top
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

Is Chanting Terrorism? 4 Charged Under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act

by Slingshot
Article from the latest issue of the East Bay radical newspaper, Slingshot, on the case of the AETA4.
Joseph Buddenberg, Maryam Khajavi, Nathan Pope, and Adriana Stumpo were arrested by the FBI February 20 on trumped-up terrorism charges under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. Each faces ten years in prison if convicted. The alleged crime? Attending protests in the Bay Area in 2007 and 2008 against animal experimentation at the University of California and allegedly publishing the names and addresses of UC researchers who experiment on living animals, known as vivisectors.

According to In Defense of Animals, "Every year, tens of millions of animals are dissected, infected, injected, gassed, burned and blinded in hidden laboratories on college campuses and research facilities throughout the U.S. Still more animals are used to test the safety of cosmetics, household cleansers and other consumer products. These innocent primates, dogs, cats, rabbits, rodents and other animals are used against their will as research subjects in experiments and procedures that would be considered sadistically cruel were they not conducted in the name of science."

In the news release and associated criminal complaint the FBI lays out the basis for the arrests and the case against the defendants, alleging that:

• Three of the defendants attended protests at the homes of vivisectors working at UC Berkeley where, "…extremists dressed generally in all black clothing and wearing bandanas to hide their faces marched, chanted, and chalked defamatory comments on the public sidewalks in front of the residences."

• Three of the defendants attended a protest at the home of a UC Santa Cruz vivisector whose husband came outside to confront the activists and allegedly engaged in a "struggle" with one or more of the protestors. Of special interest in this charge are the facts that (1) the husband appears to have initiated any sort of confrontation that took place, (2) the defendants are not alleged to have engaged in any sort of struggle themselves, and (3) the basis for the claim that they were even present for the protest is based on DNA evidence off bandanas seized from a car that was alleged to have been used for the protest.

• Two of the defendants were observed via video surveillance footage looking up public information on vivisectors at UC Santa Cruz.

• Two of the defendants were observed via video surveillance footage standing near the location where a stack of flyers was later found at a café in Santa Cruz. The flyer was entitled "Murderers and torturers alive & well in Santa Cruz," which the FBI alleged in their news release listed the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of several University of California researchers.

The way the FBI has turned a case that wouldn't even warrant a misdemeanor arrest into a Federal felony case is by charging Maryam, Joseph, Adriana, and Nathan with conspiring to interfere with an animal enterprise. More specifically, the four now face two federal charges – Conspiracy and violating the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), each count carrying a maximum sentence of five years.

These arrests mark the first batch of prosecutions under the newly expanded AETA. The modified version of the law was introduced in 2006 at the urging of animal industry groups and snuck through congress while only a handful of Representatives and Senators were present.

The AETA makes it illegal to "interfere" with an animal enterprise, in an overly vague and extremely subjective way. As a result this law not only endangers these four defendants charged with violating the AETA themselves, but also has the potential to have a chilling effect on free speech and protest. In fact, the FBI news release announcing the arrests indicated the charges were designed to "send a message" by making an example of the defendants.

We too can send a message – whether we are animal liberationists, civil liberties advocates, anti-authoritarians, or human beings of any sort. We will not stand idly by while federal agents begin witch-hunts, kick in doors, subpoena people to grand juries, and seek to eliminate dissent wherever it threatens corporate interests. Instead we must stand tall -- continuing to speak out, protest, and resist government repression.

While these four young people (known as the AETA4) face the full force of the US Justice Department, they have the truth on their side and a skilled team of attorneys to fight for their freedom. But with the deep pockets of the US Attorney's Office opposing them, they need tens of thousands of dollars to finance their defense. If you can offer any assistance, whether large or small, please consider donating to their defense fund. Donations can be sent to:

The AETA Defense Fund
PO Box 99162
Emeryville, CA 94662.

For updates on the case or to donate online please visit: AETA4.org

******************

The AETA4 are:

Joseph Buddenberg (age 25) currently residing in Oakland with his wife. Joey hopes to return to school and work once his home confinement conditions are lifted.

Maryam Khajavi (age 20) is a recent UC Santa Cruz graduate who lives in Oakland, California and hopes to attend law school and become a civil-rights attorney.

Nathan Pope (age 26) and Adriana Stumpo (age 23) are engaged and currently residing in southern California. Adriana is a recent graduate of UC Santa Cruz and Nathan a student at Cabrillo Community College.
Add Your Comments

Comments (Hide Comments)
by .:.
Two more arrested in southern california. Not sure on final charges

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/04/18/18590074.php
by Brent
This news hurts me deeply.
It is so wrong that these charges go supernova because of new special conditions.
Direct Activism should be a supported part of free speech. I'm not including the assault charge but the protest charges shouldn't be included at all. I'd like to see the community of activist rally around this group and issue. Let's not all hide in the closet for fear that
we're now being watched. Stand up for your rights! Animal testing is wrong!!
by Keep it Real
The poster says :
" Three of the defendants attended a protest at the home of a UC Santa Cruz vivisector whose husband came outside to confront the activists and allegedly engaged in a "struggle" with one or more of the protestors. Of special interest in this charge are the facts that (1) the husband appears to have initiated any sort of confrontation that took place".

The indictment says they:
"used and caused to be used a facility of interstate commerce, for the purpose of damaging and interfering with the operatoin of an animal enterprise, and in connection with that purpose did intentionally place and atempt to place a person in reasonable fear of death of, and serious bodily injury to that person, a member of the immediate family of that person ,and a spouse and intimate partner of that person by a course of conduct involving threats, acts of vandalism, property damage, criinal trespass, harassment, and intimidation".


Keep it real. That's a little more than a a "struggle", and I don't see where its stated that the husband initiated it.
by Response
Poster above said:

"The indictment says they:
"used and caused to be used a facility of interstate commerce, for the purpose of damaging and interfering with the operatoin of an animal enterprise, and in connection with that purpose did intentionally place and atempt to place a person in reasonable fear of death of, and serious bodily injury to that person, a member of the immediate family of that person ,and a spouse and intimate partner of that person by a course of conduct involving threats, acts of vandalism, property damage, criinal trespass, harassment, and intimidation". "

That's just a verbatim reading of the law (18 U.S. Code 43). Doesn't mean much of anything, except that all indictments are required to include a definition of the law which was allegedly violated. I still hold to my position, that nothing in this indictment and none of the accusations on the defendants comes close to being a violation of the law, or anything but first amendment protected speech.

There is an assault alluded to in the complaint (NOT in the indictment). And it wasn't alleged that any of the four defendants perpetrated the assault. It merely said that one un-named individual may have engaged in some type of confrontation. What's that have to do with the defendants?
by AETA
The two charged in L.A., Kevin Olliff and Linda Greene, are not facing AETA or federal charges. They face ten felony charges in total: 3 counts of conspiracy to stalk, 3 counts of stalking. 2 counts of conspiracy to threaten a public or school official, and 2 counts of threatening a public or school official. And instead of the "terrorism" enhancement, they have a "criminal street gang" enhancement.

Right now there are 6 people facing AETA charges. The AETA4 (this case), and the AETA2 out in Utah, facing six years for an alleged raid on a mink farm.
by Keep it Real
Response (who may or may not be the original poster Whitewash?) implies that I've overstated the facts. Says "it wasn't alleged that any of the four defendants perpetrated the assault. It merely said that one un-named individual may have engaged in some type of confrontation. What's that have to do with the defendants?"

Whitewash, in the original post that I say minimalizes the facts, claimed that they only "allegedly engaged in a "struggle" with one or more of the protestors. Of special interest in this charge are the facts that (1) the husband appears to have initiated any sort of confrontation that took place, (2) the defendants are not alleged to have engaged in any sort of struggle themselves, .."

...and I still say your both whitewashing the reality to promote your agenda.

The actual FBI release states "On February 24, 2008, five to six individuals including Mr. Pope, Ms. Stumpo, and Ms. Khajavi, attempted to forcibly enter the private home of a University of California researcher in Santa Cruz. When her husband opened the door, a struggle ensued and he was hit by an object. As the individuals fled, one yelled, “We’re gonna get you.” The professor and her husband both told the FBI they were terrified by the incident."


Forcible entry.....struggle...hitting him with an object...the aeta 4 named in these actions.
How does whitewash turn that into the husband initiated it and none of the defendents engaged in it?


Whitewash also portrays the flyer they produced as a relatively benign item. What he/she failed to mention is that that flyer also contained the implied threats of "beware we know where you live we know where you work we will never back down until you end your abuse.” ".........and the production and distribution of those flyers shortly preceded firebombings of homes and cars of the people listed on the flyer.

So yes, I take offense at your whitewashing and soft-soaping of reality. I support animal rights, but not this kind of b.s. terrorism.


I'm seeing a sad trend developing in the Santa Cruz activist community. It seems to be the new methodology is talk tough, act tough, and then cry foul/police entrapment when you get caught.

First with the AETA 4, then Jesse James and Dustin Morales. Seems everyone wants to play hard-core anarchist till the crap hits the fan...and then suddenly they seem to have no problem with taking full advantage of due process, their civil rights, and laws. Laws that they seemed happy to scrap and dismantle till they got caught.
by welp
that's the FBI story, much more inflamed than even corporate reports at the time

still doesn't amount to terrorism.

and it's not as hardcore as you feign. home demos have been going on forever, and will continue to. they are not terrorism. even if it's true, it's more like assault and/or battery, but it's not true as the FBI reports it. obviously they have to pump it up to sound more "terroristic" but even what they charge is not terrorism

now if they had bombed somebody, sure that'd be hardcore, but psuedo-threatening flyers and home demos. pah-lease

at worst, they were obnoxious demonstrators
by deanosor (deanosr [at] mailup.net)
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each and element of the crime alleged for every defendant individualy is normally what the government must prove to get a covniction. But not in these widespread dragnet conspiracy type cases. That's one of the problems with the laws like the AETA. But moe than that i wasn't presnet at the incident.

Besides the FBi's version of the facts isn't proof of anything. It's allegations that need to proved in a court of law against every individual individually. The FBI can say in their indicitment the moon is made of green cheese. That doesn't make it so. Every defendant and every person is innocent until proven guilty. Attending a demonstration doesn't make one guilty of anything. And no amount of corporate lobbyists and government collusion will make it so.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$470.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network