More FBI visits/repression

Details would be useful. If anyone could take a photo when these agents arise, if that is at all feasible, it would be helpful. Was Myers, by any chance, the agent with the gray Dodge Charger who seems to be on the case (tends to wear tucked in polo shirt, and has hair graying by the temples)? How did he locate the people out in public, unless he stumbled upon them?

Andrew Myers is most likely the tall guy wearing the hat and shades in the first two pictures here:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/08/07/18523836.php

In at least one of the DNA sample incidents, three special agents were present.

Myers also visited an individual at her workplace in Oakland last month, according to another recent post on Indybay.

How he found the person hanging out in Downtown Santa Cruz is unknown. I would guess some form of surveillance (phone tap, physical surveillance, etc.). It's the FBI, afterall.

And yes, details would be useful...we don't know much. Anyone visited or subpeonaed should be as public as possible.

If these people were involved with the bombings, they deserve prison. If there is probable cause they were involved or know who did, they should be questioned and compelled to give evidence.

I know the people who were bombed. They didn't deserve that terrorist attack.

If the FBI catches the ones who did it; I'll celebrate their arrests.

Keep it real. People who bomb people are terrorists; not liberators or freedom fighters. Doesn't matter if you wear a US Army uniform or a black hoodie and an ALF bandana. You bomb someone, you're a terrorist.

yes, and I see that the younger man in the top photo with the checkered shirt is riding in the vehicle with them below.

It's good to have some idea approximately how many are involved. It is easy to become overly paranoid about their staffing levels, but if you look through the FBI website, it seems like there really aren't that many FBI agents total. Isn't it just a few hundred in the state? It's really a shame that there is so much outright organized crime going on in business, where the mortgage fraud would just be a start. I think newspapers barely reports on high level crime because there are no local police reports to write off of. Growing up, the father of a neighbor boy of the same age was an FBI agent. My dad once spotted him by the restroom at Boeing where he worked (in a nonmilitary division), and the FBI should have lots of cases of inter-corporate spying and mafia-style theft to work on.
So hopefully they haven't devoted a whole squad to monitoring the campus - not that the people under scrutiny were even UC students?. If I was going to the Ralph Nader event at civic center tonight, I might actually ask him his opinion on the atmosphere for student organizing, because he's quite a fan of the spirit at UCSC. They often get like 300-500 students out for events like supporting campus unions, where you'd be lucky to get 25 in other locations. But... this would really make you cautious about turning out for certain types of campus clubs. Organizing on campuses has the positives of having so many people around, but the disadvantages that freshmen often don't realize their power or haven't learned successful strategies yet. They gain some experience by their junior year (myself, I found inspiring groups off campus) and then you're almost ready to graduate.

>>Isn't it just a few hundred in the state? It's really a shame that there is so much outright organized crime going on in business, where the mortgage fraud would just be a start.

Good point.

If anyone is visited by the FBI or presented with any court order or subpoena, you should absolutely contact a lawyer.

The National Lawyers Guild has established a hotline, 1-888-NLG-ECOLAW, for individuals arrested or subpoenaed for offenses related to environmental or animal rights activism.

If contacted or subponaed by the FBI, this is a MUST READ:

Harassment by a Federal Grand Jury

By Sean R. Day, Attorney at Law

The process begins with the service of a subpoena. It must be handed to you or, if you refuse to accept it, placed near you. A subpoena duces tecum directs you to appear and produce a physical object.

If you fail to appear as directed, you can be arrested and held until your testimony. Whether you actually get arrested will depend on how badly they want you, and how easy you are to find.

If served with a subpoena duces tecum, file a written motion to quash the subpoena, especially where it directs you to produce privileged material or is unduly burdensome or harassing.

When it is a regular subpoena, unless you are asked to travel, it may be best not to file a motion to quash, since at least one federal circuit court has decided that any objections not litigated in the motion to quash are waived. Besides, most, if not all, objections you have to testifying cannot be dealt with except on a question-by-question basis.

If you appear, you will be taken into the grand jury room, which will have one or more prosecutors, a court reporter, and 16-23 grand jurors. Do not be intimidated. Grand jurors are simply citizens who have been selected for (grand) jury duty.

Begin writing down every question. You will be given an oath and first asked your name and address. Thereafter, if you have an attorney, most courts follow the rule that you may consult with your attorney after every question (though a couple courts have said after every few questions), although the prosecutor or grand jury may try to scare you into believing otherwise. Beginning with the first question, and every question thereafter, state, “I invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege.” And while there is no court decision stating that any other objections not raised are waived, it may be a good idea to add, “ . . . and reserve all other objections, privileges, and immunities.” You don’t want to be the first victim of a conservative judge bent on setting a precedent on the issue.

After raising your Fifth Amendment privilege a few times, the prosecutor will probably ask you if you intend to invoke your Fifth Amendment privilege to all questions. You can either say, “yes,” or you can say that you cannot know if you will answer a question until you hear it.

At this stage, you may be excused. Or, the prosecutor may seek to give you immunity, which must be approved by a judge. (Immunity could have been granted before you even got to court.) You will be taken before a judge for an immunity hearing, and the judge will likely rubber- stamp the request.

Thereafter, you cannot invoke your Fifth Amendment privilege because it will be moot. Except, when they start asking about other people you know, try asserting your Fifth Amendment privilege on the basis that the granting of immunity cannot protect you, because if such persons are charged with some sort of conspiracy in another case, admitting you know those persons could lead to your getting named as a defendant in such case.

Other bases for either objecting and/or refusing to answer any individual question, despite having been given immunity, include but are not limited to the following:

The question violates your First Amendment right to privacy of association and belief.
The purpose of the question is to harass you on the basis of your protected political and moral beliefs.
The question violates your constitutional right to privacy.
The purpose of the question is to gather intelligence, not to investigate or indict a potential crime.
You cannot answer the question because the question is ambiguous, complex and/or confusing, and any answer you give would tend to be confusing or misleading.
You cannot answer the question, as the question makes assumptions that might appear to be admitted no matter how you answer the question.
You cannot answer that question as it calls for an opinion you are not competent to give.
Attorney-client privilege.
Marital privilege.
Physician-client privilege.
Clergy-communicant privilege.
The question was derived from an illegal wiretap.
The prosecutor is badgering you.
The question is argumentative.

You refuse to answer on the ground that the purpose of the proceedings is not to investigate or indict a potential crime, but to gather intelligence, to harass you, and to terrorize and fragment the animal rights community.
You might also add: “I request that the grand jury be instructed that they have the power to dismiss the subpoena, and that they do so.” Check the prosecutor’s reaction to that one.

If the prosecutor wants to compel an answer, he or she will first have to take you before a judge for a hearing. Argue initially that you need more time and/or you want to brief the issue. Assuming that request is denied and your objections are overruled, the judge will order you to answer the question(s), and you will be taken back to the grand jury room.

At this point you have to decide whether to answer. Failure to answer will result in contempt, and you can be held until the end of the grand jury’s term (up to18 mos., depending on when they started; a “special” grand jury can get up to three 6-mo. extensions). Periodically thereafter, you can file a Grumbles motion (named after a court case), arguing that you will never answer their questions, and therefore your incarceration has become punitive and you should be released. If you decide to answer questions, you may become so stressed and rattled that you may suffer stress-induced amnesia, such that your answer to most, if not all, questions will be, “I don’t know” or “I can’t remember.” You might even ask to see a doctor. Don’t be alarmed. This condition should pass after you leave the grand jury room.

Bay Area activists should work on organizing some type of press conference/rally/protests at the grand jury hearings. I know that was done at the 2005 grand juries investigating animal rights activists, they had very good turnouts. This should be done again.

I'm willing to go to a rally to support cruelty-free farms. I might go to one to support someone who released animals from a cruel farm.

There's no way I'd go to support a rally for someone if they're involved with bombing a human being.

I agree. The incident behind this (the bombing) was totally different from earlier things, because it was targeted at people. Nobody submitted a press release to ALF, and many had a hard time believing someone in the local community did it. It sounded like a lone nut. A rally feels weird.
One major concern though, is what will happen at this grand jury. Will whoever was summoned be asked to name all the people they hang out with, or the names of the people doing distantly related work? Will they get smeared by getting listed with this this attempted murder case? Without experience in the process, it's hard to know how far the questions can go.

It wouldn't be a rally in support of the alleged action (which hasn't even been claimed by any animal rights group.) You'll recall there was an action at UCSD of bomb threats where the media was going nuts and it was attributed to animal lib groups. A disgruntled worker not connected to animal rights was eventually arrested before the FBI could capitalize on the hysteria and visit any AR activist within a 200 mile radius.

"One major concern though, is what will happen at this grand jury. Will whoever was summoned be asked to name all the people they hang out with, or the names of the people doing distantly related work? Will they get smeared by getting listed with this attempted murder case? Without experience in the process, it's hard to know how far the questions can go."

That's exactly my point. And that's why the rallies were held in 2005. Look at past grand jury questions and this is EXACTLY what was done. Because grand juries are fishing expeditions. They round people up, invade their privacy, and threaten them with jail time if they don't answer. The grand jury system needs to be resisted.

Those subpoenaed to testify before grand juries are denied legal counsel during testimony. A witness who asserts the right to remain silent can face indefinite imprisonment. People can be subpoenaed for virtually any reason, and they can be interrogated in minute detail about their private lives and beliefs. Even minor misstatements caused by faulty memory can lead to perjury charges.

Yo, you're missing the god-damn point. Just because some bumble-fuck FBI agent decides he's going to subpoena someone, or is going to take DNA evidence from someone, doesn't mean they did anything.

Someone burning a car does not give the FBI a right to force themselves upon you. Who says they're even fucking related?

The singer of the Band Golfinger has had his house raided by the FBI more than once, because he's an active supporter of PETA. He does propaganda work for them. When the FBI spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on that operation, who's guilty? The guy who's being harassed without committing a crime, or the fucker who's wasting all of our tac dollars?

Just in the information given above, there is so much one could infer or speculate about. If there is a new grand jury for the Cruz attacks, could they have only summoned one person? Probably there is a list of several. Also, if they seem to be finding people outside of their houses, it makes one think of transmitters on their car or cell phone as GPS. The FBI had this basic technology decades ago.
I thought the grand jury demonstrations in 2005 were done really well in terms of PR. Some didn't attend because they didn't want to be photographed. Like last time, get someone who is really good verbally to interface with any media, because it's hard to express the 'grand jury witchhunt' idea in a few bullet points. Don't let it turn back to focus on the crime. Most are familiar with the red hearings where Hollywood writers had to list those with leftist leanings. The list of possible associates of the Riverside house is very large. Indeed, the conspicuousness of that set of people after the spring incident gives the strongest doubt that anyone there would have been involved. For instance, in town I've both talked or hung out with researchers, and have gone to vegan dinners. Someone I know who is a paid Clinton campaigner knew that Daniel S.D. guy as a volunteer at Gilman, so he was his 'associate'.

I'm with the Earth First! Journal. I'd love to be in touch with any one working to support people in Santa Cruz who are being arrested, subpoenaed to a grand jury, etc. If somebody could email me an email address or phone number, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks.

Stay strong over there.

"Just in the information given above, there is so much one could infer or speculate about. If there is a new grand jury for the Cruz attacks, could they have only summoned one person?"

As far as we know only one individual has been subpoenaed. The hearing is slated for October 23, and that gives the feds plenty of time to subpoena more, if in fact there is a larger list.

One thing that was done I believe before the 2005 grand juries is a forum explaining the process to activists with lawyers and subpoenaed folks.

This would be useful, as grand juries are confusing as hell, even to me who has read a significant amount about them. I do not have the time or resources to plan such an event, but people should work on this. Possibly invite radical lawyers and past grand jury resisters? Just a thought.

That is a wonderful idea if someone has the skills and time to do it. I wouldn't limit it to the grand jury topic, and it would be useful to cover other practical legal tips for protests such as defining conspiracy (which is what the RNC 8 are charged with, and Eric McDavid got 19 yrs for, without ever committing an actual act), or discussing the art of shutting up, perhaps with scenarios. (everyone knows their Miranda rights, but many can't envision the situation of being at a police station, or initially questioned in public by officers who appear to be gathering witness testimony and deciding which person to charge, so, especially if they're innocent, the social instinct to talk your way out of it or give evidence against someone else kicks in. All the cable TV cop reality shows have people being told that their friend from the same car, or their neighbors said the bag of drugs is theirs, and they're about to be charged).
For grand juries, I think that specific case examples of types of questions used in previous cases are good, to illustrate why you should resist the process and possibly face consequences, rather than show up (maybe someone doesn't know many people in the movement, and really knows little about the crime in question). I don't know how common it is for someone to sort of silently sneak in and hope for the best, but maybe someone could be scared their friends would reject them if they talked about it. Likewise, have you ever wondered why we hear about police informants all the time, but rarely hear about people solicited to do this, but who refused? Are the police really good at identifying potential informants, or do people hide it because it would make you sound risky to be friends with?

the above link lists the worst 10 senators running this year
..

If they are obtaining court orders for DNA in the bombings then they probably have a profile from their evidence and they are looking to exclude or match someone to the evidence. Fears about witch hunts or smears seem less of a concern with this kind of evidence. Rallies seem less likely to do anything. Whether the bombers were or were not animal rights oriented is less important than getting these people off the streets. Note that this event was not the same as a "bomb scare", it was a bomb, or rather two simultaneous actual real bombs that went off. The only people who need to fear this kind of evidence are the ones who left their DNA at the scene...

Contrary to a view expressed by a previous poster, the FBI does have an interest in people who set cars or houses on fire with explosive devices, regardless of the reason they do this. It is just not cool.

This is a very good and simple guide for those subpoenaed to a grand jury:

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2008/10/03/grandjuries-infosheet.pdf

I am a member of the ACLU and I have volunteered with the office in the Seattle area and I am a huge advocate for human rights. The tone of many of the commentators for articles on the subject seem rather subjective and premature. My first thought is, how can so many people cry out for justice for these three individuals, but not the individuals and their families who were attacked. My recommendation if their was false accusations in the matter, the defendents should contact ACLU lawyers who have a great deal of experience with FBI Investigations as well a grand juries.
But here is my point-
A true warrior for justice seeks a peaceful path and will never seek violent means towards their end, for they become subservient to a cause no longer their own. Their is no martyrdom left, only isolation.

The federal grand jury hearing, scheduled for October 23, was postponed. If anyone knows the new date, please post it here.