San Francisco Grand Jury Resistance Victory, Contempt Reversed

More on the Ninth Circuit’s Contempt Reversal for Winstead

Nadia Winstead was notified on December 22 that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had reversed U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston’s contempt order. The contempt order, which was imposed on Winstead for her refusal to testify before a federal grand jury investigating Bay Area Activists, was overturned when the Ninth Circuit found that the government had not made an adequate response to Winstead’s claim of being the subject of unlawful electronic surveillance.

In their decision, the Ninth Circuit found that there was indeed just cause for Winstead not to answer questions posed to her by the grand jury.

The government has filed an opposition to the Ninth Circuit’s decision, and the case will likely go back before U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston.

More information will be released as it becomes available. Please stay tuned for more updates!

Background:
In late May ‘05 Winstead and at least 10 other Bay Area activists were subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury claiming to be investigating the 2004 disappearance of Daniel Andreas Sandiego.

In August ‘05 Winstead and several other of those subpoenaed to testify filed a motion to quash the subpoenas, arguing that the subpoenas were unconstitutional. The motion was denied by Judge Illston. Several weeks later Winstead and others filed a motion for disclosure of illegal electronic surveillance. The motion was deemed premature and too broad and thus denied as well by Illston.

Winstead originally appeared before the grand jury in January ‘06 and again in August ‘06, each time asserting her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.

In September 2006, Winstead’s attorney, Mark Goldrosen, filed a second electronic surveillance motion in an attempt force the U.S. government to disclose any illegal electronic surveillance that may have influenced their decision to subpoena Winstead to the grand jury. The government argued that they did not have to reveal their reasons for subpoenaing Winstead, garnered illegally or not, and Judge Illston again denied the motion.

Three weeks later, Winstead was found in contempt by Judge Illston for asserting her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, and ordered to jail. Winstead’s attorney then appealed the decision with the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals. Winstead was notified that the contempt had been reversed on December 22, 2006.

This grand jury is one of many, targeting activists, convened around the country. It has been identified as one part of the U.S. government’s stepped-up efforts to silence dissent among eco and animal liberationists, now widely referred to as “The Green Scare”.

NEWS RELEASE
January 29, 2007
Contact: Kelah Bott at 415-577-6150

Victory for Civil Rights As Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Reverses Civil Contempt Order Imposed on San Francisco Animal Activist

*Nadia Winstead Stays Out of Jail Because Federal Government Failed to Make Adequate Response to Her Claim of Unlawful Electronic Surveillance; Government Will Not Seek Rehearing *

SAN FRANCISCO—Local animal activist Nadia Winstead will remain free after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a contempt order that would have put her behind bars. Winstead's attorney has just learned that the federal government has decided not to seek a rehearing on the Ninth Circuit order and will no longer seek her testimony before a federal grand jury investigating Bay Area activists.

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston imposed the contempt order on Winstead in November for her refusal to testify before the grand jury. But the Ninth Circuit has overturned Judge Illston's order, finding that the government had not made an adequate response to Winstead's claim of being the subject of unlawful electronic surveillance. Winstead believes she was targeted by this grand jury as part of the larger "Green Scare" that has rounded up animal and eco-liberation activists across the country.

"The Ninth Circuit's ruling was a positive step towards taking government-sponsored harassment of activists seriously," Winstead said. "I will continue to use my constitutional rights to speak out against oppression and on behalf of animals suffering in cruel and unnecessary product testing."

In May of 2005, Winstead and at least 10 other Bay Area activists were subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury claiming to be investigating the 2003 disappearance of Daniel Andreas Sandiego. Winstead and others filed a motion for disclosure of illegal electronic surveillance. The motion was denied by Illston. Winstead originally appeared before the grand jury in January '06 and again in August '06, each time asserting that the questions being asked were derived from unlawful electronic surveillance.

In September 2006, Winstead's attorney, Mark Goldrosen, filed a second electronic surveillance motion in an attempt to force the U.S. government to disclose any illegal electronic surveillance that may have influenced their decision to subpoena Winstead to the grand jury. The government claimed that its denial of the existence of electronic surveillance was adequate. Judge Illston again denied the motion.

Three weeks later, Judge Illston found Winstead in contempt because she believed there was no longer a just cause for her to remain silent. Winstead's attorney then appealed the decision with the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals. Winstead was notified that the contempt had been reversed on December 22, 2006.

For more information, please contact Kelah Bott at 415-577-6150.

Related websites: http://www.FBIWitchHunt.com
<http://www.fbiwitchhunt.com/> or http://www.GreenIsTheNewRed.com
<http://www.greenisthenewred.com/>