Paying it forward to the RNC8: Zombie 7 fights state terrorism

These zombies rock!

----------from Freedom Archives' Political Prisoner News----------------

Minnesota 'zombies' give $4,000 to 'targets of state repression'


Minneapolis - One of the seven people who put on a zombie street performance in downtown Minneapolis in 2006 to protest mindless consumption announced Thursday he is donating a portion of his settlement to other anarchists who are fighting legal charges.

Infoshop News reported on a video announcement made by Raphi Rechitsky Thursday, when Rechitsky said he and the others who make up the group now known as 'the Zombie 7', would donate at least $4,000 of the $165,000 they will receive from the City of Minneapolis to other anarchists fighting legal charges.

The Zombie 7 have decided to donate the money to eight people known as 'the RNC8' and a separate activist, Scott DeMuth. Rechitsky explained the decision in his video release, saying

"... We wanted to hold the city accountable for suppressing political action. And this week we were awarded a 165,000 dollar settlement from the City of Minneapolis. In my opinion, this money doesn't just belong to me, but all those who work for a better world. For that reason, I'm asking winners of political settlements to pay it forward and donate to targets of state repression."

Rechitsky said he personally was giving $1,500 to the RNC 8 and Scott DeMuth. "Repression is not isolated," Rechitsky explained. "Neither is resistance." Playing on the zombie reference, Rechitsky concluded,

"Use your brains. Pay it forward and defend all targets of state repression."

A press release accompanied the video announcement posted at Vimeo, explaining the Zombie 7 had donated a minimum of $4,000 towards the RNC8 and Scott DeMuth. In the release, Rechitsky said the Zombie 7 were motivated to donate a portion of their settlement because

"The Zombie 7 were not slapped with criminal charges after being absurdly arrested for 'simulating weapons of mass destruction. But countless others are prosecuted for their artistic and political expression, views, and associations, much like the RNC 8 and Scott DeMuth. They face not only jail time and exhausting legal proceedings, but also costly legal defense. My fellow zombies and I have come to understand that with a flip of a coin, we could have been the ones to face criminal charges on outrageous accusations of 'violence.'"

The donation answers some of the questions asked by the public since the Zombie 7 settlement was announced earlier this week. The group also said it will split the $165,000 award with their lawyer.

The RNC 8 are a group of eight anarchist activists who were arrested pre-emptively for their organizing efforts. The group was preparing to launch political protests at the Republican National Convention, which took place in Minneapolis in the spring of 2008. Police zeroed in on the eight after they posted a video promoting protests at the convention in 2007 they called."We're Getting ready! RNC Welcoming Committee trailer ."

According to the website, Defend the RNC8, the eight face serious charges.

"... The “RNC 8 were originally charged with conspiracy to riot in the 2nd degree in furtherance of terrorism, a felony which was the first ever use of Minnesota’s PATRIOT Act.

In December 2008, Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner (who is also running for Governor of Minnesota as a Democrat) added three more felony charges: 2nd degree conspiracy to riot (without the terrorism enhancement), 1st degree conspiracy to commit criminal damage to property in furtherance of terrorism, and 1st degree conspiracy to commit criminal damage to property (without the terrorism enhancement). Then, in April 2009, Gaertner dropped the two “in furtherance of terrorism” charges due to political pressure from RNC 8 supporters. The other two conspiracy charges still remain, and the RNC 8 still potentially face several years of prison time."

The eight charged, Luce Guillen-Givins, Max Specktor, Nathanael Secor, Eryn Trimmer, Monica Bicking, Erik Oseland, Robert Czernik and Garrett Fitzgerald, say their arrests are an attempt to 'criminalize activism.' In a press release issued in June, the group maintains they were arrested without probable cause.

Just prior to the 2008 Republican National Convention, St. Paul police arrested over 200 people. Common Dreams reported that 27 of those arrested filed a class action lawsuit against the city. In May this year, Democracy Now and journalist Amy Goodman also launched a lawsuit against Minneapolis for arresting Democracy Now journalists while they were covering the protests at the 2008 Convention.

In spite of the preemptive arrests, protests still took place. Attempts by police to control protesters resulted in at least one lawsuit filed against police for police brutality.

22 year old Scott DeMuth was arrested under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act in Iowa. He was arrested and charged with conspiracy after he refused to testify "... before a federal grand jury in Davenport that was investigating an Animal Liberation Front (ALF) raid at the University of Iowa in 2004." DeMuth is alleged to have participated in the 2004 raid of the University of Iowa.

During that raid, activists removed 401 animals from the University of Iowa, while vandalizing research labs and offices; destroying research. The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) claimed responsibility saying

"... If not for the brave efforts of these compassionate activists, these animals would have been forced to continue to face horrific treatment at the hands of the university’s researchers, having holes drilled into their head, being forced to suffer through severe dehydration, electrocution, and extreme cold, as well as the forced ingestion of cocaine, methamphetamine and PCP."

Those who support DeMuth say the charges against him are 'politically motivated.' A press release posted to Davenport Grand Jury explained

"... the prosecutor, Cliff Cronk, has repeatedly stated in court that DeMuth is a “domestic terrorist” because of his alleged political beliefs and associations."

The ALF alleges the investigation is fraudulent.

Preemptive arrests prior to major events have become a preferred way to police protests around the world. Denmark gave police power to arrest people preemptively just before the December 2009 UN climate change negotiations that took place in that country. The Guardian reported the new law meant police could arrest people solely on the suspicion that those arrested might commit a crime in the near future. Police were also allowed to detain people for 12 hours without charges.

The latest examples of preemptive arrests took place in Toronto, Canada during the G20 summit meeting. Toronto Star columnist Thomas Walkom summed up the issue as being a case where

"... those in charge of the police found civil liberties inconvenient."

Walkom concluded his article by saying preemptive arrests are "... the totalitarian’s recipe for public order."

Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110

415 863-9977

www.Freedomarchives.org

Questions and comments may be sent to claude@freedomarchives.org

Indictment of AETA 4 unconstitutional. YAY!

Note that state charges can still be brought, though...

-------------------------------------------

Animal Rights Activists Win Dissent Victory

Monday 19 July 2010

by: Bill Quigley and Rachel Meeropol, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

(Photo: TimWilson; Edited: Jared Rodriguez / t r u t h o u t)

Police reports state that on October 21, 2007, a group of about 20 people trespassed onto the front lawn of the home of a Berkeley professor involved in bio-medical research on animals. According to the US government, some of the protesters had bandanas covering the lower half of their faces and they made "a lot of noise, chanting animal rights slogans" like "1,2,3,4, open up the cage door; 5,6,7,8, smash the locks and liberate, 9,10,11,12, vivisectors go to hell."

A year and a half later, four young activists were indicted in California federal court under the little known and rarely used "Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act" (AETA) for their alleged involvement in this and others pickets.

The federal criminal indictment charged Joseph Buddenberg, Maryam Khajavi, Nathan Pope and Adriana Stumpo (now the AETA 4) with one count of "animal enterprise terrorism," and one count of conspiracy. They each would face 10 years in prison if convicted.

Strangely, the criminal indictment against them doesn't actually say anything about their chants or leaflets, or what else they are supposed to have done to violate the law.

There is some good news here. On July 12, 2010, a federal judge threw out that indictment, explaining that is was so general and vague it failed to provide the defendants with notice of what criminal act they are accused of committing, a constitutional requirement.

In his order, Judge Ronald M. Whyte described the indictment as "quite generic." For "an indictment to fulfill its constitutional purposes," he explained, "it must allege facts that sufficiently inform each defendant of what it is he or she is alleged to have done that constitutes a crime. This is particularly important where the species of behavior in question spans a wide spectrum from criminal conduct to constitutionally protected political protest." According to the judge's ruling, the government can re-indict these activists if it makes the charges much more specific.

AETA prosecutions are not your average criminal cases. Trespass, threats, harassment -- these are all activities that violate state law and carry criminal penalties. And any violence by activists, of course, can also be punished under state law.

The animal rights and radical environmental movements aren't violent against people. The alleged illegal action that has occurred within those groups has primarily been the type of time-honored nonviolent civil disobedience Martin Luther King Jr. made famous, although there has been some property destruction.

If no one is hurt, how can the government prosecute these kinds of acts as terrorism? Simple. First reward rapacious corporate interests with an incredibly broad federal law that equates any action that hurts the bottom line of a corporation with "terrorism." Then issue generic indictments calling picketers terrorists, without explaining what they actually did. That is what happened to the AETA 4.

This governmental tactic can drive those few activists who actually commit serious illegal acts far underground, while terrifying the mainstream movements into silence.

The AETA 4 ruling is a rare victory for animal rights and environmental activists, whose communities are under a Cointelpro-style attack in what has come to be known as the "green scare."

Recent victims of this kind of governmental prosecution include the "SHAC7," activists who ran a website documenting both lawful and unlawful protest activities undertaken in the campaign against animal testing by Huntington Life Sciences.

The SHAC 7 were convicted of "terrorism" under the precursor to the AETA, the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, (AEPA) despite the fact that none of them was accused, much less convicted, of doing anything other than commenting on others' legal and illegal actions.

Also threatened with jail time under the AEPA is Scott Demuth, a young activist who defied an Iowa grand jury subpoena and was promptly charged with animal enterprise terrorism. His indictment is so vague and far-reaching that it seems designed to hold him accountable for every act of property destruction attributed to animal rights activists over two years and across several states.

While animal rights and environmental activists are the main targets of these new laws equating protest with terrorism, the law could potentially be applied to anyone who protests anything, and does it effectively.

The AETA defines an "animal enterprise" to include any business that deals in animal research or uses or sells animal products. You can be accused of violating the law by traveling across state lines (or using the internet) to purposefully cause economic damage (like lost profits) to an animal enterprise. That is why CCR and other activist organizations are challenging these laws.

Environmental and animal rights groups are organizing against this law and against the green scare in general. Activists from other movements need to join them.

Attacks by government on our human and civil rights are always first directed at people on the margins who do not have widespread popular support. Animal and environmental activists are the ones under attack today. Unless we stand up and vigorously protect their rights to dissent, others, including us, will be certainly be next.

The Center for Constitutional Rights is involved in several of these battles, and updates are always available on our web site, at www.ccrjustice.org; or learn about the latest prosecutions by visiting the Civil Liberties Defense Center's web site, at www.cldc.org.