The government has secured the cooperation of a reluctant witness in a grand jury investigation of two 2008 arsons targeting faculty members at UC Santa Cruz, according to IndyBay.org. The witness had earlier invoked her Fifth Amendment rights, but agreed to testify after being threatened with contempt charges, according to the report.
Early in the morning of August 2, 2008, a firebomb exploded on the front porch of the home of UC Santa Cruz molecular biologist David Feldheim, forcing his family to escape by ladder out of a second story window. Around the same time, a Volvo station wagon belonging to another UCSC scientist was firebombed on a campus driveway.
Federal investigators and university administrators immediately pointed to animal rights activists as suspects in the crimes. Feldheim conducted experiments on live mice as part of his research on brain development, and was one of 13 vivisectors whose pictures, names and addresses appeared in a leaflet created by a local animal rights group shortly before the attacks, accompanied by a message that read, “Animal abusers everywhere beware; we know where you live; we know where you work; we will never back down until you end your abuse.” The leaflet was posted on the bulletin board of a local café.
But neither the Animal Liberation Front nor any other animal rights group issued a communiqué claiming responsibility for the arsons, as is their usual method.
The ALF engages in illegal property destruction to protest animal abuse and to rescue animals from vivisection, slaughter, fur farming and other forms of industrial animal exploitation. However, historically ALF activists in the United States have followed guidelines requiring them “to take all necessary precautions against harming any animal, human and non-human,” and no ALF member has ever been prosecuted in the U.S. for attacking a human being.
The owner of the bombed vehicle was not among the 13 vivisectors that appeared on the leaflet, and may not have even been an animal researcher, according to an ALF news site, further complicating the FBI’s theory of a connection between the arsons and the animal rights movement.
Having failed to identify and arrest any direct participant in the crimes, federal prosecutors brought indictments in 2009 against four local animal rights activists for violating the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, which classifies hitherto constitutionally-protected speech activities as “terrorism” when used in campaigns against animal exploitation-based industries (the constitutionality of the law is currently being challenged in court). The four indictees were charged as terrorists for engaging in First Amendment activities such as chanting, marching, chalking sidewalks, and creating and distributing the leaflet with Feldheim’s personal information on it.
In 2010, the indictments were thrown out by a district court judge for their lack of specificity.
The government is apparently enjoying some measure of success this time around by leveraging the grand jury system, which is routinely used by prosecutors and investigators to extract incriminating testimony from activists who have not been charged with any crime. Under the grand jury system, individuals can be subpoenaed as witnesses and forced to testify against their friends and fellow activists under threat of imprisonment.
Recently, a Seattle court jailed three anarchists in order to coerce testimony in a grand jury investigation (or, as likely, a fishing expedition) into vandalism at a May Day protest. One of the three prisoners, Leah-Lynn Plante, was released less than a week later, after reportedly cooperating with the investigation.



11 Comments

Book Salon up with Matt Kennard’s Irregular Army: How the US Military Recruited Neo-Nazis, Gang Members, and Criminals to Fight the War on Terror hosted by Daryl Johnson
The comment at the IndyBay link is crossed out. Know whassup with that?
I don’t know much about the situation this post is referencing, but I have seen some seriously hateful stuff about Leah-Lynne Plant on Facebook and elsewhere that made me very sad. The idea that a young woman who has committed no crime, wasn’t even in the vicinity of the alleged crime, is being excoriated by her supposed comrades because she allegedly decided to cooperate, is appalling. Solidarity must mean something different than I imagined.
@Wendy — I just noticed that myself (the struck out text at IndyBay). I’m not sure what the back story is. @Carol — yes, the ethical questions raised by the use of grand juries against activists and the pressures to inform are complicated. I’ll have a post this week delving into some of those issues, featuring the perspective of someone who has been through it.
By the way, the post is updated with a bit more detail and with the further complicating fact (that I was unaware of until now) that the second bombing targeted a scientist who may not even have been involved in animal research, making the alleged connection to animal rights activists even more tenuous and precarious.
Great, thanks for keeping us posted on this. It’s beginning to feel like Six Degrees of Separation is all the feds think they need. Pretty scary.
I agree with the “allegedly” decided to cooperate. Leah-Lynne has a number of serious health problems including mental health issues, and right after she was released – sent a tweet saying that the reason she was released “was not what you may think”. Nothing has been heard from her since.
I am seriously suspicious of any posts claiming she suddenly decided to cooperate without corroboration from her or from her attorney or from someone other than “some say”. Also, since she was nowhere near this ALF action (if that was even true) I wonder what she could have possibly added to any investigation.
I don’t think that Leighton was implying that Leah had anything at all to do with the ALF action; her case is just another unrelated example of the use of the grand jury process. I definitely agree that we don’t have enough information about Leah’s situation to make any judgments, and that those who are doing so are jumping to conclusions that may not be warranted.
Leah was released probably as a result of her high profile. It should be noted that a tactic used in grand juries in the past has been to hold people refusing to testify, but to release one of their comrades almost immediately. It gives the remaining prisoners a reason to talk, thinking their comrade has already testified, possibly incriminating them.
Sorry if I didn’t make that clear enough: The Northwest Grand Jury resisters are part a completely different case than the one discussed here. I mention them because they’re another recent, high profile example of the government using the grand jury process as a coercive tool to divide activists and turn them into informants on one another.
I think it’s a lot more likely the feds decided to fit Leah-Lynne for a snitch jacket. The idiots stirring up all this hate against her are doing exactly what the feds want.
Maybe as the oceans rise and the forests burn and species become extinct there will be a figurative sea change in our Government lawyers to match the actual sea change in our planet and the polluters and climate change deniers will start facing the Grand Jury music.