SF Bay Area Indymedia indymedia
About Contact Subscribe Calendar Publish Print Donate

California | East Bay | Santa Cruz Indymedia | South Bay | Animal Liberation | Police State and Prisons

Government files reponses to AETA4 motion to dismiss
by AETA 4 Support
Tuesday Jun 16th, 2009 12:52 AM
The government has filed their response to the motion to dismiss the AETA4 case.

Government's response to the joint motion by defense attorneys, Center for Constitutional Rights, and the Civil Liberties Defense Center attacking the constitutionality of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.

Comments  (Hide Comments)

by Going to trial
Tuesday Jun 16th, 2009 8:35 AM

"It is clear from their statements alone that the defendants acted for the purpose
of causing the researchers to stop using animals for testing, thereby at a minimum intending to
interfere with the activities of their laboratories. Again, the defendants here are charged not
because of their opinions, but because of their repeated intentional criminal acts of harassing,
intimidating, and threatening bio-medical researchers, coupled with acts of criminal trespass,
vandalism, and property damage at their homes. While the defendants could have protested
without terrorizing and attempting to terrorize the researchers, they chose not to. They cannot
now claim that the law is unclear because they got caught. "


"The defendants’ alleged acts are in stark contrast to their examples - multiple protests at researchers’
homes at which the defendants wearing bandanas covering their face, chant and scream that they
will not stop their protests until the researchers stop using laboratory animals, while making
explicit and subtle references to arsons, are hardly equivalent to a boycott or peaceful picket."
by need some clarification
Tuesday Jun 16th, 2009 10:44 AM
are the defendants actually being charged for any vandalism, criminal trespass, or property damage?
cue the audio of lightning and thunder and creaking chains and screaming when you read the quotes excerpted in the first comment here. boo!

then compare that an abortion doctor, an african american guard as a holocaust museum, and now a latina/o family have been murdered by racist and religious fanatics in just the last three weeks

now ask yourself who are the real terrorists? why is up down with the fbi?
by Nope
Tuesday Jun 16th, 2009 1:48 PM
"are the defendants actually being charged for any vandalism, criminal trespass, or property damage?"

According to the indictment, no. And according to FBI Special Agent/Spokesman Joseph Schadler, "The indictment speaks for itself"
by Yes
Tuesday Jun 16th, 2009 6:41 PM
My prediction is yes, that it will go to trial. Not because there is anything threatening or terrorist here, but because the University of California Regents are powerful people with vested political interests. And the FBI serves the wealthy. And the FBI has a fucked up list of priorities.

I support the AETA4, but I won't be surprised when they're railroaded to prison with sentences longer than rapists or child sexual predators. The FBI has gotten away with much worse. Involvement in the murders of Panthers (Fred Hampton Jr., Bunchy Carter, etc.), murders of AIM activists, false arrest of Judi Bari, the list could go on forever.
by Going to Trial
Tuesday Jun 16th, 2009 6:41 PM
In reply to the question: ""are the defendants actually being charged for any vandalism, criminal trespass, or property damage?" "
According to the indictment, Yes.

They are charged with intentionally placing a person in reasonable fear of death, and serious bodily injury to that person, a member of the immediate family of that person, and a spouse of that person by a course of conduct involving threats, acts of vandalism, property damace, criminanl treapass, harassment, and intimidation.
Link to FBI indictment: http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/animal-rights-activists-indicted-as-terrorists-for-home-protests/1657/


In question to Up is Down: Of the three cases you mention for comparison sake...which isn't being tried for prosecution for their crime?

by Remove trolls post.
Tuesday Jun 16th, 2009 6:48 PM
"Going to Trial" is a troll who just quoted verbatim the Penal Code, as if it means anything. Doesn't mean anything. Indybay eds need to watch their site for trolls because there are way too many here to make this site worth reading.
by Going to Trial
Tuesday Jun 16th, 2009 8:10 PM
The poster above says I'm a troll whose merely posting verbatim penal codes. But I got that information from the website I linked to. It's from "Green is the new Red", which I beleive to be a supportive site. And on that site, it says:

"When four animal rights activists were arrested under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, it was unclear how prosecutors would proceed, and what specific accusations the activists would face. Now, the government indictment, available here for the first time,".

And I read that indictment, and it says the four individuals who you're calling the AETA 4 are indicted and charged with those specifics.

So the poster above is saying it's a generic charge, not specific to them. But the website appears to say that these are the actual charges against the 4.

..what am I missing?

by green
Wednesday Jun 17th, 2009 8:53 AM
It's true those are the charges in the indictment, not from the penal code. One can say that they didn't do these things and these are just made-up charges, but it is totally inaccurate to say "these are not the charges".

"intentionally placing a person in reasonable fear of death, and serious bodily injury to that person, a member of the immediate family of that person, and a spouse of that person by a course of conduct involving threats, acts of vandalism, property damace, criminanl treapass, harassment, and intimidation."

Link to FBI indictment: http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/animal-rights-activists-indicted-as-terrorists-for-home-protests/1657/