[Ppnews] AETA 4 Case Dismissed, But Re-Indictment Possible

[Political Prisoner News]

Jul 12th, 2010 by Will Potter Green is the new Red

http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/aeta-4-case-thrown-out-dismissed/3015/

A U.S. District Court has thrown out the indictment of four animal rights
activists who were charged with violating the Animal Enterprise Terrorism
Act, because the government did not clearly explain what, exactly, the
protesters did.

When Joseph Buddenberg, Maryam Khajavi, Nathan Pope and Adriana Stumpo
were arrested in 2009, prosecutors said little other than that the group
allegedly chalked slogans on the sidewalk, distributed fliers and attended
protests. Later, when they were officially indicted, the government was
still tight-lipped about how their non-violent, above-ground protests
amounted to "terrorism."

In response, the Center for Constitutional Rights and attorney Matthew
Strugar led an effort to have the indictments dismissed. In short, they
argued that the charges should be dropped because they seem to involve
only protected First Amendment speech, but that in order to make that
argument the defendants' speech must be clearly identified.

Here's an excerpt from Judge Ronald M. Whyte's ruling:

     In order for an indictment to fulfill its constitutional purposes, it
must allege facts that sufficiently inform each defendant of what it
is that he or she is alleged to have done that constitutes a crime.
This is particularly important where the species of behavior in
question spans a wide spectrum from criminal conduct to
constitutionally protected political protest. While "true threats"
enjoy no First Amendment protection, picketing and political protest
are at the very core of what is protected by the First Amendment.
Where the defendants' conduct falls on this spectrum in this case will
very likely ultimately be decided by a jury. Before this case proceeds
to a jury, however, the defendants are entitled to a more specific
indictment setting forth their conduct alleged to be criminal.
[emphasis added]

As background, a fierce campaign has been being waged in California
against animal research at the University of California system. There has
been a wide range of both legal and illegal tactics. Illegal tactics have
included the destruction of UC vans, and an incendiary device was left at
the home of a UC researcher.

The FBI and local law enforcement haven't been able to catch the people
responsible, though. They've only cracked down on the above-ground
activists, like the AETA 4, who protest and create fliers.

The previous version of the law was used to convict the SHAC 7 for running
a controversial website that posted news of both legal and illegal
actions. This case, the first use of the new Animal Enterprise Terrorism
Act, was clearly an attempt to use this sweeping legislation even more
broadly against First Amendment activity. This ruling sternly rebukes the
government's attempt to take activists to trial for "terrorism" without
even explaining what they have done.

To be clear, though, this case is not over. The government can still
re-indict the defendants with an amended bill of particulars that clearly
outlines their alleged actions.

This is a victory worth celebrating, and it should also be inspiration for
renewed organizing. Corporations and the politicians who represent them
have been pushing this "eco-terrorism" and "animal enterprise terrorism"
legislation for years, and they will not sit quietly as the flagship case
of their pet scare-mongering law is tossed aside.

If prosecutors choose to re-indict, it should be at their own peril; the
animal rights and environmental movements must be ready to respond even
more loudly, more forcefully, that activism is not terrorism.



Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110

415 863-9977

www.Freedomarchives.org  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/ppnews_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20100713/3e59b284/attachment.html>