From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Related Categories: Central Valley | Environment & Forest Defense
Auburn eco arrestee becomes informant
by entrapped
Tuesday May 30th, 2006 10:13 PM
In a hearing today in Sacramento, some details about Lauren Weiner's decision to take a plea bargain and cooperate with investigators emerges...
Sacramento Prisoner Support
May 30 2006 Alert
Lauren Weiner is a Government Informant

Lauren Weiner, Zachary Jenson, and Eric McDavid were arrested in
Auburn,CA as part of the government's Green Scare campaign on Jan 13, 2006,
and were charged with conspiracy to destroy property by means of fire or

While Zachary and Eric both maintian their innocence, eariler today
Lauren Weiner entered a guily plea to USC 18 371 or "conspiracy to commit an
offense or defraud the Unites States". This is a lesser conspiracy
charge than USC 18 844(n) which Lauren and her co-defendants were indicted
under. At this time Lauren's plea bargain has not been filed with the court,
though portions of it were read in today's hearing. According to
assistant United States Attorney Steve Lapham "the defendant agrees to cooperate
with the continuing investigation and prosecution of this case". This
confirms that Lauren Weiner is a government informant.

Sacramento Prisoner Support does not support government informants and
we will not support Lauren Weiner at anytime in the future.

Eric and Zachary are still in need of your support. We strongly
encourage everyone to write letters of support, donate, or raise awareness of
thier case. Other ideas for support can be viewed on their websites: and

Comments  (Hide Comments)

by <a>
Wednesday May 31st, 2006 10:21 AM
there is NO excuse for snitching. ever.
by deanosor
(deanosor [at] Wednesday May 31st, 2006 10:28 AM
We don't know what she's said. We do know she's "agreed to cooperate" and gotten a lesser charge because of it. She might be able to do that and not tell about what anybody else has done (IF anybody in this case has done anything at all). It is unwise to call people snitches or informants until we actually know they are snitching.
by point
Wednesday May 31st, 2006 10:49 AM
it's bigger than if she were just cooperating with her own case alone.

"with the continuing investigation and prosecution of this case"

continuing prosecution means the other two arrestees. with her plea, her case is closed as far as future prosecution goes, so it can only be read to mean that she is cooperating with the investigation of her former comrades.

this is just what the feds want, squeeze enough folks until a few of them crack under fear of draconian sentences. but they can only work as far as their last snitch. after that, the trail dries up. if people keep snitching, then the feds can roam as long as they like. if people refuse to cooperate, the prosecutions end right there.
by <a>
Wednesday May 31st, 2006 10:49 AM
we know she is a snitch because of court documents and things that were said in court. aside from that 'cooperating with the government' generally always means proving damaging testemony against someone else. ie doing the governments fucked up work for them. ie becoming an informant, ie a snitch.
by Thursday
Wednesday May 31st, 2006 11:19 AM
Just because the feds say she is "cooperating," how do YOU know? Do you always take their word at face value? That'd be an incredibly stupid thing to do.

How do you know if it isn't some ploy on their behalf as a diversion of some sort? They're known to do that. Confront her first, directly.
by takes two to tango
Wednesday May 31st, 2006 11:57 AM
How do you plead guilty to "conspiracy" and cooperate with the investigation but not implicate another person?

The only way this could be a "ploy" would be to use such ruses to turn the arrestees against eachother. With the plea to conspiracy, it is obviously not a ruse and one of the arrestees has already turned on the others. Using it as a "distraction" makes no sense.

The only real question now is to what extent is she "cooperating" -- what does she actually know and/or what is she willing to say? Snitches and informants often lie for their own benefit.
by SPS member
(sacprisonersupport[at]riseup[dot]net) Wednesday May 31st, 2006 4:06 PM
We are not random schmucks reporting that she is a snitch. We are the first line of prisoner support for the three (two now). We have been supporting the 3 since the day they were put in Sacramento County Jail. We have been working hand in hand with them, their families, their lawyers, and their friends. We would not put out this alert if we were not 100% sure that she is a government informant. Thanks for your concern.
by SPS member
Wednesday May 31st, 2006 5:09 PM

here is the documentation.
by ditches for snitches
Wednesday May 31st, 2006 5:09 PM
As of last winter lauren's cell phone number was 914-643-0354

Ren, how could you?
by what
Wednesday May 31st, 2006 9:40 PM
is that true, looks like weiner's attorney was a family member? sold out others on down the river. karma will take it's toll. unbelievable that she'd plead to the alledged crime of terrorism. FUCK YOU Alberto Gonzales and the cronies at the FBI!!! Fucking entrap people and label it this garbage. Your dumbasses couldn't catch a criminal if you tried. People murder people, manufacturer methamphetamine, smuggle in cocaine and you dipshits go after a few ideolistic kids and justify your flunkie saleries, wasted federalllies.... oh yea, have you caught any of those individuals who took out the pentagon a few years ago? did you catch any of those responsible for taking down those two big buildings in NY a few years ago? small credit to the people who prosecuted the enron flunkies.... to the feds who read this, get real, go after real crimes, jail bush and his cronies for stealing the election. that bastard in the white house stole the election and you all know it.
by She's a human being not a &quot;snitch&quot;
Thursday Jun 1st, 2006 9:44 AM
De-humanizing her isn't going to do a thing to build solidarity tactics and principles. Withdraw communal support. Use your principles to guide you to what you think your relationship with her should be. But don't lose sight of her humanity. Reducing her to a "snitch" impoverishes your vision and your culture.
by not so
Thursday Jun 1st, 2006 10:09 AM
When she decided to help set up her former friends for draconian jail sentences while she gets off with a lighter one for the same exact thing, she chose the label "snitch" for herself. THAT kind of behavior is what impoverishes vision and culture. It's called betrayal and no culture can thrive when comrades turn on eachother for their own selfish gain. The feds know this and that is exactly why they try to divide and conquer.

As a side note, it's actually unconstitutional for authorities/prosecutors to offer reduced sentences or paid informants' testimony to gain convictions against others. It's a form of bribery not available to the defense. Most students of law are aware of this, but because it has been going on so long almost everyone just looks the other way. People accepts the practice because of the fear that it would turn our (in)justice system on its head to stop it.
by's &quot;snitch&quot; and its ugly
Thursday Jun 1st, 2006 11:11 AM
and what she decided to do might be cowardly, self serving, etc...but using terms like this compact understanding of her state which is necessary for future community growth. This isnt about looking away and it's not about facile notions of forgiveness (which is a long uncertain road). It just feels like a default analysis, and a roadblock flung down that stymies future comunications/understanding about why people choose to capitulate. It feels a bit macho, too.
by feels this, feels that
Thursday Jun 1st, 2006 11:46 AM
It can feel 100 different ways to you, macho, roadblock, whatever, but the fact remains that she will be free when her compadres, who did NOT sell HER out, will still be doing time. Odds are their sentences will differ by years and years, perhaps almost two decades.

Feelings are rather irrelevent to that harsh reality.

She is throwing down a roadblock to her former friends' freedom. There's no two ways about it. To compromise with that, or to be touchy about what to call such a Benedict Arnold, to play semantics with it, is to accept so-called friends selling friends down the river.

Using the word "snitch" to define such repugnant behavior may feel offensive or overly harsh to you, but the behavior itself, the actual action of informing on friends, that is the real offense. If she informed on you (perhaps even lied as informers often do), I wonder if you would think "snitch" was too harsh of a term.
by That's ugly too
Thursday Jun 1st, 2006 12:46 PM
feelings are also sensibilities, which are informed by ethics. They matter.
No one is disputing the harsh realities of longer jail sentances for her former comrades.
by still not getting it
Thursday Jun 1st, 2006 1:49 PM
Why, oh, why the big defense of this snitch? Yes, snitch. Sending her friends off to do hard time when they could have all three fought it together. Now her two friends are truly sunk. They've got a paid infiltrator/instigator and their own comrade working against them.

As for the phone number, it's a whole lot easier for her to change a cell number than for her "friends" to lose two decades of their lives doing time in prison.

Feelings ARE irrelevent when compared to betraying the trust of others which results in years of hard time. She'll probably have feelings of guilt over this, but she can never take it back. At least as she has these "feelings" she will be moving on with her life while her former friends grow old in jail.

Why does it baffle you so much that people are angry that she would sell out her so-called friends? What is so hard to understand about that? It's about the worst thing one person can do to another and you want to quibble about things like using the word "snitch" to describe it. What gives?
by directory service
Thursday Jun 1st, 2006 2:04 PM
her phone number and other personal contact information needs to be shared for a couple of reasons.

The short of it is snitches cannot be trusted[1], and we need to make sure 1. that people who knew lauren/ren/fireflie know that she's got states witness and 2. that lauren does not attempt to get involved with so-called revolutionary movements for change in this country again.

Other would-be revolutionaries out there should also take note, behavior like this is NOT tolerated, and we will NOT coddle and apologize for you because you were afraid of going to prison for a long time. A snitch is the worst kind of prisoner. They are not deserving of support. Regarding her as a "political" prisoner or one deserving of sympathy above all of the other, normal, economic prisoners, is flat-out unexcusable. Lauren did this to herself.

The publishing of her phone number is akin to directory service for snitches. It's not a threat against her. I know Lauren and once cared for her very much, but not any more. Not coming down as hard as you can on a snitch sends the message to others that snitching, in some circumstances, is okay. Which it isn't. Not at all.

[1] in my book, she can make up for what she did by busting zach and eric out of jail and getting them to a safe country. but the fact is white radical environmentalists are interested in feeling better about themselves and they are NOT actually fighting for home or their own lives, so unlike people who had to fight for dignity and their lives in their home (e.g. Black Liberation Army) I'm not holding my breath about jailbreaks.
by but
Thursday Jun 1st, 2006 3:25 PM
..she's a twenty year old, obviously immature person, who bit off far more than she could chew and yes, turned informant on her friends, who will now serve long terms. She doesnt merit your support now, true. My impatience with the word "snitch" lies in its inability to provide any insight into the dynamics that were created her, and her former compatriots. Why do people get into situations they arent remotely prepared for and what responsibilty lies within the community they come to some sort of politicized consciousness within? "Snitch" lets everyone who worked with her off the hook in terms of what they knew about Lauren and what they did with that knowlege.
Did she know her own boundaries? Did anyone else? Was anyone around to help her understand what they were ('cause that's a function of community organizing)...
She sounds merely feckless, as opposed to actively malicious. It sounds like she engaged in pure adventurism, on her part, which ultimately damaged a community, and a vision. It's my firm belief that personal misteps that happen within the context of communal projects and endeavors also reflect back on the community- not just the person themself. Someone must have seen at some point that there were fractures in her committment. Did they try to engage her? Did they figure it would work itself out? Did they just look away? What kind of judgment was used?
There's a big mirror for all of you knew her and worked with her, should you care to look into it.
I had a friend who died in pursuit of a political identity- and it was mostly because of the free floating bad-assism that manifests itself in interventionist movments. And it was lame. She could have grown, but because we're all cheering ourselves on to do more, to be the one to issues non-negotiable ultimatums to corrupt and despicable commercial and political systems, and people get swept up in that idea of heroic individualism without understanding it get the picture.
by shir
Thursday Jun 1st, 2006 3:26 PM
It's also worth noting that it's really easy for us to sit here and call Lauren an "informant" and rant about how fucked up it is that she settled like this, without being the one in the defendant's seat.

I'm not stating my opinion either way, just remember that the government is very good at breaking people, both with violence and the threat of prison (violence), they've had a lot of practice. Let's not assume that everyone from a radical movement who gets locked up is a superhero who can resist all the different forms of coersion they face within the prison walls.

There's a difference between a snitch and someone who get's broken in prison... snithes often run free...
by Edward Abbey
Thursday Jun 1st, 2006 3:38 PM
I think what you really are is hostile to environmental direct action, ergo your "immature" verdict, and also ignorant of the "legal" system's ability to scare the bejeesus out of people and force them to do whatever it wants. It's for these reasons that I urge monkeywrenchers to 1) plan alone 2) ACT ALONE 3) don't tell a soul, not your spouse, not your best friend. NOBODY. EVER. But above all 4) DO IT. We have a planet to save. If pacifist methods won't suffice (no surprise there) then so be it
by You're wrong
Thursday Jun 1st, 2006 3:42 PM
What I'm hostile to is what I articulated in my posting.
by says you
Thursday Jun 1st, 2006 4:07 PM
Again with the feelings. It makes absolutely zero difference if she was "actively" malicious or not, although her turning on her supposed friends is certainly not an accident. She's ratting on her friends, knowing damn well that she will get a break they will not and that with her testimony they will likely do even more time.

Stop trying to belittle the evil that she is perpetrating with her decision to sell her friends out for her own benefit. They are being jailed just like she is and didn't rat HER out. Her psychology leading up to the supposed "crimes" is irrelevent. The support others gave her or didn't before these actions is irrelevent.

There's no two ways about it. She has betrayed supposed friends with extremely serious consequences for THEM. She knows full-well what she is doing and deserves not one single break from the activist community. Let her authoriarian friends offer her comfort now.
by It's a fundamentalist perspective
Thursday Jun 1st, 2006 4:24 PM
and you're welcome to it. I don't think it'll do a thing for movment building.
by Edward Abbey
Thursday Jun 1st, 2006 4:26 PM
So then why do you insist on indicting "the community [of her compatriots] - not just the person themself" for one person's "fecklessness." Do you really expect these things to be as systematically planned as Apollo moon missions? That looks to me like imposing ridiculous expectations with an eye toward condemnation from the beginning. It doesn't occur to you that it's young impetuous hotheads doing this stuff almost by definition? Is this what you meant by "immature." That just looks like predetermined hostility again. If you insist on 50-somethings planning these things down to the minutest detail and taking a blood oath before carrying them off, you must not want them to happen much.
by huh, what?
Thursday Jun 1st, 2006 4:32 PM
this are not "movement" actions

movements operate above ground

these were underground actions
by 'splain it to us
Thursday Jun 1st, 2006 4:34 PM
how exactly does snitching and helping send fellows to jail build a movement?
by consists of mentorship
Thursday Jun 1st, 2006 4:48 PM
among other things.
Here's a snippet
"My impatience with the word "snitch" lies in its inability to provide any insight into the dynamics that created her, and her former compatriots. Why (I should have said how) do people get into situations they arent remotely prepared for and what responsibilty lies within the community they come to some sort of politicized consciousness within? Did she know her own boundaries? Did anyone else? Was anyone around to help her understand what they were ('cause that's a function of community organizing)... "
It's a question. If I were involved with planning an action..intervention..whatever you want to call it, and something like this happened, I'd ask it of myself and others.
Two last things- if you're asking yourself, why, oh why am I weighing in- this is a public list. If you arent in the space to have your deal remarked on/acknowleged..then don't post to IndyBay. Unsolicited opinions are the risk you run.
All of my comments, taken collectively, should be taken as questions. They arent indictments. I'm a part of the direct action community, I've organized some, and I can imagine the pain the collective "you" is in.
And for that, I am sorry.

by don't buy it
Thursday Jun 1st, 2006 5:04 PM
callin' it as I see it.

you wouldn't be so quick to take her side if you truly were. objecting to the word "snitch" and so forth.

you sound more like a cop or prison guard, trying to encourage "understanding" for snitch behavior, painting it up in language about "movement" building

all your crap about mentorship, indeed seems to be an indictment of all environmentalists for the situation these three find themselves in and for the snitching of the rat in their group. as if it's some broader movement's responsibility to account for every last individual and the actions they take.

that sounds like the FBI

you have shown nothing that indicates you are a friend to environmentalism, direct action, nor these three people, apart from your apologies for the snitching. just left-wing vagueness supposed to convince us all you are authentic.
by Prom
Thursday Jun 1st, 2006 5:51 PM
I say, unless one has been in the position of spending a good portion of their life in prison, that one cannot possibly understand what it's like.

Don't judge snitches too harshly. They're acting out of panic and desperation.
by sure pal
Thursday Jun 1st, 2006 6:04 PM
Don't judge rapists too harshly. They are just a little social-sexually awkward. So what if they wreck their victims emotional health for life?

Don't judge murderers too harshly. They are usually just a tad angry when they kill. So what if they end someone's life?

Don't judge snitches too harshly. They are just taking the easy way out at their compadres expense. So what if they end someone's freedom for life?

Can't we all just get along?
by Prom
Thursday Jun 1st, 2006 6:23 PM
Tell ya what. Once/if you've found yourself threatened with serious prison time, (And possibly bodily harm) THEN you can insult her.

And your comparison of rapists and murderers to snitches is absurd.
by it's apt
Thursday Jun 1st, 2006 6:32 PM
rape, murder, virtual life sentence

20 years in jail might very well be worse than a single rape, and it is a death sentence for many. what do you think these guy's job prospects will be in their 40s after being in prison for so long, assuming they make it out alive? how about sexual relationships? their lives will be ruined, simple as that, and she is helping to ruin them

your arguement about having to face hard time might make sense until you consider that these guys are facing the same time as her and didn't snitch on her.

go away copper, you're not convincing us

by Prom
Thursday Jun 1st, 2006 7:28 PM
It would be nice if people here could accept that not everyone who doesn't take the hard line is a cop.

All I'm saying is that this woman was terrified, panicked, and gave in. We can't judge someone until we've been in their shoes. I'm not saying it was the right thing to do.
by .
Thursday Jun 1st, 2006 7:30 PM
did you read the article about the case where it said the FBI rented a cabin for them (via this Anna person) and equipped it with cameras and hidden microphones. Just this cabin would function as more than a snitch, if it taped people just talking and not doing anything. I really think that the best defense for the two remaining people is the fact that 'Anna' was probably talking them into doing this stuff, inciting them, and providing the means. Indeed, isn't the fact that the FBI rented the cabin for them almost evidence of entrapment? They intended for them to do stuff there. It would be neutral for the FBI or police to be suspicious that illegal activity was occurring in an apartment and then to wiretap their phone, but here, ahead of time, they *intended* for a plan to be hatched there.
by It's cool
Thursday Jun 1st, 2006 8:57 PM
I know who I am, and what I'm saying is falling flat with you which is fine- I do mean that- its what I feel, but I am not a cop or an FBI informant. Just know that this perspective is coming from someone who has the same investments
by I agree with prom
Thursday Jun 1st, 2006 8:59 PM
comparing her to a rapist or a murderer is ridiculous...she isn't depriving them of anything they werent (apparently) willing to offer up themselves.
by Rahann
Friday Jun 2nd, 2006 12:19 AM
look, im close with the 2 remaining prisoners and I was never close with ren. in fact, i never met her. I can understand the pressure and the torment not only from the government but her friends, family, public. she was brainwashed by everyone, and probably felt ashamed and embarrased in front of her family and wanted to 'do the right thing' to seem regretful to everyone.

but although i understand this, i feel much more for the boys. they were betrayed by the only other person that was involved in this how they were. plus ren was relased on bail, while our boys are stuck rotting in a cell alone with stale air and nothing more then their thoughts, letters, and visits to keep them company; to keep them in decent spirits.

i will not have any support for her, 2 of my dear friends that needed support are now being brought down by someone they could really trust just to recieve a lesser sentance when the outcome was looking good in the first place. she just tossed that in the trash and is a snitch in my book.
by a one time victim of snitches
Friday Jun 2nd, 2006 7:10 AM
snitching will continue.
by .
Friday Jun 2nd, 2006 7:42 AM
I tend to agree with 'but' above. Even if a cultural taboo against signing confessions and making witness statements against others is reinforced right now, or has in the past, remember that time is passing and lots of new people in their mid-teen years become politicized. But they weren't around for previous discussions of this, haven't heard the stories about what was happening in 1998-2004, and have no direct experiences. It's not necessary for everyone to have the equivalent of a school degree in activism and history of activism to get started, nor to follow direction from elders, but in particular, it is common to run into people who don't understand relevant laws. A lot of zines relating to direct action and medic advice have a strong focus on scenarios that come up rarely such as being pelleted and pepper sprayed, but less focus on important legal information. Much 'direct action' is staged as a sideshow to a protest inside a city, and has anyone dealt with the major questions of how a large group should communicate and orient through city streets, and the very likely scenario of a brand-new protester (or even neighborhood resident) being present who was enthusiastic at first but hadn't anticipated being a witness to some sort of vandalism (which they have photos and video of). This type of person is the most likely to end up passing useful info to the police because they haven't encountered the snitches-stitches idea, and what would be a tactic for the group to deal with this in an urban environment filled with people.
by zero
Friday Jun 2nd, 2006 9:12 AM
Remember : the way the system exist now is only because the people want to , (ie) you all of you . Think of what that poor women is going through . You know some 8.9 million people watch
Katie courics farewell thats 8.9 million Americans . Remember it's all about the people that does or does not support it governments , the persent government is there because of it's people .

All I read her is words and opinions and a true since of collective lack of action , my point your not in the same situation as those three are or that one women is .. is got to be felling perty alone , it would suck to face 20 years of ones life behind bars , even if there was a possiblity that did not have to be .

- it's not that hard to run -
by I'm the one with the issue of &quot;snitches&
Friday Jun 2nd, 2006 10:06 AM
Again the issue I have with the term is that it is merely an epithet- I guess what i'm asking is how are "snitches" made? Under what circumstances? And what lessons are there to be drawn? And will they be?
If the task at hand is to thoroughly re-fashion the human connection to to earth- the bio sphere, the web of life- there are no questions about they way we work with one another that are too small to ask.
by Chiming in
Friday Jun 2nd, 2006 2:29 PM
It sounds like Lauren is from a privleged place, after reading some stories about her- wasn't her bail set at like 1.2 million? Who has that kind of money?
by x
Friday Jun 2nd, 2006 2:30 PM
It is interesting to see how indymedia posts originally began bashing the alleged "sloppiness" of the three have now turned to bashing a "snitch". Also, no one bashing the snitch has bothered to repost any of the information or PHOTOS of the fbi informant that were posted in previous articles, or provided any substantive information on how one can identify / ought to identify people they intend to commit crimes with. Just bashing, for the most part, with very little content on how lessons can be learned from this arrest.

Previous posts cite that the paid informant has testified in 12 cases since 2004. How can you reduce 12 to one, or 12 to none? What is the benefit to your cause in arguing with someone who attempts to humanize a young woman? A posting that seemed to be taken from her myspace weblog detailed a story about getting stoned and smoking cigarrettes in san francisco, and the rush of running in front of cops at protests. Does this sound like someone who is prepared to serve 20 years in prison?

Anyone who engages in criminal activity ought to take into account and be prepared to face potentially draconian consequences. It is a reality that can hit hard, and sometimes people will turn over friends. This is a reality you face if you engage in illegal activity. Twenty years is a long time, and some of you out there ought to bother to learn what to take into account before risking throwing your lives away for nothing. It is usually much more difficult to make the world a better place from prison. I promise the tone of this sentiment would read less harsh if you were reading it beind bars.

Unfortunately, snitches and/or informants are realities. They are friends, lovers, obstacles, and at base, complex human beings themselves. Timothy Leary married a CIA operative assigned to him.

I am not posting any information/links on here because I have not researched it thoroughly. Were I interested in commiting crimes, I would. At this point I have not come to the conclusion that there is a definable net positive outcome to the environment through explosives, fire, etc.,... things the general community views as ¨destructive¨. I would love and be grateful if someone could point me in the direction of a webpage that has discourse over this. I was working as a paid signature gatherer in San Diego for a proposition that would have placed stricter development laws on wetlands within the county during the time that an apartment complex in construction was burnt and someone left behind a banner with the letters ELF. The immediate response to me was a harsh disconnect to basically all things ¨environmental¨ in the people I approached, many of whom were unable to differentiate between alleged direct action ties and a proposition that allegedly served to increase protection of environmentally important land in their hometown. Is there a debate on the benefits gained from ¨destructive¨ direct action events vs. trends in social thought on environmentalism, voting behavior, etc. Can someone recommend something that details a net positive gain resulting from ¨destructive¨ direct action? I make this distinction beacuse I recall a different response to the actions of Julia the Tree House Woman. I would love to see something demonstrate that blowing shit up really does help the envornment in a long-term sense.
by y
Friday Jun 2nd, 2006 2:42 PM
snitching will continue.

You are FOOLS if you think ¨dealing with snitches¨ within your community will deter future snitching. You would have to raise the ante of what the snitches are trying to avoid, i.e. 20 years in prison, to something worse... are you the types of human beings that want to make draconian laws seem easy in context?
by asdf
Saturday Jun 3rd, 2006 12:13 PM
peace. igniting a revolution, edited by steven best and anthony nocella is available through ak press. it contains excellent discussions on the approach of the E.L.F. from perspectives across the board, from political prisoners from the 60's 70's to modern day scholars and all in between.

if you are really passionate about militant eco-defense, TAKE THE DAMN TIME AND EFFORT TO !!!SERIOUSLY!!! STUDY AND TRAIN YOURSELVES!!!! so many folks getting busted shoplifting or entrapped by the FBI, telling their dads and girlfriends, with runaway vehicles missing headlights and shit.... you dont have to be 50 to be smart and efficient. you just have to put forth some serious effort BEFORE getting all worked up and jumping into things. just a constructive comment from an armchair revolutionary. peace.
by p
Thursday Jun 8th, 2006 5:04 PM
There\'s always a class issue. howwever hse wasnt released on bail, but bond. The 1 million dollars of it was property value, her mothers house. the other 2 thousand dollars was paid. The reason it was so expensive was because they considered Ren a flight risk.

What you people need to understand is Lauren is the oldest daughter of 4 kids, and she has 2 younger siblings who still look up to her. She isnt a violent person, and she would never do anything that would put her friends, i e, eric and zach in danger. Yes, she has agreed to testify, but she doesnt know anything. Her testimony can only help Zach and Eric. She was there, she was victimized by the CS as well. She is not a snitch.

You may say she is, but imagine you\'re 20 years old, a college student, and you\'re arrested because someone you considered one of your friends has gotten you to say some things and recorded it without your knowing. Now your options are jail for up to twenty years for a crime you never committed, or telling the little that you know to make that sentence more like one year, while possibly helping out your friends in the process. Lauren would not decry her friends, and she certainly wouldn\'t vilify them to the government. She is doing what she has to so she can keep her life.
By pleading guuilty to what she did, she now can never vote. For someone like her, giving up her right to vote is a lot.
by tristyn
Monday Jun 12th, 2006 10:39 PM
Fuck you guys. Have you ever been in a position where you are facing years in prison and it seemed like you had no chance in hell of getting o ut of it? She did NOT snitch on anyone! She is plea bargaining for herself, not the other two. She is not acusing the other two of anything. She is accepting the plea bargain in order to get this shit over with. I know plenty of people who have used-plea bargains in the passed , that were not guilty but did not want to go to prison for years...for instance, recently the anti-minutemen 5 in chicago. YOu have no idea what ren has faced, and probably have no idea what that amount of jail time is like, so back the fuck off. Ren is a great person and has done more for this community than you fucks probably ever have or will...which is why she was a target of the government.
by m
Sunday Jun 18th, 2006 10:38 AM
When you agree to testify against others to avoid doing time - that's snitching, like it or not. And in jail, few have any tolerance for this -- no matter what the circumstances, so she'll need to continue to cooperate fully with the State in order to avoid jail in the future - and any plea bargain she gets will be design to insure this. And that makes her a dangerous commodity in the future.

Still, the consequences will not be pleasant for her, anyway you cut it The news is out there, across the Web. Fact is, this will haunt her for the rest of her days -- no matter what she does - name change, new friends, new lifestyle, college or straight job, - she'll always have to be on guard against the truth coming out. There will always be something she'll have to hide. - no matter where she goes or what she does. What goes around comes around.
by former prisoner
Sunday Jun 18th, 2006 10:46 AM
M's right. It's a little much to expect any plea agreement that will allow Ren to testify in favor of the defense. That's not how it works. There is always a quid pro quo -- and no going back, once you take the bait.