the French children's story "The Little Prince".

He went on to explain to the jury that they had been hearing the

government's version of the facts, but to grasp the true story they would

have to look at these facts in context and approach this case from a

different perspective. Nothing exists in a vacuum and we have to know

what has gone on before. He compared Eric, Lauren and Zach to

tumbleweeds, saying that there has to be a powerful, horrific force at

work to keep them on the same path. He said that the true beginning of

the story was in August 04, when Anna met Eric. The jury, Mark said,

would have to focus on intent - where it came from and who's it was.

Where does everything originate?

First Government Witness

The government's first witness was Bruce David Naliboff, a Lt. of criminal

investigation with the Yolo County District Attorney's office since 2002.

He was a police officer for 20 years before that, with 16 years on the UC

Davis police force. His testimony consisted primarily of information he

had gleaned about the ALF, ELF and anarchism from surfing the internet and

putting thing in binders since 1997. Mark moved to bar his testimony

because it was prejudicial but was denied by the judge. Then Mark moved to

bar his testimony because he his testimony was about what the "ultimate

truth" of the case was about - which experts are not allowed to do because

that is for the jury to decide. The judge denied Mark's motion again,

stating that Naliboff was not an expert. This, despite the fact that after

much debate Judge England seemed to have decided at last Friday's hearing

that Naliboff was an expert (at the hearing he said, in reference to

Naliboff being an expert "if it looks like a duck and quacks like a

duck..."). When cross examined by Mark, Naliboff admitted that one did not

have to be an anarchist to be vegan or be a criminal to be an anarchist.

He also described discussing his testimony with the prosecutor and the FBI

agent the day before and receiving instruction from them. He originally

said that to law enforcement "direct action means illegal activity". He

later clarified that by saying "in my mind it is a misdemeanor crime to

further your casue". He was very reticent to define anarchism after Mark

asked him about famous anarchists and veganism and finally described it as

"a people's philosophical way of life".

Anna to testify

It was revealed in court yesterday that Anna was supposed to testify

today. But then the government revealed that they had 13 pages of notes

from Anna that they claim they have never heard about or seen. The USA

said that Anna thought she had gotten rid of them, but then just found

them on her computer. The notes cover some of the periods of time when

Anna says Eric made incriminating statements that cannot be corroborated

by any

electronic surveillance. This delayed Anna's testimony until Tuesday,

September 11.

Vegan Food For Eric

Please continue to call the jail and politely insist that Eric be given

vegan meals. We have been told that Sgt. Ilg is responsible for the

decision to deny Eric food. You may want to request to speak to him when

you call.

916-874-6752

916-874-6905

Apparently the jail has been telling people a variety of stories that

range from "Eric is getting commissary" to "no one is getting commissary".

These statements are both false. Eric has money in his commissary account

and was inexplicably denied access to commissary while others received it.

Do not be deterred by lies. Just request that the jail resume giving Eric

vegan meals immediately and resume his access to commissary.

Update on Mumia's Pending Appeal

From Gloria Rubac:

Dear Friends:

We continue to await a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, Philadelphia, concerning my client, Mumia Abu-Jamal. This complex
case was orally argued before a three-judge panel on May 17, 2007, following
extensive litigation which included voluminous briefing and motions. In my
experience of successfully defending a large number of murder cases
involving the death penalty, it was a great day.

It is impossible to know what the federal court ruling will be. If the
judges follow the law and fairly apply the U.S. Constitution, we will win.
As to when, long ago I projected a decision would be forthcoming this fall;
it could come any day. One thing is certain: whomever loses will seek a
rehearing and petition the U.S. Supreme Court.

I have previously described the different rulings that the federal court
could make. Nevertheless some people have recently sent out e-mail
containing false information. Contrary to their claim, the federal court
cannot impose a sentence of "life in prison without parole". Only a jury
verdict could result in such an outcome, unless in the event of a penalty
reversal the prosecution elected not to seek the death penalty. Likewise
the court unfortunately cannot order that Mumia be released, for that would
require a new guilt-phase jury trial and a favorable verdict which is
certainly our goal. To once more clarify the legal situation, the scenarios
of how the U.S. Court of Appeals might rule include:

- Grant an entirely new jury trial of the guilt phase;

- Order a new jury trial limited to the issue of life or death;

- Remand the case back to the U.S. District Court for further proceedings;
or

- Deny all relief.

Racism, fraud, and politics are threads that have run through this case
since Mumia's 1981 arrest. The issues in this matter concern the right to a
fair trial, the struggle against the death penalty, and the political
repression of an outspoken journalist.

Mumia's objective is a reversal of the murder conviction and death sentence,
and the granting of an entirely new trial. At the end of that jury trial I
expect to win and see my client freed so that he can finally go home to his
family.

Thank you for your interest in this campaign for human rights.

Yours very truly,

Robert R. Bryan
Law Offices of Robert R. Bryan
2088 Union Street, Suite 4
San Francisco, California 94123-4117

Lead counsel for Mumia Abu-Jamal

Auburn Journal on Eric McDavid: Eco-terrorist suspect's trial begins

Eco-terrorist suspect's trial begins
Attorney says Foresthill man was set up by FBI informant

By: Penne Usher, Auburn Journal Staff Writer
Monday, September 10, 2007

A Sacramento attorney said his client, an accused eco-terrorist, is a
victim of entrapment by the FBI.

But prosecutors say they caught an eco-terrorist in the act of planning to
bomb U.S. government buildings.

Those claims and more highlight the trial for accused eco-terrorist Eric
McDavid, of Foresthill, which began Monday in a Sacramento courtroom.

McDavid, 29, was arrested Jan. 13, 2006 along with Zachary Jenson, 21, of
Monroe Wash. and Lauren Weiner, 21, of Philadelphia. All were charged with
conspiracy to destroy government buildings.

Weiner entered into a plea agreement May 30, 2006 and Jensen pleaded
guilty July 18, 2006, Rosemary Shaul, spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's
Office said Monday.

The two are scheduled to be sentenced Oct. 11 in federal court.

FBI officials have said the arrest was based on evidence that the trio was
plotting on behalf of the Earth Liberation Front to destroy unspecified
cell phone towers, power-generation facilities and U.S. Forest Service
facilities.

The three suspected eco-terrorists were seen by surveillance teams
scouting out the Nimbus Dam and fish hatchery in Folsom and had visited
the U.S. Forest Service structures near Placerville.

ELF is a recognized eco-terrorist group comprised of "cells," or small
numbers of environmental extremists who use arson and explosive devices to
target government, commercial and residential facilities.

A female informant working for the FBI infiltrated the eco-terrorist
group's local cell, according to court documents. The foursome was video-
and audiotaped at an Auburn-area cabin pre-wired with surveillance
equipment by the FBI.

McDavid, Jenson and Weiner reportedly discussed possible targets,
reconnaissance missions and what supplies would be needed to make bombs.

McDavid's Sacramento attorney, Mark Reichel, said his client and the other
two suspects are not only victims of entrapment by the FBI, but also an
informant. "She bullied and cajoled McDavid and his co-defendants into
this plan that she hatched and kept alive," Reichel said in a released
statement. "McDavid now faces 20 years in prison for a crime that was
never committed."

He said that the FBI paid the 17-year-old confidential informant about
$75,000 for infiltrating activist groups and "spying" on gathering across
the country.

McDavid remains incarcerated in the Sacramento County Jail pending trial.

Reichel claims the FBI's case was "fabricated."

"The government should never be involved in the manufacturing of crime,"
he said.

The 2006 arrest came just a year after four eco-terror suspects were
arrested in connection with multiple fire-bomb attempts.

Four firebombs were found at the Twelve Bridges development in Lincoln on
Dec. 27, 2004, and five incendiary devices were found at an Auburn office
building under construction Jan. 12. 2005. An apartment complex in Sutter
Creek was burned Feb. 7. All were connected to the Earth Liberation Front.

Ryan Lewis, 23, of Newcastle, pleaded guilty Oct. 14, 2005 in federal
court to two counts of attempted arson and one count of arson in
connection with the planting of incendiary devices in Placer and Amador
counties.

Eva Holland, 26, and her sister Lili Holland, 21, also of Newcastle,
pleaded guilty to a count of attempted arson.

Additionally, an "incendiary device" was found on the steps of the Placer
County Historic Courthouse in Old Town Auburn Feb. 13, 2005 and another
similar device was located behind the Auburn office of the Department of
Motor Vehicles. No one has been arrested in connection with those two
plantings.

The Journal's Penne Usher can be reached at penneu@goldcountrymedia.com or
post a comment online at auburnjournal.com.

Commemorate The Sabra and Shatila Massacre - Screening - Frontiers of Fears and Dreams

This Saturday in San Diego
Commemorate The Sabra and Shatila Massacre
Screening - Frontiers of Fears and Dreams by Mai Masri

When: 7:30 PM (after Iftar) Saturday September 15, 2007
Where: Al-Awda Community Center

Join Al-Awda San Diego this Saturday as we commemorate the Sabra and Shatila
Massacre 25 years later - The commemoration (and post film discussion) will be
led by Mahmoud Zubaidi, Coordinator of Al-Awda's West Coast Refugee Support Committee.

About the Massacre

The Sabra and Shatila Refugee Camp Massacre took place between 16 to 18
September 1982. This massacre is considered the bloodiest single atrocity
committed against the Palestinian people in living history. Similar in
magnitude to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US, which left close to
3000 innocent people dead, according to the International Committee of the
Red Cross, more than 2,750 Palestinian men, women and children were
massacred in the Sabra and Shatila camps in Beirut while the city was
occupied by the Israeli army.

The principal war criminal bearing legal responsibility for the massacre
is then Israeli Minister of Defense, General Ariel Sharon - the perpetrator
of the Kibya Massacre nearly thirty years before. Even Israel's Kahan
Commission could not hide the fact that Ariel Sharon was "personally
responsible" for the Sabra and Shatila massacre. Until recently, Ariel
Sharon was Israel's elected prime minister.

About the Film Frontiers of Fears and Dreams

Frontiers of Fears and Dreams is an outstanding documentary film which
touches on life in the refugee camps of Shatilla in Lebanon and Deheisha
near Bethlehem through the eyes of children growing up within the camp
walls. Focusing on 2 young girls, Mona, 13 yrs old from Shatilla, and
Manar, 14, from Deheisha, the lives, dreams and experiences of the girls,
their families and peers are touchingly presented to the viewer.

Although living under Israeli military oppression and in exile, the girls
find ways to live as normal teenagers, enjoying birthdays, taking care of
daily chores, attending schools when open, and discussing fashion, love and
normal teenage concerns. Mona and Manar who both have been orphaned by the
massacres and sieges upon the camps, are still able to celebrate life and
keep the spirit of their identity and homeland alive. The children in the
camps sing tearful nationalistic songs, discuss the history of their
homeland, and how politics affect them as displaced persons. Scenes are
shown of the children working on a camp beautification program and painting
the walls with heartfelt pictures reflecting their love of Palestine and
each other.

The girls get to know each other as pen pals, sending letters, gifts, and
e-mail. At one point in the film, Mona asks Manar to visit her original
homeland village near Nazareth, as she is unable to cross the
Lebanese border to occupied Palestine. Manar relates to her the visions and
feelings experienced there and also video tapes her visit.

An emotionally charged meeting between the two girls was filmed at the
Lebanese-Israeli barbed wire border. Non stop talk, tears, hugs, and kisses
were exchanged through the metal chain-link divider.

The message sent by "Frontiers of Dreams and Fears" is not one of despair
but that of hope. Hope for goodness, dignity, and solidarity.

About the filmmaker: Mai Masri- Producer & Director

Mai Masri is a Palestinian filmmaker, graduate of San Francisco State
University. She has directed and produced several award winning films that
are broadcast on more than 100 television stations around the world. Ms.
Masri formed MTC and Nour Productions with filmmaker Jean Chamoun.
"Frontiers of Dreams and Fears' has won first prize at Ismailia Film
Festival, a Special Jury Award at Beirut International Film Festival, the
Earth Vision Award in Tokyo 2001 and Best documentary Egyptian Documentary &
Film Critics Assoc. Mai has also produced 'Children of Shatilla', 'Hanan
Ashrawi: A Woman of Her Time', 'In the Shadows of the City', 'War
Generation-Beirut', and 'Wild Flowers' to name a few of the films which have
received prestigious awards.

Admission Free! All Welcome!

Please publicize, call and invite your friends!

Note: Tickets for the upcoming Marcel Khalife concert in San Diego will be
available for sale at this event.

Directions

Al-Awda's Community Center is located at 2734 Loker Avenue West Suite K,
Carlsbad, CA 92010.

From I-5, exit Palomar Airport Road and head East - make a left on Loker
Avenue West (first left after you cross El Camino Real) and left into
Carlsbad Crossroads business center (look for the large Carlsbad Crossroads
sign). End 2734 Loker Avenue West Suite K.

From I-15, exit I-78 West. From I-78 exit San Marcos Blvd and head West.
San Marcos Blvd becomes Palomar Airport Road when you enter Carlsbad. Loker
Avenue West will be on your right, past the Melrose Drive and El Fuerte
intersections. Other directions as above.

From El Camino Real, go East on Palomar Airport Road and make a (first) left
on Loker Avenue West. Other directions as above.

Parking is free - plenty available

For other upcoming Al-Awda San Diego events, visit:
http://al-awdasandiego.org/events.html

For more information:

Al-Awda San Diego
The Palestine Right to Return Coalition
PO Box 131352
Carlsbad, CA 92013, USA
Tel: 760-685-3243
Fax: 360-933-3568
Email: info@al-awdasandiego.org
WEB: http://al-awdasandiego.org

---------------------------------
Save the Date!
Sixth Annual International Al Awda Convention
On The Sixtieth Year of Al Nakba
Anaheim, Southern California
May 16-18, 2008
http://al-awda.org
---------------------------------

Support Al-Awda, a Great Organization and Cause!
Become an Al-Awda Sustainer:
Monthly: http://al-awda.org/sustainers.html
Annually: http://al-awda.org/sustainers2.html

"Resisting, Subverting and Destroying the Apparatus of Surveillance and Control": An Interview with Mike Davis

From Voices of Resistance from Occupied London: Quarterly Anarchist Journal of Theory and Action from the British Capital After the Empire


Mike Davis is professor of history at the University of California, Irvine, and the author of, amongst others, "City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles" (1990), "Dead Cities, And Other Tales" (2003) and most recently, "Buda's Wagon: A Brief History of the Car Bomb" (2007). Following is a short excerpt from the interview he kindly gave to Voices on the 23d of February in London.

You often draw lines of comparison between different tendencies of urban control across the globe. Could you compare the situation in Los Angeles, the repression and surveillance happening there when you were writing City of Quartz with the situation in London today?

There is nothing comparable at all in the U.S. to the apparatus of surveillance that exists in London. Even CCTV cameras are only recently becoming an issue in the U.S. Total surveillance of down town areas of American cities is something I wrote about in the early nineties but only applied to tiny areas, a few acres in down town Los Angeles for example. If Giuliani does become president we will get closer to the idea of having total surveillance and control in the city centre but London is at least one if not two generations ahead of the United States. Having said that, the foundations in the U.S. exist: the freeways now have surveillance systems that monitor gridlock. But I find London really shocking in many ways. I had no idea for instance until I came here about the fact that subway passes are used to monitor and accumulate data. In the United States things have gone in a different direction. Obviously, in every economic transaction you have and particularly on the internet, data is being transferred or sold for marketing purposes. I think the American political system might be the most advanced in the world in this sense - using marketing data to target people and pass political messages across to them. Also, there is a much larger budget and much bigger research effort going on in the U.S. To give you an example of how this works: The Bush Administration wants guest programmes to satisfy the labour needs of crucial industries like agribusiness. Alas it has been blindsided by a revolt in the republican grassroots against democrats. One of the things they are calling for is building a wall the entire length of the Mexican border and the Congress has actually authorised part of that, although people who actually work on border control and surveillance laugh at it since these walls would be totally ineffective: 12-foot high sheets of metal that anyone could climb. They are working on something completely different: a virtual border, more like the virtual control that now exists around the city of London. They had to feed red meat to the conservatives in the suburbs who wanted a Berlin-like physical wall since only that gives them the reassurance of border control. Real control over people's movement however does not so much require these walls as it requires the technology. This is the one sphere where I think the U.S. is more advanced in creating a society of total surveillance. Perry, the Governor of Texas, has authorised putting cameras up on areas of the border that people commonly cross and plugged them in to the internet. So it has created virtual vigilantes. Anybody who wants can waste their time looking at a desert, and if you see a Mexican coming across it you can call a number to some department of the Texas state which will alert the border control.

So the internet gets to threaten freedom because of the way in which we can all surveil, oppress and jail each other: we are all prison guards now, watching each others' movements. This is a frightening idea and the right-wing loves it, having some role to play in the policing of immigration and society. Everyone wants to wear a badge in some sense.

In LA they recently put on digital screens on the freeways to give warnings about traffic, although we are still far behind Europe in that. They now use them for alerts on kidnaps etc. The problem with implementing a lot of this in the U.S. and in inner cities in particular is that it wouldn't survive for a day! They would have to in some way to arm, fortify and protect surveillance cameras. The degree of vandalism in American inner cities is so advanced and extensive... I once calculated the square footage of graffiti in LA and interviewed people cleaning up graffiti. One morning I got up and the inside of my mailbox had been tagged. When you have that many kids engaging with vandalism, graffiti etc. they will start putting up cameras but they are going to be broken and torn down. It might work well with the middle class - it will work well at leafy suburbs of Santon or white parts of Johannesburg but when you start putting the surveillance cameras in the townships or the American ghettos, you will have to have a policeman standing in front of them each. This is one of the contradictions of surveillance society. CCTV is not nearly as advanced in the US as in Europe. People are more reassured by private police in the U.S.

Why aren't cameras being vandalised in London?

That would be one of my questions too. I think that we need to propagandise and fight for the idea of a universal insurrection against surveillance state, against the erosion of civil liberties. We need to encourage people and find every way possible in which to resist, subvert and destroy the apparatus of surveillance and control. Of course, millions of teenagers do that anyway. Kevin Lynch wrote a book on vandalism; he was very interested in vandalism as an urban process, in spontaneous vandalism of all sorts. He studied it in the seventies, partially to understand how architects could combat it and partially because he was interested in its logic. He thought that anything that involved people and the built environment, including destroying it, was a good thing. If you wanted to generate a theory of participatory architecture or urbanism, vandalism seemed to be the most common and popular form of participating in the built environment by revolting against its dehumanisation, in working class council estates in American inner cities and so on.

I think we need a strategy to support each other; we should vandalise and subvert the surveillance state and the middle class that supports it. Tearing down the armed response signs from peoples' lawns freaks them out... Not that the armed response is real or reliable, but people get immense reassurance from having the sign there. If you remove it they think that all forces might mobilise against them and that they might get killed the next day. I started off vandalising lawn jockeys - these are a phenomenon of American segregation and racism. They are black jockey figures put in the lawn like the pink flamingos they put there. They are popular amongst people who are nostalgic of the old racial order, when all blacks were servants or slaves. When I went back to L.A. in the late eighties I discovered that there were quite a few of these around houses in Beverly Hills. It is something to which all the creative energy of youth needs to be applied: to find ways in which to fight back and subvert the surveillance society.

To your central question I have no answer to at all. I lived in London in the eighties, very unhappy and poor, but had some great inspiring moments. I was down in Fleet Street at the battle of Fortress Murdoch, with the print workers battling the cops every night... Wonderful things. A lot of tremendous energy in the city. So I am appalled to come back here and see peoples' complaisance and complacency.

London is a place where so many people come through.... Migrants coming to work, students coming to study, a constant flux of people coming in and out. We were wondering if that has something to do with this complacency - or does it, on the other hand, provide in itself possibilities for resistance?

It does, though today immigrants are as radically vulnerable in London as they are in the U.S. I gave a talk the other night and tried to explain that it is hard to think of a time in the American history that immigrants (including legal ones) have been so vulnerable. The Bush Administration's position is that even legal immigrants have no real standing under the American Bill of Rights or Constitution. You do not have the protection of habeas corpus, Anglo-saxon liberty etc. Gigantic immigrant rights protests took place last year in the United States expressing people's existential anxiety, the recognition that they have got a right to stand. On the other hand, the logic of this in London is clear: More than New York, London is the ultimate playground of rich people. Russian billionaires come here, not to NYC. Everything is being done to reassure that this is the ultimate secure place to park your money. London has always played this role to some degree though it used to be considered that NYC was the ultimate place to go. London has been challenging this very aggressively, the irony being that this aggression is partially driven by Ken Livingstone's policies.

In your RIBA lecture you spoke of cities as the only viable solution for the future, when talking about the environment. Could you elaborate?

Inevitably, this will become a world in which at least two thirds of the population will live in cities. I wish I could believe in traditional Kropotkinite ideas of returning to mutual aid in the countryside... that's why I think we have to dust off this great conversation about alternative cities between socialists and anarchists roughly around the 1880s and the 1930s. Cities are the only way to square the circle between humanity's demand for equality and a decent standard of living in a sustainable planet. The substitute for ever going intensified private or individual consumption is the public luxury of the city. I am very much influenced by the constructivist ideas deriving from Russia in the early twenties. They were confronted with the fact that Russia had no capacity to build very lavish housing for the working class, but they would compensate by creating the most wonderful, utopian public spaces. Every factory would have a great sports centre, a cinema or a library. Public space not only satisfies the same needs, it also produces and satisfies other ones. It is one thing to be alone at home with an infinity of pornography on the internet and quite a different thing to be young, in the plaza or the public space surrounded by people your own age and all the possibilities that brings along....

In essence, the city is the economy of scale: it produces the most sufficient relationship between humans and nature. It produces a public or social wealth comprising not only a substitute for private consumption or private wealth, but is also the basis for needs that cannot exist or be fulfilled under capitalism. If people had a choice between all the pornography you can ingest in your lifetime and flirting with people in an enormous bathhouse, what would you choose? That is the genius of the city. Patrick Geddes, the great urban thinker from Edinburgh and friend of Kropotkin's, was the first one to see that the dependency of the city and its vulnerable condition on its hinterland is watershed that urban density supported the preservation of open space and services the nature. He was the first one to think deeply about the politics of infrastructure and recycling, not exporting waste downstream, sustainability... To see that in some relationship to social justice. He is the one who went to India with the British Army asking about sanitation systems in the country. The Indians had solved their problems - they know what to do with their shit. You are the ones who've got the problem, as you want to dump it in the water! There is a direct connection between Geddes and Kropotkin and a whole, partially lost anarchist tradition thinking about self-organised urban space, self-governed cities and how cities work environmentally. There is no other possible solution: Trading carbon credits in markets will not save the earth. Building cities that are truly cities in the most profound sense will do so. Creating an equality of pleasure and public luxury will do so. And recognising that consumption has turned into a rampant disease that poisons us and our children.

In 1934 came an end to the discussion and free thinking about alternative urbanism ranging across the span from abandoning the cities and going back to mutual aid and the countryside to, at some cases, in the Soviet Union, visions of super-cities, hyper-cities. There is a hugely rich vain of creative utopian thought about urbanism that needs to recur. It is not just the product of thinkers and planners, projects and case studies by governments, but it is also about capturing the individual activity of urban dwellers and poor people, everyone.

Talking about the provos in Amsterdam, the situationists etc... The problem is often creating use of urban space by avant-garde groups, people trying to reclaim and maintain traditional bohemias: refugees, squatters, artists... Inadvertently doing the work of redevelopers and real estate. In Los Angeles, despite tons of money thrown at the downtown (Los Angeles has one of the most inhuman downtowns in the world), the city never managed to gentrify it. The turning point was when my architecture students and starving artists willing to live side-by-side with homeless people started moving in the studio spaces there. They finally got to the point where they created cool places: restaurants and bars started to open, just like with the Lower East Side in NYC or Soho in London. Prices skyrocketed, these people were pushed out and the yuppies came in, and they were in turn replaced by even richer people. This is a real problem because when you get some creative network or community of young people trying to live in the city in a different manner they can unwillingly become foot soldiers.

Reformist politics has zero to say about this. There is absolutely no reformist government anywhere in the world that can deal with the serious and major issues of urban inequality, because it will not take on property values, land inflation etc. Until you start talking about confiscating the incriminating land value or socialising land or systems of limited equity in land, you cannot control the city, you cannot achieve any real equality in it.

Join With the IRSN in Support Prisoners of War

Join With the International Republican Socialist Network in Support Prisoners of
War

The IRSN is pleased to announce that due to the generous contributions received last year, we do not need to solicit donations of books in order to engage in our annual holiday shipments of socialist books to prisoners of war. Though, unfortunately, we are not permitted to send books to comrades from the Breton and Basque struggles, we will be sending them to Puerto Rican and Irish National Liberation Army prisoners of war again this year.

While not asking for donations of books, however, we are asking for your help again in assisting republican socialist prisoners of war. In part, this will again be done through our annual holiday card program, which will be launching in mid-October. However, our primary interest this year is in being able to increase our annual contribution to Teach na Failte, the organization founded to assist former Irish Republican Socialist prisoners of war once released from incarceration.

The IRSN is proud to have contributed to Teach na Failte every year since our network was founded, but we would like to increase the level of this material assistance substantially. In order to accomplish this, we are asking all revolutionary activists we are in contact with to translate their solidarity into something more substantial and contribute as much as you can to this effort. The comrades of Teach na Failte in Strabane, where the organisation was founded, have been an example to other struggles and an important basis of support for the continuing republican socialist struggle in Ireland and they, and the former POWs they assist, deserve your support. So please, dig deep and help us to help the work of Teach na Failte this year.

Cheques or money orders can either be made out to IRSN or you can make the out directly to Teach na Failte, which ever you prefer. If you can't afford to make an individual contribution, please consider undertaking a fund raising event with this as the focus of your effort. The IRSN is prepared to assist such efforts by arranging to loan some of its collected videos, which can be used to organize socials in private homes, where donations can be solicited or funds raised through sales of 'refreshments' .

In the age of the Internet and the Web, it is too often the case that would-be activists believe that it is sufficient to express support through e-mail discussion groups, but revolutionary activism requires more than this. It requires taking opportunity to speak with those in your workplace and social circle about the problems of capitalism and the solutions to those problems. It requires being visible in your support on the streets when it is needed. And, it requires providing material assistance, to the extent you can, to those undertaking the expenses of organizing in support of the republican socialist struggle. So, we ask you once again, join us in our drive to raise funds for Teach na Failte.

Send funds to:

IRSN
205715th Street, Suite B
San Francisco, CA 94114 USA

or donate via PayPal, using the e-mail address: irsp@netwiz. net.

Minneapolis Grand Jury Drops Subpoenas

Sunday, September 09 2007

Anthony Wong, Brandon Elder and a 3rd 
unidentified person were ordered to appear before a Minnesota Grand 
Jury on September 6th. Apparently this Grand Jury was investigating 
an ELF action that took place at the University of Minnesota back in 
2002.
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/08/363764.shtml

Repost from www.midwestgreenscare.org

The September 6th support rally has been cancelled. According to 
sources, the DA dropped the order to appear when it became apparent 
that the people subpoenaed would not cooperate and take the 5th. We 
plan an information meeting in the next 2 weeks.

Thank you to all those who refuse to cooperate with the Grand Jury. 
Your courage and strength is an inspiration to us all.

more info:
http://midwestgreenscare.org
http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/
www.greenscare.org

Daniel McGowan moved to FCI Oxford in WI

From: Family + Friends of Daniel McG <friendsofdanielmcg@yahoo.com

After spending over a week in Terre Haute, Daniel is now at FCI Oxford in Wisconsin. We're not sure how long he'll be here but it may be another week. Please write to Daniel!

DANIEL McGOWAN
#63794-053
FCI OXFORD
FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
P.O. BOX 1000
OXFORD, WI 53952

Also, please understand that he has had limited access to pens, paper, and stamps along the way. He has told me to let everyone know that he really, REALLY appreciates all the mail he's been getting and he's sorry he hasn't been able to respond to most people yet.

Hopefully once he reaches Sandstone and settles in he'll start getting back to everyone. But, again, letters mean the world to someone in prison. Please keep writing!

Thanks!

Daniel McGowan is an environmental and social justice activist. He was charged in federal court on many counts of arson, property destruction and conspiracy, all relating to two incidents in Oregon in 2001. Until recently, Daniel was offered two choices by the government: cooperate by informing on other people, or go to trial and face life in prison. His only real option was to plead not guilty until he could reach a resolution of the case that permitted him to honor his principles. As a result of months of litigation and negotiation, Daniel was able to admit to his role in these two incidents, while not implicating or identifying any other people who might have been involved. He was sentenced to 7 years in prison on June 4, 2007 and began serving his time on July 2, 2007.

Rod Coronado: Radical environmentalist goes to trial under terror law

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_6854734

Radical environmentalist goes to trial under terror law
By ALLISON HOFFMAN Associated Press Writer
Article Launched: 09/10/2007 05:46:20 PM PDT


SAN DIEGO—A few hours after a $50 million condo project burned down,
apparently in an eco-terror attack, Earth Liberation Front spokesman Rod
Coronado stood in front of a San Diego audience and explained how to build
a homemade Molotov cocktail.
Now, Coronado is going to trial in federal court on a single count of
distributing information on explosives, destructive devices and weapons of
mass destruction with the intent that his listeners commit illegal acts of
violence, a charge that could land him in prison for up to 20 years under
post-Sept. 11 legislation.

Prosecutors say Coronado, a longtime environmental activist renowned for
helping sink whaling ships and destroying mink farms and animal research
labs, wanted people to follow in his footsteps—although they do not link
him to the condo project fire.

In court documents, Assistant U.S. Attorney John Parmley wrote that
Coronado told his audience that "there is no other way to deal with these
places than fire" and later told the television program "60 Minutes" that
he was "asking for people courageous enough to take those risks for what
they believe in."

Coronado's trial begins on the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001,
attacks. Now 41 and recently married, the activist says the abrupt shift
in America's tolerance for violence and civil disobedience dramatically
changed the landscape for environmental activism in a way he didn't
recognize until he was charged.

"In today's world, people striving for social change through the mediums
that I have chosen are lumped together with the kinds of people who do fly
airplanes into buildings," Coronado said recently from his home in Tucson,
Ariz.
Jurors hearing the trial before U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Miller will
have to decide whether Coronado was simply exercising his First Amendment
right to speak publicly about illegal activities or trying to inspire his
listeners to go out and commit eco-terrorist acts in the name of
conservation.

"What Coronado said is only very slightly different from what textbooks or
newspapers routinely describe, so the question is to what extent does the
speech lose its protection when the speaker intends it to be used for
specific vi