Violent Extremists and the Reporters Who Love Them

Posted on October 6, 2005 by briancarnell

One of the more fascinating aspects of animal rights and environmental acts of violence are those in relatively mainstream liberal and environmental circles who choose to excuse and diminish the nature and scope of such crimes. Former UPI reporter Kelly Hearn typifies such fellow travelers, especially in his use of extremely deceptive reporting on one such act.

Hearn opens an article published by Alternet by comparing the sentence received by one eco-terrorist to that received by a young man convicted of rape and assault,

A remorseless rapist in Hamilton County, Ohio is sentenced to 15 years in prison for beating and raping a 57-year-old woman. An environmental activist in California is sentenced to 22 years and 8 months for burning three SUVs at a car dealership after taking precautions to harm no lives.

The disparity helps illustrates [sic] what animal rights and environmental groups say is an expanding Orwellian attack on American environmentalism being waged under the pretext of eco-terrorism.

Of course, the only thing genuinely Orwellian is how utterly deceptive and factually incorrect the above two paragraphs are. They are so deceptive, in fact, that either Hearn did not actually do any original research about either of the young men he mentions, or he is lying through omission in order to make the cause of violent animal rights and environmental extremists seem more palatable to Alternet’s liberal readers.

The first paragraph above is the only reference made to these incidents, which helpfully makes it difficult for casual readers to verify what Hearn says. Who is this environmental activist who was sentenced to 22 years in California? Who is this remorseless rapist from Ohio? Did Hearn get their stories right?

For those who follow the extremists in the animal rights and environmental movement, its obvious that the environmental activist Hearn is referring to is Jeffrey Luers. But Hearn’s description of Luers’ well-deserved predicament is deceptive.

Luers, of course, was convicted in Oregon, not California. And in addition to being convicted of setting fire to three SUVs, he was also convicted of attempting to set fire to gasoline tanker and to possession of incendiary devices.

All of these details are important for understanding an odd circumstance that Hearn cannot be bothered to mention — Luers partner in these arsons, Craig Marshall, was sentenced to just 5 years. If prosecutors wanted to wage a war against environmentalism, it is a bit odd, to say the least, that they would let Marshall off so easily.

The difference, of course, is that Marshall accepted a plea bargain in which he plead to lesser charges. Luers was also offered a plea bargain but rejected it despite the abundant evidence of his guilt.

Luers, instead, decided to roll the dice and go to trial. Luers was well aware what he was possibly facing. Oregon’s Measure 11 sets strict mandatory minimums, and Luers and his lawyers knew full well that if convicted on most of the charges, he would spend a very long time in jail, much of it without the possibility of parole. Luers gambled, and lost, with his freedom both when he set those fires and then in facing the legal system for those crimes.

So, now that we’ve got a bit better picture of Luers’ predicament than Hearn could be bothered to present, what about that Ohio rapist. Presumably Hearn is writing about Terrell Wilkins, whom prosecutor Steve Tolbert said, “(He) might be the most dangerous human being I’ve ever prosecuted in all these years.”

In 2003, then 17-year-old Wilkins assaulted and raped his 57-year-old literacy tutor. He was reportedly angry that she decided to end their tutoring session early.

Wilkins plead no contest to rape and assault charges, and was sentenced to six years in prison for assault and nine years for the rape charge. The 15 years was just three short of the maximum 18 years he could have been sentenced to.

Why didn’t Wilkins get more time? The news reports on Wilkins’ case, unfortunately, do not give a lot of information on this point, but there are a number of possibilities. Wilkins plead “no contest” to the charges shortly before his trial was to begin, suggesting he may have reached a plea bargain with prosecutors.

Second, Wilkins did not use a weapon of any sort during his assault. Ohio statutes for rape and assault — as similar statutes across the country — generally treat acts of violence committed without weapons differently than acts of violence committed with weapons.

Third, Wilkins committed a single, unpremeditated rape. Again, most statutes for rape and assault generally reserve their longest sentences for convicts who fit sexual predator profiles — i.e, those who plan and carry out multiple assaults.

That being said, Hearn offers a false dichotomy. The clear implication of Hearn’s article is that if a brutal assault and rape only garners 15 years in jail in Ohio, a premeditated act of arson in Oregon should not draw an almost 23 year sentence. But the correct conclusion is that Wilkins should have been sentenced to a much longer period in jail, not that Luers’ sentence should have been shorter. Certainly the voters of Ohio can, if they choose, increase the mandatory minimum for violent crimes just as Oregon voters decided to increase the mandatory minimums for violent crimes in their state.

Moreover, Hearn’s defense of animal rights and environmental violence is the latest in a disturbing trend of left-liberals coming to the defense of violent extremists who happen to tangentially share their ideologies. Presumably if Luers and Marshall had torched an abortion clinic, Alternet would not be running an article complaining about the long sentence.

This is why, for example, no one at Alternet complains that Peter Howard received a 15 year sentence just like Wilkins. Howard is an anti-abortion extremist who tried to destroy an abortion clinic. At about 2 a.m. on March 17, 1997, Howard rammed his pickup truck into an abortion clinic. The truck was loaded with 13 gasoline cans and three propane tanks which Howard planned to use to set fire to the building. Howard’s concoction of gasoline and propane failed to ignite, however, and he was apprehended at the scene.

If Hearn wrote that a man who attempted to burn down an abortion clinic received the same sentence as a man who raped and assaulted a woman, thereby demonstrating that the government is persecuting anti-abortion activists in an Orwellian attack, the Alternet editors would file his story in their wastebaskets. Change the ideological cause to environmentalism and animal rights, however, and well, you know . . .it is only arson after all.

Hearn’s article serve the same role that much pro-life propaganda in the 1980s and 1990s did. It attempts to recast those committing acts of arson as the victims, and in the process of excusing and diminishing their crimes also glamorizes them. Jeff Luers, after all, is no longer simply an arsonist who liked to set fire to things, he’s now a victim in an “expanding Orwellian attack on American environmentalism.” Hell, they should probably give that kid a medal, not send him to jail!

Sources:

Stepping up the attack on green activists. Kelly Hearn, AlterNet, September 30, 2005.

Teen sent to jail for raping tutor. Jennifer Steiner, WCPO.Com, November 18, 2003.

Remorseless rapist gets 15 years. Janice Morse, The Cincinnati Enquirer, November 19, 2003.

Would-be clinic bomber gets 15-year term. Jerry Bier, The Fresno Bee, February 10, 1998.

YWCA rape victim file lawsuit. Jessica Brown, Journal News (Hamilton, Ohio), December 5, 2003.

Oregon Senate Considers Bill to Ban Foie Gras Sale, Production

Posted on June 2, 2005 by briancarnell

The Oregon Senate is currently considering a bill that would ban the production and sale of foie gras in Oregon.

The bill’s language says that,

A person commits the crime of force-feeding
a bird if, for the purpose of causing the liver of the bird to
increase in size, the person:
(a) Force-feeds a bird; or
(b) Directs or authorizes an employee to force-feed a bird.

. . .

A person commits the crime of trading in
force-fed bird products if the person sells, offers for sale or
delivers one or more food products that the person knows to have
been produced in whole or in part by force-feeding a bird.

The Oregonian reported that animal rights activists believe the bill will pass in the Democrat-dominated Senate, and are working to try to convince the Republican-dominated House to consider the measure. The Oregonian quoted In Defense of Animals activist Matt Rossell as saying,

This is not a partisan issue. It’s about what we are willing to tolerate in this state in terms of animal cruelty.

Some Oregon restaurants and chefs, however, are calling the bill “extremist”. The Oregonian interviewed restaurant owner Pascal Sauton who said he added foie gras to his menu in November and sold about 200 orders. Sauton said that his customers “also appreciated that I stood up for people’s right to eat what they want.”

The full text of Oregon Senate Bill 861 can be read here.

Sources:

Foie gras prohibition bill advances to Senate floor. The Oregonian, Michelle Cole, April 19, 2005.

Oregon SB 861 – Ban on Foie Gras Production

Posted on June 2, 2005 by briancarnell

     73rd OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2005 Regular Session

NOTE:  Matter within  { +  braces and plus signs + } in an
amended section is new. Matter within  { -  braces and minus
signs - } is existing law to be omitted. New sections are within
 { +  braces and plus signs + } .

LC 2387

                           A-Engrossed

                         Senate Bill 861
                 Ordered by the Senate April 21
           Including Senate Amendments dated April 21

Sponsored by Senator VERGER; Senators BATES, GEORGE, SHIELDS,
  WHITSETT, Representatives HUNT, ROSENBAUM (at the request of
  Ted E. Keizer)


                             SUMMARY

The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the
measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to
consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor's
brief statement of the essential features of the measure.

  Creates crime of force-feeding bird. Punishes by maximum $1,000
fine.
  Creates crime of trading in force-fed bird products. Punishes
by maximum fine of $1,000.

                        A BILL FOR AN ACT
Relating to the force-feeding of birds.
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
  SECTION 1.  { + As used in sections 2 and 3 of this 2005 Act:
  (1) 'Bird' means a fowl grown for purposes of human
consumption.
  (2) 'Force-feed' means to deliver food by:
  (a) Placing a tube or other device into the esophagus; or
  (b) Any other method used with the intent of causing ingestion
of an amount of food that exceeds the amount that would be
ingested voluntarily by a typical member of the same species. + }
  SECTION 2.  { + (1) A person commits the crime of force-feeding
a bird if, for the purpose of causing the liver of the bird to
increase in size, the person:
  (a) Force-feeds a bird; or
  (b) Directs or authorizes an employee to force-feed a bird.
  (2) The crime of force-feeding a bird is an unclassified
misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000. Each
force-feeding of a bird is a separate violation. + }
  SECTION 3.  { + (1) A person commits the crime of trading in
force-fed bird products if the person sells, offers for sale or
delivers one or more food products that the person knows to have
been produced in whole or in part by force-feeding a bird.
  (2) The crime of trading in force-fed bird products is an
unclassified misdemeanor punishable by a fine, not to exceed
$1,000. In the case of a continuing violation, each day the
violation continues is a separate offense. + }
                         ----------

Circuses — Cruel By Definition?

Posted on May 25, 2005 by briancarnell

Ran across a story from the Corvallis Gazette-Times from April about a group of local activists protesting the Circus Gatti’s appearance in Corvallis, Oregon.

Eight protesters from Citizens Against Circus Cruelty showed up, at least one dressed up like a clown.

Now usually, activists protesting circuses tend to distribute leaflets outlining alleged abuses by this circus or that, often accompanied by photos alleged to be abused circus animals. But Citizens Against Circus Cruelty has no need for evidence of any sort. According to organizer Nettie Schwager (emphasis added),

The public needs to be made aware of the animal cruelty in circuses. All circuses that use animals by definition mistreat animals.

There you have it — Schwager’s right by definition. Of course, that’s a pretty twisted dictionary she’s using.

Source:

Activists protest circus. Mary Ann Albright, Corvallis Gazette-Times, April 2, 2005.

Accused Eco-Terrorists Arrested

Posted on April 30, 2005 by briancarnell

On December 21, 2004, two men accused of plotting an eco-terrorist attack were arrested in Oregon.

Charles Arthur Jordan IV, 20, and Stephen Marshall, 19, were arrested at an abandoned farm house and charged with plotting to blow up equipment owned by Oregon quarry company, Morse Bros. The two allegedly believe that the quarry company was polluting a local river and decided some well-placed explosives was a logical response.

The two apparently came under suspicion after they allegedly boasted to friends about their plans.

Source:

Support Eco-Prisoners – January 2005. Press Release, Earth Liberation Prisoners Support Network, January 2005.

Oregon Senate Passes Animal Researcher Privacy Bill

Posted on March 17, 2005 by briancarnell

The Oregon state Senate voted 25-3 this month to approve a bill that would shield the names, home addresses and other information about animal researchers from being routinely released with public records until at least 2010.

Oregon Senate Bill 262 creates an exemption for a variety of public records statutes that would prevent,

disclosure under public records law for records that identify
persons who engage in or support research on animals other than
rodents at Oregon Health and Science University.

So, for example, if a freedom of information request results in the release of unpublished research, the researcher’s name and other details would have to be redacted.

Oregon currently has a temporary exemption that expires in 2006, and SB 262 would extend that exemption another four years.

The aim of the bill is to protect researchers from harassment and violence by animal rights activists. Clearly this is not a panacea — anyone determined enough to obtain this information about an animal researcher is going to be able to do so. But reducing the casual, routine disclosure of such information nonetheless should help nonetheless.

The bill now must be approved by the Oregon state House. The full text of the proposed law can be read here

Source:

Senate passes measure to protect researchers. Michelle Cole, The Oregonian, March 2, 2005.

Oregon Senate Bill 262 — Exempt Researchers from Some Public Records Reporting Requirements

Posted on March 8, 2005 by briancarnell

 73rd OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2005 Regular Session

NOTE:  Matter within  { +  braces and plus signs + } in an
amended section is new. Matter within  { -  braces and minus
signs - } is existing law to be omitted. New sections are within
 { +  braces and plus signs + } .

LC 1351

                           A-Engrossed

                         Senate Bill 262
                Ordered by the Senate February 24
          Including Senate Amendments dated February 24

Printed pursuant to Senate Interim Rule 213.28 by order of the
  President of the Senate in conformance with presession filing
  rules, indicating neither advocacy nor opposition on the part
  of the President (at the request of Joint Interim Committee on
  Judiciary for Oregon Health and Science University)


                             SUMMARY

The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the
measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to
consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor's
brief statement of the essential features of the measure.

    { - Makes permanent - }   { + Extends + } exemption from
disclosure under public records law for records that identify
persons who engage in or support research on animals other than
rodents at Oregon Health and Science University. { +  Specifies
that exemption does not apply to university press releases,
websites or other publications circulated to general public. + }

                        A BILL FOR AN ACT
Relating to exemption from disclosure of public records that
  identify persons involved in research on animals other than
  rodents at Oregon Health and Science University; creating new
  provisions; amending ORS 192.501; and repealing section 12,
  chapter 807, Oregon Laws 2003.
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
  SECTION 1. ORS 192.501, as amended by section 3, chapter 807,
Oregon Laws 2003, is amended to read:
  192.501. The following public records are exempt from
disclosure under ORS 192.410 to 192.505 unless the public
interest requires disclosure in the particular instance:
  (1) Records of a public body pertaining to litigation to which
the public body is a party if the complaint has been filed, or if
the complaint has not been filed, if the public body shows that
such litigation is reasonably likely to occur. This exemption
does not apply to litigation which has been concluded, and
nothing in this subsection shall limit any right or opportunity
granted by discovery or deposition statutes to a party to
litigation or potential litigation;
  (2) Trade secrets. 'Trade secrets,' as used in this section,
may include, but are not limited to, any formula, plan, pattern,
process, tool, mechanism, compound, procedure, production data,
or compilation of information which is not patented, which is
known only to certain individuals within an organization and
which is used in a business it conducts, having actual or
potential commercial value, and which gives its user an
opportunity to obtain a business advantage over competitors who
do not know or use it;
  (3) Investigatory information compiled for criminal law
purposes. The record of an arrest or the report of a crime shall
be disclosed unless and only for so long as there is a clear need
to delay disclosure in the course of a specific investigation,
including the need to protect the complaining party or the
victim.  Nothing in this subsection shall limit any right
constitutionally guaranteed, or granted by statute, to disclosure
or discovery in criminal cases. For purposes of this subsection,
the record of an arrest or the report of a crime includes, but is
not limited to:
  (a) The arrested person's name, age, residence, employment,
marital status and similar biographical information;
  (b) The offense with which the arrested person is charged;
  (c) The conditions of release pursuant to ORS 135.230 to
135.290;
  (d) The identity of and biographical information concerning
both complaining party and victim;
  (e) The identity of the investigating and arresting agency and
the length of the investigation;
  (f) The circumstances of arrest, including time, place,
resistance, pursuit and weapons used; and
  (g) Such information as may be necessary to enlist public
assistance in apprehending fugitives from justice;
  (4) Test questions, scoring keys, and other data used to
administer a licensing examination, employment, academic or other
examination or testing procedure before the examination is given
and if the examination is to be used again. Records establishing
procedures for and instructing persons administering, grading or
evaluating an examination or testing procedure are included in
this exemption, to the extent that disclosure would create a risk
that the result might be affected;
  (5) Information consisting of production records, sale or
purchase records or catch records, or similar business records of
a private concern or enterprise, required by law to be submitted
to or inspected by a governmental body to allow it to determine
fees or assessments payable or to establish production quotas,
and the amounts of such fees or assessments payable or paid, to
the extent that such information is in a form which would permit
identification of the individual concern or enterprise. This
exemption does not include records submitted by long term care
facilities as defined in ORS 442.015 to the state for purposes of
reimbursement of expenses or determining fees for patient care.
Nothing in this subsection shall limit the use which can be made
of such information for regulatory purposes or its admissibility
in any enforcement proceeding;
  (6) Information relating to the appraisal of real estate prior
to its acquisition;
  (7) The names and signatures of employees who sign
authorization cards or petitions for the purpose of requesting
representation or decertification elections;
  (8) Investigatory information relating to any complaint filed
under ORS 659A.820 or 659A.825, until such time as the complaint
is resolved under ORS 659A.835, or a final order is issued under
ORS 659A.850;
  (9) Investigatory information relating to any complaint or
charge filed under ORS 243.676 and 663.180;
  (10) Records, reports and other information received or
compiled by the Director of the Department of Consumer and
Business Services under ORS 697.732;
  (11) Information concerning the location of archaeological
sites or objects as those terms are defined in ORS 358.905,
except if the governing body of an Indian tribe requests the
information and the need for the information is related to that
Indian tribe's cultural or religious activities. This exemption
does not include information relating to a site that is all or
part of an existing, commonly known and publicized tourist
facility or attraction;
  (12) A personnel discipline action, or materials or documents
supporting that action;
  (13) Information developed pursuant to ORS 496.004, 496.172 and
498.026 or ORS 496.192 and 564.100, regarding the habitat,
location or population of any threatened species or endangered
species;
  (14) Writings prepared by or under the direction of faculty of
public educational institutions, in connection with research,
until publicly released, copyrighted or patented;
  (15) Computer programs developed or purchased by or for any
public body for its own use. As used in this subsection, '
computer program' means a series of instructions or statements
which permit the functioning of a computer system in a manner
designed to provide storage, retrieval and manipulation of data
from such computer system, and any associated documentation and
source material that explain how to operate the computer program.
' Computer program' does not include:
  (a) The original data, including but not limited to numbers,
text, voice, graphics and images;
  (b) Analyses, compilations and other manipulated forms of the
original data produced by use of the program; or
  (c) The mathematical and statistical formulas which would be
used if the manipulated forms of the original data were to be
produced manually;
  (16) Data and information provided by participants to mediation
under ORS 36.256;
  (17) Investigatory information relating to any complaint or
charge filed under ORS chapter 654, until a final administrative
determination is made or, if a citation is issued, until an
employer receives notice of any citation;
  (18) Specific operational plans in connection with an
anticipated threat to individual or public safety for deployment
and use of personnel and equipment, prepared or used by a public
body, if public disclosure of the plans would endanger an
individual's life or physical safety or jeopardize a law
enforcement activity;
  (19)(a) Audits or audit reports required of a
telecommunications carrier. As used in this paragraph, 'audit or
audit report' means any external or internal audit or audit
report pertaining to a telecommunications carrier, as defined in
ORS 133.721, or pertaining to a corporation having an affiliated
interest, as defined in ORS 759.010, with a telecommunications
carrier that is intended to make the operations of the entity
more efficient, accurate or compliant with applicable rules,
procedures or standards, that may include self-criticism and that
has been filed by the telecommunications carrier or affiliate
under compulsion of state law. 'Audit or audit report' does not
mean an audit of a cost study that would be discoverable in a
contested case proceeding and that is not subject to a protective
order; and
  (b) Financial statements. As used in this paragraph, '
financial statement' means a financial statement of a
nonregulated corporation having an affiliated interest, as
defined in ORS 759.010, with a telecommunications carrier, as
defined in ORS 133.721;
  (20) The residence address of an elector if authorized under
ORS 247.965 and subject to ORS 247.967;
  (21) The following records, communications and information
submitted to a housing authority as defined in ORS 456.005, or to
an urban renewal agency as defined in ORS 457.010, by applicants
for and recipients of loans, grants and tax credits:
  (a) Personal and corporate financial statements and
information, including tax returns;
  (b) Credit reports;
  (c) Project appraisals;
  (d) Market studies and analyses;
  (e) Articles of incorporation, partnership agreements and
operating agreements;
  (f) Commitment letters;
  (g) Project pro forma statements;
  (h) Project cost certifications and cost data;
  (i) Audits;
  (j) Project tenant correspondence requested to be confidential;
  (k) Tenant files relating to certification; and
  (L) Housing assistance payment requests;
  (22) Records or information that, if disclosed, would allow a
person to:
  (a) Gain unauthorized access to buildings or other property;
  (b) Identify those areas of structural or operational
vulnerability that would permit unlawful disruption to, or
interference with, services; or
  (c) Disrupt, interfere with or gain unauthorized access to
public funds or to information processing, communication or
telecommunication systems, including the information contained in
the systems, that are used or operated by a public body;
  (23) Records or information that would reveal or otherwise
identify security measures, or weaknesses or potential weaknesses
in security measures, taken or recommended to be taken to
protect:
  (a) An individual;
  (b) Buildings or other property;
  (c) Information processing, communication or telecommunication
systems, including the information contained in the systems; or
  (d) Those operations of the Oregon State Lottery the security
of which are subject to study and evaluation under ORS 461.180
(6);
  (24) Writings prepared by or under the direction of officials
of Oregon Health and Science University about a person and the
person's potential interest in donating money or property to the
university or about the person's actual donation unless
disclosure is authorized by the person;
  (25) Personal information held by or under the direction of
officials of the Oregon University System about a person who has
or who is interested in donating money or property to the system
or to a state institution of higher education, if the information
is related to the family of the person, personal assets of the
person or is incidental information not related to the donation;
  (26) The home address, professional address and telephone
number of a person who has or who is interested in donating money
or property to the Oregon University System;
  (27) Records of the name and address of a person who files a
report with or pays an assessment to a commodity commission
established under ORS 576.051 to 576.455, the Oregon Beef Council
created under ORS 577.210 or the Oregon Wheat Commission created
under ORS 578.030;
  (28) Information provided to, obtained by or used by a public
body to authorize, originate, receive or authenticate a transfer
of funds, including but not limited to a credit card number,
payment card expiration date, password, financial institution
account number and financial institution routing number;
  (29) Social Security numbers as provided in ORS 107.840;
  { - and - }
  (30) The electronic mail address of a student who attends a
state institution of higher education listed in ORS 352.002 or
Oregon Health and Science University { + ; and
  (31) The name, home address, professional address or location
of a person that is engaged in, or that provides goods or
services for, medical research at Oregon Health and Science
University that is conducted using animals other than
rodents + }.  { + This subsection does not apply to Oregon Health
and Science University press releases, websites or other
publications circulated to the general public. + }
  SECTION 2.  { + Section 12, chapter 807, Oregon Laws 2003, is
repealed. + }
  SECTION 3. ORS 192.501, as amended by section 3, chapter 807,
Oregon Laws 2003, and section 1 of this 2005 Act, is amended to
read:
  192.501. The following public records are exempt from
disclosure under ORS 192.410 to 192.505 unless the public
interest requires disclosure in the particular instance:
  (1) Records of a public body pertaining to litigation to which
the public body is a party if the complaint has been filed, or if
the complaint has not been filed, if the public body shows that
such litigation is reasonably likely to occur. This exemption
does not apply to litigation which has been concluded, and
nothing in this subsection shall limit any right or opportunity
granted by discovery or deposition statutes to a party to
litigation or potential litigation;
  (2) Trade secrets. 'Trade secrets,' as used in this section,
may include, but are not limited to, any formula, plan, pattern,
process, tool, mechanism, compound, procedure, production data,
or compilation of information which is not patented, which is
known only to certain individuals within an organization and
which is used in a business it conducts, having actual or
potential commercial value, and which gives its user an
opportunity to obtain a business advantage over competitors who
do not know or use it;
  (3) Investigatory information compiled for criminal law
purposes. The record of an arrest or the report of a crime shall
be disclosed unless and only for so long as there is a clear need
to delay disclosure in the course of a specific investigation,
including the need to protect the complaining party or the
victim.  Nothing in this subsection shall limit any right
constitutionally guaranteed, or granted by statute, to disclosure
or discovery in criminal cases. For purposes of this subsection,
the record of an arrest or the report of a crime includes, but is
not limited to:
  (a) The arrested person's name, age, residence, employment,
marital status and similar biographical information;
  (b) The offense with which the arrested person is charged;
  (c) The conditions of release pursuant to ORS 135.230 to
135.290;
  (d) The identity of and biographical information concerning
both complaining party and victim;
  (e) The identity of the investigating and arresting agency and
the length of the investigation;
  (f) The circumstances of arrest, including time, place,
resistance, pursuit and weapons used; and
  (g) Such information as may be necessary to enlist public
assistance in apprehending fugitives from justice;
  (4) Test questions, scoring keys, and other data used to
administer a licensing examination, employment, academic or other
examination or testing procedure before the examination is given
and if the examination is to be used again. Records establishing
procedures for and instructing persons administering, grading or
evaluating an examination or testing procedure are included in
this exemption, to the extent that disclosure would create a risk
that the result might be affected;
  (5) Information consisting of production records, sale or
purchase records or catch records, or similar business records of
a private concern or enterprise, required by law to be submitted
to or inspected by a governmental body to allow it to determine
fees or assessments payable or to establish production quotas,
and the amounts of such fees or assessments payable or paid, to
the extent that such information is in a form which would permit
identification of the individual concern or enterprise. This
exemption does not include records submitted by long term care
facilities as defined in ORS 442.015 to the state for purposes of
reimbursement of expenses or determining fees for patient care.
Nothing in this subsection shall limit the use which can be made
of such information for regulatory purposes or its admissibility
in any enforcement proceeding;
  (6) Information relating to the appraisal of real estate prior
to its acquisition;
  (7) The names and signatures of employees who sign
authorization cards or petitions for the purpose of requesting
representation or decertification elections;
  (8) Investigatory information relating to any complaint filed
under ORS 659A.820 or 659A.825, until such time as the complaint
is resolved under ORS 659A.835, or a final order is issued under
ORS 659A.850;
  (9) Investigatory information relating to any complaint or
charge filed under ORS 243.676 and 663.180;
  (10) Records, reports and other information received or
compiled by the Director of the Department of Consumer and
Business Services under ORS 697.732;
  (11) Information concerning the location of archaeological
sites or objects as those terms are defined in ORS 358.905,
except if the governing body of an Indian tribe requests the
information and the need for the information is related to that
Indian tribe's cultural or religious activities. This exemption
does not include information relating to a site that is all or
part of an existing, commonly known and publicized tourist
facility or attraction;
  (12) A personnel discipline action, or materials or documents
supporting that action;
  (13) Information developed pursuant to ORS 496.004, 496.172 and
498.026 or ORS 496.192 and 564.100, regarding the habitat,
location or population of any threatened species or endangered
species;
  (14) Writings prepared by or under the direction of faculty of
public educational institutions, in connection with research,
until publicly released, copyrighted or patented;
  (15) Computer programs developed or purchased by or for any
public body for its own use. As used in this subsection, '
computer program' means a series of instructions or statements
which permit the functioning of a computer system in a manner
designed to provide storage, retrieval and manipulation of data
from such computer system, and any associated documentation and
source material that explain how to operate the computer program.
' Computer program' does not include:
  (a) The original data, including but not limited to numbers,
text, voice, graphics and images;
  (b) Analyses, compilations and other manipulated forms of the
original data produced by use of the program; or
  (c) The mathematical and statistical formulas which would be
used if the manipulated forms of the original data were to be
produced manually;
  (16) Data and information provided by participants to mediation
under ORS 36.256;
  (17) Investigatory information relating to any complaint or
charge filed under ORS chapter 654, until a final administrative
determination is made or, if a citation is issued, until an
employer receives notice of any citation;
  (18) Specific operational plans in connection with an
anticipated threat to individual or public safety for deployment
and use of personnel and equipment, prepared or used by a public
body, if public disclosure of the plans would endanger an
individual's life or physical safety or jeopardize a law
enforcement activity;

  (19)(a) Audits or audit reports required of a
telecommunications carrier. As used in this paragraph, 'audit or
audit report' means any external or internal audit or audit
report pertaining to a telecommunications carrier, as defined in
ORS 133.721, or pertaining to a corporation having an affiliated
interest, as defined in ORS 759.010, with a telecommunications
carrier that is intended to make the operations of the entity
more efficient, accurate or compliant with applicable rules,
procedures or standards, that may include self-criticism and that
has been filed by the telecommunications carrier or affiliate
under compulsion of state law. 'Audit or audit report' does not
mean an audit of a cost study that would be discoverable in a
contested case proceeding and that is not subject to a protective
order; and
  (b) Financial statements. As used in this paragraph, '
financial statement' means a financial statement of a
nonregulated corporation having an affiliated interest, as
defined in ORS 759.010, with a telecommunications carrier, as
defined in ORS 133.721;
  (20) The residence address of an elector if authorized under
ORS 247.965 and subject to ORS 247.967;
  (21) The following records, communications and information
submitted to a housing authority as defined in ORS 456.005, or to
an urban renewal agency as defined in ORS 457.010, by applicants
for and recipients of loans, grants and tax credits:
  (a) Personal and corporate financial statements and
information, including tax returns;
  (b) Credit reports;
  (c) Project appraisals;
  (d) Market studies and analyses;
  (e) Articles of incorporation, partnership agreements and
operating agreements;
  (f) Commitment letters;
  (g) Project pro forma statements;
  (h) Project cost certifications and cost data;
  (i) Audits;
  (j) Project tenant correspondence requested to be confidential;
  (k) Tenant files relating to certification; and
  (L) Housing assistance payment requests;
  (22) Records or information that, if disclosed, would allow a
person to:
  (a) Gain unauthorized access to buildings or other property;
  (b) Identify those areas of structural or operational
vulnerability that would permit unlawful disruption to, or
interference with, services; or
  (c) Disrupt, interfere with or gain unauthorized access to
public funds or to information processing, communication or
telecommunication systems, including the information contained in
the systems, that are used or operated by a public body;
  (23) Records or information that would reveal or otherwise
identify security measures, or weaknesses or potential weaknesses
in security measures, taken or recommended to be taken to
protect:
  (a) An individual;
  (b) Buildings or other property;
  (c) Information processing, communication or telecommunication
systems, including the information contained in the systems; or
  (d) Those operations of the Oregon State Lottery the security
of which are subject to study and evaluation under ORS 461.180
(6);
  (24) Writings prepared by or under the direction of officials
of Oregon Health and Science University about a person and the
person's potential interest in donating money or property to the
university or about the person's actual donation unless
disclosure is authorized by the person;

  (25) Personal information held by or under the direction of
officials of the Oregon University System about a person who has
or who is interested in donating money or property to the system
or to a state institution of higher education, if the information
is related to the family of the person, personal assets of the
person or is incidental information not related to the donation;
  (26) The home address, professional address and telephone
number of a person who has or who is interested in donating money
or property to the Oregon University System;
  (27) Records of the name and address of a person who files a
report with or pays an assessment to a commodity commission
established under ORS 576.051 to 576.455, the Oregon Beef Council
created under ORS 577.210 or the Oregon Wheat Commission created
under ORS 578.030;
  (28) Information provided to, obtained by or used by a public
body to authorize, originate, receive or authenticate a transfer
of funds, including but not limited to a credit card number,
payment card expiration date, password, financial institution
account number and financial institution routing number;
  (29) Social Security numbers as provided in ORS 107.840;
 { + and + }
  (30) The electronic mail address of a student who attends a
state institution of higher education listed in ORS 352.002 or
Oregon Health and Science University  { - ; and - }  { + . + }
    { - (31) The name, home address, professional address or
location of a person that is engaged in, or that provides goods
or services for, medical research at Oregon Health and Science
University that is conducted using animals other than rodents.
This subsection does not apply to Oregon Health and Science
University press releases, websites or other publications
circulated to the general public. - }
  SECTION 4.  { + The amendments to ORS 192.501 by section 3 of
this 2005 Act become operative on January 2, 2010. + }
                         ----------

Craig Marshall Reportedly to Be Released in January

Posted on November 29, 2004 by briancarnell

The Earth Liberation Prisoners Support Group reports that convicted Earth Liberation Front terrorist Craig Marshall will be released on January 6, 2005.

Marshall received a 5 and a half year sentence in 2002 for his role in setting fire to SUVs at a car dealership. His accomplice, Jeff Luers, received a 22 year sentence after refusing to accept a plea bargain as Luers did and being convicted under charges that invoked Oregon’s mandatory minimum requirements.

No word yet on what Marshall’s probationary terms will be.

Source:

Earth Liberation Prisoners Information Bulletin, November 19, 2004.

Michael Scarpitti (aka Tre Arrow) Allowed to Make Case to Remain Refugee in Canada

Posted on August 3, 2004 by briancarnell

The Canadian immigration and refugee board ruled in July that Michael Scarpitti (aka Tre Arrow) should be allowed to present his case for refugee status in Canada. Scarpitti is wanted in the United States for the 2001 firebombing of vehicles at an Oregon logging site.

After a two year manhunt, Scarpitti was arrested in British Columbia in March trying to steal a pair of bolt cutters from a hardware store.

Scarpitti contends that he could not receive a fair trial in the United States because the government views him as a domestic terrorist.

If convicted in the United States, Scarpitti could face up to 80 years in jail.

Source:

Arrow’s request for refugee status in Canada accepted. Associated Press, July 30, 2004.

Animal Activist Jailed for Defying Grand Jury

Posted on August 1, 2004 by briancarnell

Animal rights activist Kim Berardi was jailed briefly in July after refusing to answer questions before a federal grand jury investing animal rights crimes in Seattle. She was released temporarily on July 6 to deal with some undisclosed personal matter and the current disposition of her case is unclear.

Berardi is associated with Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty. When SHAC activists were arrested in Little Rock, Arkansas, for example, activist asked that people wanting to donate money to bail out jailed activists should wire their money to Berardi.

She is also acted as a contact for animal rights extremist magazine No Compromise!

Previously she has worked with chapters of the Animal Defense League. A 1999 Fur Commission USA press release noted a protest at a farm (featuring those masked protestors we’ve all become so familiar with of late),

About 15 protesters showed up, many wearing black hooded sweatshirts, half a dozen wore masks over their faces. Local law enforcement responded and ensured that there were no violations of the rights or property of the farming family or the rights of the protesters to express their opinion.

Involved with the Chicago ADL is veteran conflict gypsy Kim Berardi who has organized ADL “Civil Disobedience Training” sessions focusing on “physical, psychological and emotional preparation” and “how to handle the police”, among other items. Previously associated with the extreme New York and New Jersey ADLs, groups which openly support the criminal activities of the terrorist Animal Liberation Front (ALF), Berardi was promoted in 1999 to managing the Chicago Animal Defense League.

. . .

Berardi currently faces charges in Washington State arising from a masked invasion of a farm on Feb. 23, 1999. About 15 people donned black masks and jumped the fence of a fur farm in Snohomish County where they began breaking into pens, traumatizing the domesticated mink. Five people were quickly arrested, including three out-of-state minors transported across state lines to perform criminal acts on a school day during school hours. Like Berardi, the other adult involved, Nicole Dawn Briggs, has arrest records in multiple states. They were charged with second-degree burglary and first-degree theft for the incident. Trial is set for January of 2000.

Yeah, can’t imagine at all why a grand jury would want to talk to her.

Sources:

Farming Family Endures Sunday Attack by Veteran Conflict-Generation Group. Press Release, Fur Commission USA, November 8, 1999.

Animal Activist Kim Berardi Released… Temporarily.

Little Rock SHAC Protesters May Need Money for Bail Bond.

Seattle Grand Jury Imprisons Kim Berardi! Press Release, No Compromise!, July 2, 2004.

AnimalRights.Net

My Wordpress Blog

Tag Archives: Oregon

Violent Extremists and the Reporters Who Love Them

Oregon Senate Considers Bill to Ban Foie Gras Sale, Production

Oregon SB 861 – Ban on Foie Gras Production

Circuses — Cruel By Definition?

Accused Eco-Terrorists Arrested

Oregon Senate Passes Animal Researcher Privacy Bill

Oregon Senate Bill 262 — Exempt Researchers from Some Public Records Reporting Requirements

Craig Marshall Reportedly to Be Released in January

Michael Scarpitti (aka Tre Arrow) Allowed to Make Case to Remain Refugee in Canada

Animal Activist Jailed for Defying Grand Jury