Thursday, June 30, 2011

Columnist says taxpayers should stop subsidizing Wal-Mart

Taxpayers Should Stop Subsidizing Wal-Mart
By Tina Dupuy | June 28th, 2011 |

Wal-Mart is the biggest retailer in the world. It boasts of having 1.2 million Americans on their payroll. Its reported annual profits are around $13 billion. So it’s safe to say since it is so big – and so ubiquitous – and so obviously successful – the government can now stop subsidizing it.


"Human Relations" June 2011 Newsletter

Dear Dr Castagnera,

Just click on the URL link below to read all the latest news from Human Relations:

- The next Editor-in-Chief for Human Relations
- 2-year and 5-year impact factors rose again for 2010
- Discover our acceptance rate and mean time to decision
- Find out who won our Paper of the Year 2010 Award
- All the latest Editorial Board news
- Check which conferences we will be at - come and say hello and discuss potential submissions

...and much, much more!

With best wishes,

Claire Castle
Managing Editor
Human Relations


Just ask Former Congressman Weiner: People Who Live in Glass Houses...

Chris Hansen, 'To Catch a Predator' Host, Caught Cheating by Hidden Cameras
by Catherine Lawson, posted Jun 30th 2011 5:30AM

Chris HansenOh, the irony ... It's been reported that Chris Hansen, host of 'To Catch a Predator,' the controversial 'Dateline' show that uses hidden cameras to trap would-be perverts in sting operations, has been caught cheating on his wife ... in a sting operation using hidden cameras.


The latest from the US Department of Homeland Security

Message 1
From: U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Date: Jun, Wed 29 2011 11:26 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Small Business Vendor Outreach Sessions Update

You are subscribed to Small Business Vendor Outreach Sessions for U.S. Department of Homeland Security. This information has recently been updated, and is now available.
Next Session

Regional Vendor Outreach Sessions
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Holiday Inn Capitol
Columbia Ballroom


Registration for the July 21, 2011, Vendor Outreach Session will be on Thursday, July 14, 2011 at 12:00 p.m. (ET). Please read the instructions carefully as sessions fill up quickly.

Message 2
From: U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Date: Jun, Wed 29 2011 11:28 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Economic Recovery Act of 2009 Update

You are subscribed to Economic Recovery Act of 2009 for U.S. Department of Homeland Security. This information has recently been updated, and is now available.

Latest Report:

June 24

* Weekly Update (XLS - 92 KB)
* Weekly Update, 1 of 2 (CSV - 80.8 KB KB)
* Weekly Update, 2 of 2 (CSV - 2.27 KB)

Message 3
From: U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Date: Jun, Wed 29 2011 11:31 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: U.S. Department of Homeland Security The Blog @ Homeland Security Update

You are subscribed to The Blog @ Homeland Security for U.S. Department of Homeland Security. A new post has been added to the Blog @ Homeland Security, and is now available.

Recognizing the Faces of Homeland Security: Heroes on the Front Lines

Message 4
From: U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Date: Jun, Wed 29 2011 11:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Small Business Procurement Assistance Update

You are subscribed to Small Business Procurement Assistance for U.S. Department of Homeland Security. This information has recently been updated, and is now available.
Next Vendor Outreach

July 21, 2011
Registration July 14, 2011
12:00 noon EST
Please read instructions as
appointments fill up fast.

Message 5
From: U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Date: Jun, Wed 29 2011 13:56 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Update

You are subscribed to Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman for U.S. Department of Homeland Security. This information has recently been updated, and is now available.

The Ombudsman's Office has released its Annual Report for 2011.

Message 6
From: U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Date: Jun, Wed 29 2011 14:12 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Update

You are subscribed to Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman for U.S. Department of Homeland Security. This information has recently been updated, and is now available.

The Ombudsman's Office has released its Annual Report for 2011.

Message 7
From: U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Date: Jun, Wed 29 2011 15:20 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Testimony of Assistant Director A.T. Smith, Office of Investigations, U.S. Secret Service, before the House Committee on Financial Services, "Hacked Off: Helping Law Enforcement Protect Private Financial Information"

You are subscribed to Testimony for U.S. Department of Homeland Security. This information has recently been updated, and is now available.
Testimony of Assistant Director A.T. Smith, Office of Investigations, U.S. Secret Service, before the House Committee on Financial Services, "Hacked Off: Helping Law Enforcement Protect Private Financial Information"
06/29/2011 07:00 AM EDT

Testimony of Assistant Director A.T. Smith, Office of Investigations, U.S. Secret Service, before the House Committee on Financial Services, "Hacked Off: Helping Law Enforcement Protect Private Financial Information"

Message 8
From: U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Date: Jun, Wed 29 2011 17:19 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Update

You are subscribed to Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman for U.S. Department of Homeland Security. This information has recently been updated, and is now available.

Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch

June 29, 2011
For-Profits Hit Hardest by End of Year-Round Pell Grant Program

By Andrea Fuller

For-profit colleges, which are facing the scrutiny of Congressional hearings and investigations by attorneys general, may have met yet another challenge in the end of the year-round Pell Grant program. Students at proprietary institutions make the most use of the recently scrapped program, according to a Chronicle analysis of U.S. Department of Education data.


Wednesday, June 29, 2011

As if the for-profits aren't bad enough, the diploma mills still survive, as this email attests:

Your friend University degrees in just 10 days. No study required.
BA/BSc/MA/MSc/MBA/PhD. (.) has recommended this site to you, and sends you the
following message:

Is your lack of a degree holding you back from career advancement?

Are you having difficulty finding employment in your field of interest because
you don\'t have the paper to back it up - even though you are qualified?

If you are looking for a fast and effective solution, we can help!

Contact us.
<<< >>>

Barbarians at Higher Education's Gates
Phony degree scams offer a sheepskin equivalent of the emporer's new clothes.
By James Ottavio Castagnera
November 2004

Want a college diploma without ever enduring the inconvenience and cost of attending a college? Plenty of providers are out there, ready to oblige.

For example, there's Its spiel? "Our novelty diplomas are designed to look 100% authentic! We produce over 1,000 replica novelty degrees, diplomas, and transcripts from universities all around the world. Our designers have gone through painstaking efforts to try to make each of our documents look as exact as possible. Each document is customized and printed individually to your specifications, including degree, major, and school." Last year a reporter wrote of obtaining a Harvard diploma and transcript from BackAlley's Thailand office. Printing, the reporter said, was done by the Shun Luen Company of Shenzhen, China. A check of the internet as this was written found BackAlley still alive and kicking.

Lest some potential customers are too dumb or ignorant to track down a website on their own, the fraud merchants are reaching out on e-mail. This writer received the following exclamation-laden e-mail message in early summer:

Other e-mails arrived at about the same time, each bearing substantially the same message but with differing phone numbers. My associate called two of these numbers. Dialing the first, despite the promise of "24 hours" availability, resulted in a recorded message that the number was no longer in service. The second number led her into a voicemail box, requesting her name and number and promising a return call. The call came about a week later.

The caller identified himself as representing "Haywood University" in London. He offered my associate a "beautiful diploma" for $2,000, with a $500 discount if she "signed up right now." The diploma would be delivered within 10 days of receipt of payment.
Diploma mills are rampant on the internet and in nations with weak or nonexistent regulation.

How could she qualify for this "beautiful diploma?" she inquired. The degree would be based upon her work experience. "You create the credentials." But what sort of degree would it be? What field of expertise should she claim? "Are you a reporter?" he asked at this point. The discussion was ended soon after that.

A search of the name "Haywood University" produced two "Sponsored Sites." Both "" and "" were compilations of online higher-education organizations, organized by the states where their services are available. The first of these sites says, "If you are interested in attending an online college you have come to the right place. We have identified the best ones in each state." The list of "Featured Schools" didn't include a Haywood University. And, in fact, a Netscape search of "English Universities" also failed to turn up a Haywood University. A Google search came back with the query, "Did you mean 'hayward university'?"

In short, if a Haywood University exists outside of cyberspace and the telephone lines, we couldn't find it. and Haywood U. are only the most brazen of the barbarians massing at the gates of higher education's ivory towers. Unaccredited schools at all levels of legitimacy--or illegitimacy--comprise the less menacing bulk of this barbarian horde. They are rampaging not only on the internet, but in nations such as India, where regulation of higher education is weak or nonexistent.

In a world teeming with billions of "Spare Parts and Broken Hearts," to borrow a Bruce Springsteen tune title, the desperately unqualified will turn to these diploma mills for their sheepskin equivalents of the emperor's new clothes. When they do, they are not the only victims of such scams.

Cristovam Buarque, Brazil's minister of education, recently said, "In the face of [global] upheavals, the university still represents the intellectual heritage [that makes it] the most appropriate and prepared place to guide the future of humanity." Stirring words, but true only if the global network of legitimate colleges and universities protects and defends its integrity and reputation against the barbarians at our gates.
Here's a sample ad from back in 2004:


Do you want a prosperous future,

increased earning power, more

money, and the respect of all?

Call this number:

1-309-404-0999 (24 hours)

There are no required tests, classes,

books, or interviews!

Get a Bachelors, Masters, MBA, and

Doctorate (PhD) diploma!

Receive the benefits and admiration

that comes with a diploma!

No one is turned down!
The more things change, the more they remain the same in that racket, I guess.


First it was the animal researchers, now it's the climate researchers, who are threatened

Scientists’ Group Raises Alarm Over Threats to Climate Researchers

June 29, 2011, 12:07 pm

The world’s largest general scientific body, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, says it’s getting alarmed by a growing pattern of threats against climate researchers. In a written statement issued on Tuesday, the AAAS said it was seeing a “hostile environment that inhibits the free exchange of scientific findings and ideas and makes it difficult for factual information and scientific analyses to reach policy makers and the public.” The association said the statement, its first on the subject in more than a year, had been prompted by incidents that include a conservative group and the attorney general of Virginia’s seeking documents from a prominent climate scientist formerly at the University of Virginia, as well as personal threats in Australia against climate scientists at the University of New South Wales, the University of Melbourne, and Australian National University, leading some to hire additional security.



Chapter Three: Domestic Terrorists (II): The Animal Advocates

On June 12, 2008, the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness issued the following “Intelligence Assessment”:

Escalation of West Coast Animal Rights Extremist Activity
and Implications for New Jersey

Key Findings
• There has been an increase in the intensity and overall number of violent
criminal acts perpetrated by animal rights extremist groups against university
researchers on the West Coast.
• Animal rights extremist groups represent the most active, single-issue domestic
terrorism group in New Jersey.
• Given the apparent connectivity between animal rights groups and the extent of
their travel between coasts, the use of violence and intimidation against
university researchers on the West Coast is likely to spread to New Jersey.

Threat Overview
Over the past ten months, there has been an increase in the number of violent criminal incidents perpetrated by animal rights extremists against university researchers on the West Coast. The majority of the violent incidents have occurred in California, with a limited number also occurring in Oregon. In roughly eighty percent of the incidents the targets were university researchers involved in primate research.

Historically, animal rights extremist groups in the United States have carried out direct actions against university laboratories and not individual researchers. Such actions have included criminal trespassing, vandalism and the release of laboratory animals. However, since approximately June 2007, extremists have begun escalating the violence and using more intimidating tactics against individual university researchers, including: death threats, bomb threats, the mailing of suspicious packages and letters stuffed with razor blades, attempted home invasions, attempted arson, intentional flooding of a home, and the placement of incendiary devices under cars and at residences. These incidents have been carried out by ALF (Animal Liberation Front), Animal Liberation Brigade, UCLA Primate Freedom Project, SHAC (Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty) and their affiliates. This shift in tactics coincides with an overall increase in threats and acts of violence by the animal rights extremist movement against a wide variety of targets, including biotech, life-sciences, pharmaceutical and biomedical research companies.

While animal rights extremist groups have not publicly announced a change in their targeting tactics, there are several reasons for such a shift. Targeting individual researchers at their residences results in greater fear and intimidation, as extremists “personalize” their attacks by directly threatening the individuals and their families. In addition, by targeting individuals at their homes extremists avoid having to deal with security impediments that might exist at the university laboratory or employment facility. This change in modus operandi enables the extremists to carry out their attacks with fewer resources. Animal rights groups are also increasingly using the Internet to access public records and identify university researchers, and then posting their names and addresses online.

This shift in targeting tactics coincides with a growing sentiment among members of the animal rights movement that researchers, businesses, and the general public have been sufficiently warned and violence can now be rationalized in order to permanently end animal abuse. Violent rhetoric is expressed in extremist communiqués, literature and threat letters. For example, in a June 2007 communiqué, the Animal Liberation Brigade alluded to the need for more violent tactics, asserting that “demonstrators need to realize that just demonstrating won’t stop this kind of evil.” Similarly, Jerry Vlasak, co-founder of the North American Animal Liberation Press Office and leader in the US animal rights movement has stated on several occasions that the notion of murdering medical researchers in order to save laboratory animals is a “morally justifiable solution.” While these statements may simply be aimed at motivating followers, it might also portend a shift toward greater violence.

Outlook for New Jersey
Animal rights extremist groups represent the most active, single-issue, domestic terrorism group in New Jersey where they have historically focused their campaigns on biotech, life-sciences and pharmaceutical companies. However, since 2003, these groups have branched out, conducting direct actions against “tertiary targets,” including financial and technology-based companies and attacking the employees of targeted companies at their residences. Looking forward, the increased use of violence and intimidation perpetrated against university researchers on the West Coast is likely to be emulated on the East Coast, especially given the apparent connectivity between animal rights groups throughout the country and the extent of their travel between coasts. This type of connectivity has been exemplified in New Jersey through “Days of Action,”
direct action campaigns organized by animal rights groups which are attended by supporters from across the US. These events reveal a willingness to travel long distances to protest and target businesses, laboratories and individuals in New Jersey. While there is currently no intelligence indicating that animal rights extremists are planning to target university researchers or other New Jersey facilities involved in animal research, the nature of this threat warrants ongoing situational awareness within university, private sector and law enforcement

For additional information and GIS mapping of New Jersey companies targeted by animal rights groups, please refer to the December 2007 OHSP Assessment: Animal Rights Extremism: Current Trends and Implications for New Jersey, available on the OHSP secure Web site, through

Suspicious activity involving animal rights extremist groups should be treated as having a possible nexus to terrorism, and should be reported immediately to the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness (OHSP) at 866-4-SAFE-NJ and to local law enforcement authorities.

Author of Report:
Caroline Vassallo, Intelligence Analyst: (609-588-0996)

For further information on this document or other OHSP analytical products,
please contact the OHSP Intelligence Bureau at or 609-588-4000, ext. 7

Even a cursory survey of stories published in The Chronicle of Higher Education over the past two years drives home the severity of the threat posed to higher education by animal rights activists, who may be the most serious domestic-terrorism threat posed to campuses in the United States.
• Animal-Rights Groups Fight Colleges Over Access to Research Records


The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that Ohio State University is not required to release videotapes of animal research sought under the state's open-records law by an advocacy group opposed to such studies.
• UCLA Professor Halts Monkey Research


Responding to pressure from animal-rights activists, Dario Ringach, an associate professor of neurobiology at the University of California at Los Angeles, has abandoned his research on monkeys. In an e-mail message with the subject line "You win," Mr. Ringach wrote to a news office for animal-rights groups that he would no longer conduct animal research, and asked that the groups leave him and his family alone.
• UCLA's Acting Chancellor Takes Steps Against Animal-Rights Extremists
The acting chancellor of the University of California at Los Angeles has announced plans to push back at animal-rights groups, which he says have recently stepped up harassment of faculty members.
In a letter to the campus, Norman Abrams, who became acting chancellor on July 1, said "illegal and often violent" acts by activists, who are protesting research conducted by university scientists on nonhuman primates and other animals, had "culminated this summer in an incident involving a powerful incendiary device placed on the doorstep of a neighbor of one of our faculty members."
• The Growing Field of Animal Law is Attracting Activists and Pragmatists Alike
Portland, Ore.
In the Pacific Northwest, many young people say they want to liberate animals from human subjection, so much so that defending activists who break into research laboratories to set loose animals is now a cottage industry.

Here at Lewis & Clark College School of Law, students of "animal law" are learning another way to change social practices that involve animals. They are just as passionate as animal-liberation advocates. And they may become more influential.
Animal law is the study of all laws relating to animals, whether they enable harsh treatment of animals or encourage kind treatment. "It's a lot like where environmental law was in the 1970s," says Laura Ireland Moore, founder and executive director of the National Center for Animal Law, based at Lewis & Clark.
• Animal Researchers' Homes Are Attacked
As protests intensify, colleges take steps to protect scientists
When six masked people pounded on the front door of a scientist's home in Santa Cruz, Calif., and allegedly struck her husband late last month, the echo was heard by biomedical researchers and universities around the country. The intrusion represents an apparent escalation in the level of violence used by animal-rights protesters, who until now have not physically attacked academic scientists.
"We're facing a national movement," says George Blumenthal, chancellor of the University of California at Santa Cruz, where the biologist works. Other universities, he says, are going to have to face "individuals who are prepared to use potentially violent tactics that have a terrorizing effect on researchers."

• New Front in Battle Over Studies of Animals

Activists take aim at non-research colleges


Far from the front lines of the nasty fight over laboratory-animal experiments at large research universities, activists are strategically drawing some teaching-oriented institutions into the same battle.
Amherst College, Fairfield University, Francis Marion University, and 10 other institutions, none of which are known for conducting animal experiments, recently signed a pledge not to subject any research animals to "severe" unrelieved pain or distress. The pledge was written by the Humane Society of the United States, which has sent it to a total of 301 presidents at similar institutions.
• New Attacks on Animal Researchers Provoke Anger and Worry

After firebomb attacks this month set the home of a neuroscientist at the University of California at Santa Cruz aflame and destroyed a car parked in the driveway of another university researcher's home, researchers and academic leaders were shaken. The attacks are believed to be the work of animal-rights protesters.
The Roots of the Animal Rights Movement
In his novel of 17th century England, Quicksilver, author Neal Stephenson has members of the Royal Society “starving a toad in a jar to see if new toads would grow out of it,” draining “all the blood out of a large dog and putting it into a smaller dog minutes later,” and removing “the rib cage from a living mongrel.” Since Stephenson’s representations appear to be historically accurate, little wonder that the “first significant animal rights movement began in nineteenth-century England, where the impetus was opposition to the use of unanaesthetized animals in scientific research.” The only wonder is that it took so long for social mores to rise to the level of repugnance for this practice that the “movement inspired protests, legislative reforms in the United Kingdom, and the birth of numerous animal protection organizations….”
The rise of such sentiments paralleled the changing views of England’s leading philosophers (including so-called “natural philosophers”) toward animals. While Rene Descartes considered animals to be “organic machines,” David Hume wrote in the 18th century, “Next to the ridicule of denying an evident truth, is that of taking much pains to defend it; and no truth appears to me more evident, than that beasts are endow'd with thought and reason as well as men. The arguments are in this case so obvious, that they never escape the most stupid and ignorant.” Jeremy Bentham, the early-19th century father of Utilitarianism added, “Other animals, which, on account of their interests having been neglected by the insensibility of the ancient jurists, stand degraded into the class of things. ... The day has been, I grieve it to say in many places it is not yet past, in which the greater part of the species, under the denomination of slaves, have been treated ... upon the same footing as ... animals are still. The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may come one day to be recognized, that the number of legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps, the faculty for discourse?...the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being?... The time will come when humanity will extend its mantle over everything which breathes... ."
Although the anti-vivisection movement was birthed in the early 19th century alongside the significant scientific activity which characterized that period, and despite its long history of opposition to animal research, the movement cannot be credited with stopping a single scientific experiment until 1977, when the movement’s outcries ended NIH funding of certain grizzly and notorious cat experiments that the federal agency had funded for some 17 years at New York’s Museum of Natural History.
In fact, not until the 1960s did a robust animal-rights movement emerge in the United States, part and parcel of the socio-cultural revolution which swept through American society in such varied forms as the Hippy Movement, the anti-war protests, the sexual revolution and the drug culture. An early victory was the 1966 Laboratory Animal Welfare Act. In 1971 NIH issued its policy on the “Care and Treatment of Laboratory Animals.” This was replaced by Public Health Service Regulations in1973.
In 1981 Johns Hopkins University established its Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing, which describes itself as follows:
The Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) has worked with scientists since 1981 to find new methods to replace the use of laboratory animals in experiments, reduce the number of animals tested, and refine necessary tests to eliminate pain and distress.
We are an academic, science-based center affiliated with the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health. We believe the best science is humane science. Our programs seek to provide a better, safer, more humane future for people and animals.
We provide a variety of resources, including grants for scientists developing non-animal methods workshops on alternative methods, books, newsletters, and other publications.
We also manage Altweb, an international online clearinghouse of alternatives news and resources.

Despite these pioneering efforts and all the subsequent advances in the regulation and humane treatment of laboratory animals, animal rights activists’ targeting of scientific, including university, laboratories has increased in recent years. To understand why, it’s worth noting the several levels of animal activists in terms of philosophical orientation.
Animal Activist Philosophy and Tactics
DeGrazia identifies three gradations of standards subscribed by activists:
• Sliding-scale model: “Animals may be used in research only where their use is consistent with giving their interests appropriate moral weight in view of the animals’ cognitive, emotional, and social complexity.”
• Utilitarianism: “Animals may be used in research only where their use is likely to maximize the overall balance of benefits --- factoring in likelihood of success --- over harms, where all parties’ (including animals’) interests are impartially considered.”
• Strong animal-rights view: “Animals may be used in research only where (1) their involvement does not harm them or (2) their involvement is in their overall best interests (therapeutic research). This view might also permit animals to be used in research where (3) their involvement poses only minimal risk to them.”
Clearly, the third level is the most demanding. Indeed, the definition proffered by DeGrazia masks the extreme nature of this last position. The devil, as they say, is in the details. For example, whether what a scientist does to his animals harms them or not depends entirely on the definition of the word “harm.” If one includes under harm the mere caging of an animal, then it is virtually impossible for a research scientist to work with animals in his lab. Similarly, if one deems the anxiety caused to an animal by the mere handling of that animal to be “harm,” then, once again, the definition would make it well-nigh impossible for a researcher to work with any such animals.
If these interpretations seem far-fetched, then consider the following:
PETA: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
Animal Exploitation

Every year, more than 3 million dogs, cats, birds, rabbits, and other animals are euthanized because they were born into a world that does not have enough homes for them. For every one companion animal who lives indoors with a human family and receives the attention, health care, and emotional support that he or she needs, there are thousands just barely surviving. Millions of domestic animals never know a kind human touch and live hard lives on the street before dying equally hard deaths.

Others suffer at the hands of an unfit guardian who deprives them of veterinary care and other basic necessities: Social birds are left alone in tiny, barren cages for years as decorations; rabbits, guinea pigs, and hamsters are kept in filthy cages and only paraded out as a source of entertainment now and then; cats are left outside and often become victims of cruel people; dogs are left chained outside or kept in waste-strewn pens with only a metal barrel to protect them from the elements.

Every animal deserves a chance to thrive in a responsible and permanent home. Sadly, breeders, pet stores, and people who fail to sterilize their companion animals have created a tremendous overpopulation problem that forces animal shelters to put millions of dogs and cats to death every year.

Those who subscribe to such anthropomorphic sentiments, as those reflected in this statement, also tend to deny that --- to borrow from George Orwell’s Animal Farm --- some animals are more equal than others. Thus, for example, a recent essay by two biologists rejects all of the following arguments for distinguishing among phyla and species in according animals rights:
• The evolutionary argument
• Variations in awareness of self
• Variations in memory and planning skills
• Animal intentionality
These writers conclude that, “given our present state of knowledge of the needs and capabilities of classes of animals, let alone individual species, we feel, as biologists, that we first and foremost ought to guard against, or at least be very cautious about, the temptations of creating a scale of lesser or greater value of one species over another.”
From such philosophical/ethical tenets the distance to radical tactics is short. Consider the cartoon below, taken from the Animal Liberation Front website.

In close proximity with this cartoon on the site is the “ALF Credo”:
The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) carries out direct action against animal abuse in the form of rescuing animals and causing financial loss to animal exploiters, usually through the damage and destruction of property.

The ALF's short-term aim is to save as many animals as possible and directly disrupt the practice of animal abuse. Their long-term aim is to end all animal suffering by forcing animal abuse companies out of business.

It is a nonviolent campaign, activists taking all precautions not to harm any animal (human or otherwise).

Because ALF actions may be against the law, activists work anonymously, either in small groups or individually, and do not have any centralized organization or coordination.

The Animal Liberation Front consists of small autonomous groups of people all over the world who carry out direct action according to the ALF guidelines. Any group of people who are vegetarians or vegans and who carry out actions according to ALF guidelines have the right to regard themselves as part of the ALF.

The last paragraph of this credo springs from the broader radical tradition of “leaderless resistance.” “Leaderless resistance (or phantom cell structure) is a political resistance strategy in which small, independent groups (covert cells) challenge an established adversary such as a government. Leaderless resistance can encompass anything from non-violent disruption and civil disobedience to bombings, assassinations and other violent agitation. Leaderless cells lack bidirectional, vertical command links and operate without hierarchal command.”
The term "Leaderless Resistance" was popularized by the white supremacist Louis Beam, who published an essay on Leaderless Resistance in 1983 and again in 1992. Beam advocated Leaderless Resistance as a technique for fighting an incumbent government using self-organizing clandestine cells; he attributed the strategy to Col. Ulius Loius Amoss, allegedly a U.S. intelligence officer who was fearful that Communists were about to seize control of the U.S. in the early 1960s.
In his essay, Beam argued that traditional liberation armies employing pyramid-style organization are "extremely dangerous for the participants when it is utilized in a resistance movement against state tyranny":
"Especially is this so in technologically advanced societies where electronic surveillance can often penetrate the structure revealing its chain of command. Experience has revealed over and over again that anti-state, political organizations utilizing this method of command and control are easy prey for government infiltration, entrapment, and destruction of the personnel involved. This has been seen repeatedly in the United States where pro-government infiltrators or agent provocateurs weasel their way into patriotic groups and destroy them from within."
A more workable approach, argued Beam, is to convince like-minded individuals to form independent cells that will commit acts of sabotage or terrorism without coordination from above, and while minimizing communication with other cells:
"The so-called "phantom cell" mode of organization, developed by Col. Amoss, or Leaderless Resistance, is based upon the cell organization but does not have any central control or direction. In the Leaderless Resistance concept, cells operate independently of each other, but they do not report to a central headquarters or top chief, as do the communist cells ...
[P]articipants in a program of Leaderless Resistance through phantom cell organization must know exactly what they are doing and how to do it. This is by no means as impractical as it appears, because it is certainly true that in any movement, all persons involved have the same general outlook, are acquainted with the same philosophy, and generally react to given situations in similar ways. As the entire purpose of Leaderless Resistance is to defeat the enemy by whatever means possible, all members of phantom cells will tend to react to objective events in the same way, usually through tactics of resistance and sabotage."
Despite exhorting the adoption of a resistance without a leader, it is likely that Beam was advocating Leaderless Resistance in an attempt to cement his position as a leader and thinker in the white separatist movement. Indeed, Leaderless Resistance is taken by some to be a technique of splitting an organization into an above-ground wing that primarily deals in propaganda, and an underground wing that actually carries out terrorist attacks.

Substantial evidence of Al Qaeda’s reliance on leaderless resistance is extant. Incidents in the United States over the past 16 years or so, which are likely examples of leaderless-resistance actions, include:
• January 25, 1992: Two CIA employees are shot and three others wounded outside the agency’s Langley headquarters by Mir Aimal Kasi.
• March 1, 1994: Rashid Baz boards a bus in Brooklyn and opens fire on Jewish Yeshiva students.
• February 25, 1997: Ali Hassan Abu Ali Kamal fires on tourists on the observation deck of the Empire State Building.
• July 31, 1997: Lafi Khalil and Ghazi Ibrahim Abu Mezer are arrested in their New York restaurant after police find five pipe bombs, which the pair planned to set off in the NYC subways.
• July 4, 2002: Hesham Mohamed Hadayet attacks the El Al ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport, killing two and wounding four.
• September 6, 2002: German police arrest an American woman and her Turkish fiancée in Heidelberg, alleging they planned to detonate pipe bombs in the nearby U.S. military base.
• May 9, 2007: Six radical Islamists are arrested in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, and are charged with plotting to bomb the Fort Dix Army Base.
Examples of the Leaderless Resistance credo among animal-rights and eco-terrorist organizations include:
• Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC), a Worcestershire, England, organization targeted in particular Huntingdon Life Sciences, among the world’s largest animal-testing laboratories. Founded in 1999, SHAC’s main website states under “Who we are”:
SHAC is a worldwide campaign, and the first of its kind, with SHAC groups in the UK, USA, Holland, Germany, Italy and many other countries all uniting to target HLS and the companies that support them globally.
SHAC is an innovative campaign, and has received worldwide media coverage for the success of its methods, the intelligence of its tactics and the determination of its supporters.
Please note that SHAC does not encourage or incite illegal activity.
• Earth Liberation Front (ELF) modeled itself after the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) (see above). Its adherents claim credit for numerous acts of vandalism against such targets as logging companies, luxury real estate developments and SUV dealerships, as well as the freeing of animals. With regard to the latter, ELF affiliates joined with Alf affiliates in November 1997 in Burns, Oregon, to cause a half-million dollars in damage to the office, barns and other facilities of a horse and burro breeding company.
• Also available on the web are such “leaderless resistance” tools as “ARSON-AROUND with Auntie ALF: ALF’s Arson Guide,” which two Long Island teens, who pleaded guilty in February 2001 of burning down housing currently under construction, had accessed.
Harassing scientists at home: a case study in animal-rights leaderless resistance
On Sunday, February 24, 2008, a U.C.-Santa Cruz breast-cancer scientist and her family were enjoying a birthday party, when a loud knock came from their home’s front door. The researcher’s husband responded and was greeted by six masked visitors, one of whom smacked him on the hand before they got back into their car and drove off. This was not the first such incident at Santa Cruz, where the cancer researchers use mice in their labs. Earlier intrusions included graffiti, such as “murderer” and “torturer,” and strewn garbage in front of other scientists’ homes. Similar assaults were reported in Los Angeles and Salt Lake City.
UCLA’s Dr. Edythe D. London, who uses primates to study addiction, has been a particular target of ALF adherents. Her house has been both firebombed and flooded.
UCLA’s Center for Neurovisceral Sciences and Women’s Health describes Dr. London’s work as follows:
Dr. London's research has advanced the study of substance abuse and the development of new approaches and probes for studies of brain function. She has edited several books and authored over 200 original research articles and over 60 reviews. Her most recognized accomplishments involve PET scanning of human subjects who suffer from addictions. Dr. London's group was the first to show a relationship between drug craving and activity of brain regions that link memory with emotion. She also showed that drug abusers have structural abnormalities in prefrontal cortex and deficits in decision-making tasks that depend on prefrontal cortex function. Her work influenced other researchers to look toward the frontal lobe for an understanding of the compulsive self-administration of drugs despite detrimental effects, which characterizes drug addiction. Most recently, she and her colleagues have developed new probes for external imaging of those receptors in the brain where nicotine binds to produce its behavioral actions.

By contrast, on March 13, 2008, the ALF website posted the following anonymous notice :
At the start of last week, in Irvine, CA, a van owned by UCLA went up in flames. For all of those affected you have the UCLA primate vivisection program to blame.

It is unacceptable for us to see, hear, and know what is going on in our animal labs without taking action. Every time we pass someone like Arthur in the hallways and have to witness his stomach churning grin or watch Joaquin double checking the door locks on his little red Mercedes we have to choke back a crippling amount of disgust and hatred. It is becoming almost impossible to hold back. Then we hear the monkeys wailing and screaming and we find the strength to stay put.

We are driven to show the world the compassionless support that UCLA gives to these monkey killers and to do anything we can to end the needless suffering that the primates are forced to face.

The end of UCLA vivisection is coming. We urge you to start switching over to non-animal protocol without haste.


Inevitably, these illegal actions and the attendant property losses, increased security costs, and human anxiety, have led the above-ground parties to clash in court. A leading advocate for ALF is Christine L. Garcia of the Animal Law Office in San Francisco. She describes her specialty as follows:
Animal Law includes any type of legal action, whether it be transactional or litigation, that affects the rights, standing and/or welfare of an animal. It is a new area of the law where sparse pro-animal case and statutory law exists in terms of defining, establishing and protecting the welfare of animals.

Animal Law varies from litigation issues involving incidents of wrongful death, veterinarian medical malpractice, animal activist Constitutional Rights protections, defense at vicious dog hearings, products liability litigation against companies that kill animals through the "proper" use of the product, and transactional issues such as drafting estates & trusts and facilitating the non-profit organizational governance.

In 2006 Garcia represented SHAC USA in a classic case of leaderless resistance. The action was initiated by Valent USA Corporation, maker of insect and weed control products. Valent sought injunctive relief against SHAC USA, which defended itself under California’s SLAPP statute. A special motion to strike Valent’s complaint as a meritless SLAPP suit was filed by SHAC USA under section 425.16 of the California Code on October 29, 2004, and was originally set down for hearing on December 16, 2004. SHAC USA's core position was that the claims asserted in Valent’s complaint centered around SHAC USA's “primar[y]” existence as a website and “informational newsletter” supporting the activities of animal activists in their 18-country effort to shut down Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS), a laboratory and product development company that, as noted above, performs product testing for clients on live animals. SHAC USA conceded that this campaign also involved pressuring HLS's clients to end their business relationships with HLS, and that the activities of SHAC USA included the “occasional[ ]” organization of “legal public demonstrations regarding HLS and its clients and affiliates.” These actions include activities against Valent, an HLS customer.
However, in making these concessions, SHAC USA distinguished itself from the animal rights movement known as Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) and SHAC UK, claiming also that SHAC USA had no members and that it could not be held liable for the acts of individuals who attended demonstrations “that were organized by other persons or groups.” It also contended that the activities attributed to SHAC USA, as complained of by Valent, were all protected by freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment of the federal constitution.
The California court closely considered the state’s SLAPP statute:
As explained in Tutor-Saliba Corp. v. Herrera (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 604 ( Tutor-Saliba ), “Section 425.16, commonly referred to as the anti-SLAPP law, provides in relevant part: ‘(a) The Legislature finds and declares that there has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances. The Legislature finds and declares that it is in the public interest to encourage continued participation in matters of public significance, and that this participation should not be chilled through abuse of the judicial process. To this end, this section shall be construed broadly. [¶] (b)(1) A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person's right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim. [¶] (2) In making its determination, the court shall consider the pleadings, and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based. [¶] (3) If the court determines that the plaintiff has established a probability that he or she will prevail on the claim, neither that determination nor the fact of that determination shall be admissible in evidence at any later stage of the case, and no burden of proof or degree of proof otherwise applicable shall be affected by that determination.... [¶] (e) As used in this section, ‘act in furtherance of a person's right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue’ includes: (1) any written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law; (2) any written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law; (3) any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest; (4) or any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.” [¶] ‘Under the statute, the court makes a two-step determination: “First, the court decides whether the defendant has made a threshold showing that the challenged cause of action is one arising from protected activity. (425.16, subd. (b)(1).) ‘A defendant meets this burden by demonstrating that the act underlying the plaintiff's cause fits one of the categories spelled out in section 425.16, subdivision (e)’ [citation]. If the court finds that such a showing has been made, it must then determine whether the plaintiff has demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the claim. (§ 425.16, subd. (b)(1)....)” ( Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 88....) “Only a cause of action that satisfies both prongs of the anti-SLAPP statute-i.e., that arises from protected speech or petitioning and lacks even minimal merit-is a SLAPP, subject to being stricken under the statute.” ( [ Id.] at p. 89.)'' ( Tutor-Saliba, supra, 136 Cal.App.4th at pp. 608-609, citing Thomas v. Quintero (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 635, 644-645, italics omitted.)”

The evidence taken into account by the court was described in the opinion as follows:
“This limited record reveals that the SHAC USA website postings contain no home addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, or any other personal information regarding Demouth or Zisook, other than identifying their employer. The only mention of these two appellants describes the following demonstration in front of their homes: ‘Received from CA activists: [¶] On the night of July 2 we decided to give some animal torture profiteers a visit. We were haunted by the clashing images of those who profit from animal torture sleeping soundly in their beds and the image of four month old beagle puppies being punched in the face and sleeping in their own excrement. [¶] First on our list was Robin Denmouth [ sic ] who is General Counsel and Secretary for HLS customer Valent Corporation. Robin appeared to be in for the night. With our trusty bullhorn and a personal alarm we let them know that their [ sic ] is no time for puppy killers to relax. [¶] We then hopped on over to Leslie Kvasnicka's house. Leslie is Valent's Manager of Quality Assurance and Corporate Safety. Leslie apparently has a soft spot for manatees judging by her manatee shaped mailbox. Too bad she has no soft spot for the animals that linger inside the walls of HLS. Give her a call and let her know what scum she is. (work) 925-[----]-[-----]. Last, but not least on our list was Elsa Zisook. Let them know there is no rest for the wicked! [¶] We're just getting started Valent. Cut your ties with HLS!’

“In James K. Schmidt's declaration, he described the investigation he conducted to determine to whom the Internet domain name “” was registered. Schmidt determined it was registered to SHAC USA. The attorneys' declarations primarily authenticated documents, most of which were not admitted except as discussed above.”

Dismissing Valent’s case, the court concluded, “This record is plainly inadequate to show a likelihood that appellants' would prevail on any of their causes of action against SHAC USA.”
When UCLA sought injunctive relief in 2008 on behalf of Dr. London and her colleagues, Attorney Garcia represented the defendants. Garcia’s immediate response was to contend that the university’s action was retaliation against a suit she had earlier brought against the Santa Monica Police Department and two UCLA employees earlier.
Whether that accusation was true or not, on February 21, 2008, Superior Court Judge Gerald Rosenberg signed a temporary restraining order in UCLA’s favor against the Animal Liberation Front, the Animal Liberation Brigade, the UCLA Primate Freedom Project and five protesters believed to be affiliated with those groups. The judge’s order “forbids the activists to engage in acts of harassment and threats of violence, and requires that they stay away from anyone known to be a university employee involved in animal research, UCLA's attorney John C. Hueston said. It also ordered the activists and their groups to remove the researchers' personal information from Web sites that name them as targets of their protest.”
Spokesman Jerry Vlasak of the North American Animal Liberation Press Office responded to this suit and subsequent efforts to enact protective legislation, commenting, “If someone’s willing to risk 20 years of prison by … burning a building used for animal torture, I don’t think they’re going to worry about a silly restraining order that UCLA cooks up. The same goes for AB 2296 [the proposed statute].” Sadly, Vlasak may be dead right. A federal statute, upon which California’s legislature seeks to model its new law, has been on the books since 1992:
Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992.

Public Law 102-346--Aug. 26, 1992

102nd Congress
An Act To Protect Animal Enterprises.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


This Act may be cited as the "Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992".


(a) IN GENERAL.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 42 the following:

"§ 43. Animal enterprise terrorism

"(a) OFFENSE.--Whoever--
"(1) travels in interstate or foreign commerce, or uses or causes to be used the mail or any facility in interstate or foreign commerce, for the purpose of causing physical disruption to the functioning of an animal enterprise; and

"(2) intentionally causes physical disruption to the functioning of an animal enterprise by intentionally stealing, damaging, or causing the loss of, any property (including animals or records) used by the animal enterprise, and thereby causes economic damage exceeding $10,000 to that enterprise, or conspires to do so; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.


"(1) SERIOUS BODILY INJURY.-- Whoever in the course of a violation of subsection (a) causes serious bodily injury to another individual shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

"(2) DEATH.--Whoever in the course of a violation of subsection (a) causes the death of an individual shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for life or for any term of years.

"(c) RESTITUTION.-- An order of restitution under section 3663 of this title with respect to a violation of this section may also include restitution--

"(1) for the reasonable cost of repeating any experimentation that was interrupted or invalidated as a result of the offense; and

"(2)) the loss of food production or farm income reasonably attributable to the offense.

"d) DEFINITIONS.-- As used in this section--
"(1) the term 'animal enterprise' means--

"(A) a commercial or academic enterprise that uses animals for food or fiber production, agriculture, research, or testing;
"(B) a zoo, aquarium, circus, rodeo, or lawful competitive animal event; or
"(C) any fair or similar event intended to advance agricultural arts and sciences;

"(2) the term 'physical disruption' does not include any lawful disruption that results from lawful public, governmental, or animal enterprise employee reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise;

"(3) the term 'economic damage' means the replacement costs of lost or damaged property or records, the costs of repeating an interrupted or invalidated experiment, or the loss of profits; and

"(4) the term 'serious bodily injury' has the meaning given that term in section 1365 of this title.

"9e) NON-PREEMPTION.--Nothing in this section preempts any State law.".

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.--The item relating to section 43 in table of sections at the beginning of chapter 3 of title, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

"43. Animal enterprise terrorism.".


(a) STUDY.-- The Attorney General and the Secretary of Agriculture shall jointly conduct a study on the extent and effects of domestic and international terrorism on enterprises using animals for food or fiber production, agriculture, research, or testing.

(b) SUBMISSION OF STUDY.-- Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Agriculture shall submit a report that describes the results of the study conducted under subsection (a) together with any appropriate recommendations and legislation to the Congress.

Approved August 26, 1992.

What has been the effect of this federal statute? In the words of a scientist who says that he himself has been victimized by animal-rights activists,
After accepting the responsibility to write this article, I immediately plowed into the subject expecting to find myself awash in information about the Act on the internet. Having been detoured there on many occasions, I was nervous about the task of ferreting the relevant from the extraneous, so I fired up my favorite search engine and browsed the web for information on two items, the "Animal Enterprise Protection Act" and the "Animal Welfare Act," fully anticipating both searches to yield the standard mega-response that typically goes with such unsophisticated search strategies. To my amazement, the phrase "Animal Enterprise Protection Act" yielded less than 40 hits. This simple test set the stage for a remarkable discovery. Unlike the Animal Welfare Act, a topic that yielded more than 1,600 hits on my global search of the internet, no one seemed to care very much about the Act that offered such hope for so many just seven years ago.

I immediately picked up the phone and began calling colleagues who I knew could help me understand how this potentially important piece of legislation, written to protect honest users of animals from animal rights terrorists, had suffered such undignified rejection at the hands of the federal prosecutors it was designed to energize. I was then stunned to learn that no one has been prosecuted under the provisions of the Act. No one. Not a single soul since the Animal Enterprise Protection Act became the law of the land.

While there may be many explanations for the dormancy of prosecutors in the use of this legal tool, we can all be certain that the failure to exercise the Act in the courts is unrelated to the level of animal rights activity during the period since its enactment. On the contrary, a strong case can be made that the overall level of animal enterprise terrorism in the US has dramatically increased since 1992. Numerous laboratory break-ins have occurred during this time frame, violence and vandalism at fur farms are on the rise, as are animal releases from research and animal husbandry facilities around the world. During this period, death and bomb threats have continued to flow from activists as freely as small talk at the local tavern, and animal rights leaders continue to egg on their foot soldiers with inflammatory talk of revolution.

The author criticizes the act for carrying penalties that are too light to deter, as well as for failing to forbid or punish the many minor acts of humiliation, such as “pies in the face,” that fall short of anything a federal prosecutor would care to handle. He notes that two attempts to pursue private actions fell flat, dismissed because the courts held that the act was a purely criminal statute that accorded no such right to a civil suit. The writer concludes, “The question that I pose as central to this discussion and the one that I had to grapple with as I wondered about my decision to write this essay is, ‘Can the handful of philosophers, lawyers, and political activists among us who are promoting the idea that ethical distinctions cannot be made among members of the animal kingdom ever truly hope to win this extreme argument that they wage?’ I seriously doubt it. But if they were successful, those other human tragedies to which I refer would be compounded by the Alice in Wonderland atmosphere that would have consumed us.”
Dr. Walsh’s article was published in 2000. With the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, it was not only Uncle Sam’s attitude toward Islamic terrorists that changed. In the words of an Alf adherent:
Like the amorphous category of domestic terrorism, a keystone in the USA PATRIOT Act attack on civil liberties, the frightening thing about the AEPA is its strategic vagueness that subsumes any and every form of protest and demonstration against exploitative industries to a criminal act “ specifically, a terrorist act. Thus, the actions of two or more people can be labeled terrorists if they leaflet a circus, protest an experimental lab, block a road to protect a forest, do a tree-sit, or block the doors of a fur store. On the sweeping interpretations of terrorism in such legislation, Martin Luther King, Mahatmas Gandhi, and Cesar Chavez would today be vilified and imprisoned as terrorists, since the intent of their principled boycott campaigns was precisely to cause economic damage to unethical businesses. And since the AEPA, like the legal system in general, classifies animals as property, their theft. (

The catalyst for this diatribe against the federal statute was the 2006 trial of seven SHAC supporters under the Animal Enterprise Protection Act. Bringing this chapter full-circle, the trial took place in Trenton, New Jersey.
On March 3, 2006, a federal jury in Trenton, New Jersey convicted six members of SHAC of "terrorism and Internet stalking," according to the New York Times, finding them guilty of using their website to "incite attacks" on those who did business with HLS. In September 2006, the so-called "SHAC 7" received jail sentences of 3 to 6 years. Originally, seven individuals were charged, along with Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA. The individuals were Kevin Kjonaas (former president of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA), Lauren Gazzola, Jacob Conroy, Joshua Harper, Andrew Stepanian, Darius Fullmer, and John McGee. McGee was later dropped from the case. The defendants were charged with conspiracy to violate the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, in the first application of the 1992 statute. Kjonaas, Gazzola, Conroy, and Harper were also charged with conspiracy to harass using a telecommunications device (sending black faxes). Kjonaas, Gazzola, Conroy, and SHAC USA were charged with conspiracy to commit interstate stalking and three counts of interstate stalking via the Internet. The case first went to trial in June 2005, but ended in a mistrial when one of the key defense attorneys fell ill during the opening statement. It resumed on February 6, 2006. The defense of the SHAC 7 rested largely on the 1969 case Brandenburg v. Ohio, in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that political speech is legal unless it can be shown that a defendant has told specific individuals to commit specific, imminent acts of violence. On March 3, 2006, the defendants were convicted and sentenced to an aggregate of 24 years in prison, and ordered to pay a joint restitution of $1,000,001.00.

The New York Times reported the trial as follows :
Six Animal Rights Advocates Are Convicted of Terrorism

An animal rights group and six of its members were convicted of terrorism and Internet stalking yesterday by a federal jury that found them guilty of using their Web site to incite attacks on those who did business with or worked for a British company that runs an animal testing laboratory in New Jersey.

The case was the first test of the Animal Enterprise Terror Act, enacted in 1992 to curb the most aggressive tactics used by activists. The verdict, which came after 14 hours of deliberation, was called an insidious threat to free speech by some activists, but was cheered by research scientists, some of whom are lobbying Congress to tighten restrictions on protesters.

During the three-week trial, defense lawyers acknowledged that a Web site run by Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty posted home addresses and other personal information about animal researchers and others. But the activists said they were simply trying to shame their targets into dissociating themselves from the company, Huntingdon Life Sciences, and they disavowed any involvement with the vandalism, death threats, computer hacking and pipe bombs against those on the Web site.

Although federal prosecutors presented no evidence that the defendants directly participated in the vandalism and violence, they showed jurors that members of the group made speeches and Web postings from 2000 to 2004 that celebrated the violence and repeatedly used the word "we" to claim credit for it.

Prosecutors also produced telephone records indicating that the president of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, Kevin Kjonaas, called a man charged with bombing a California biotech lab shortly after the explosion.

Jurors were also shown a videotape of the group's director, Lauren Gazzola, at a protest in Boston, making reference to the previous acts of violence and warning a target, "The police can't protect you!"

The defendants showed little emotion as the jury foreman announced that they had been found guilty on all counts, but after jurors left the room, Ms. Gazzola wept and Mr. Kjonaas turned to the 20 supporters in the courtroom and offered a wan smile and a shrug.

They face prison terms of up to 23 years, but are likely to serve no more than 7 under federal sentencing guidelines, according to Michael Drewniak, a spokesman for the United States attorney's office.

Pam Ferdin, who became president of the group after Mr. Kjonaas was indicted, called the verdict an insidious curb on free speech and said she was "ashamed of the jury."

"Anyone who writes anything on an e-mail or on a Web site is being treated like we're in a fascist state," said Ms. Ferdin, a former child star who played Felix Unger's daughter on "The Odd Couple" and was the voice of Lucy in the "Peanuts" cartoons. "Our forefathers fought for the right to fee speech."

But the prosecutor, Charles B. McKenna, praised the decision, saying that jurors had correctly found that the First Amendment does not protect speech that is likely to incite violence.

Although Ms. Ferdin said that the verdict would most likely lead the group to disband, the group's campaign has succeeded in causing substantial economic damage to Huntingdon, where, the group claims, 500 animals a day are killed and dissected as part of drug and cosmetic research. By concentrating on a wide range of people who invest in, and do business with, Huntingdon, the campaign led many companies to sever their ties with the lab, including insurance companies like Aetna and Marsh and major financial institutions including Goldman Sachs and the Bank of America.

One group of researchers, Americans for Medical Progress, warned that the verdict would lead to more violence and called on federal lawmakers to strengthen the laws against animal rights extremists.

"We've seen a dramatic rise in the number of criminal actions against research over the past five years," said Dr. John Young, a veterinarian who is chairman of the research organization. "There's no doubt today's guilty verdicts will provoke still more acts of harassment, intimidation and violence. That is terrorism, and it must be stopped."

Ms. Ferdin vowed that the campaign against animal testing would continue, despite the verdict against her group.

Nate Schweber contributed reporting from Trenton for this article.

Little wonder, then, that in 2008 the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness issues its “Intelligence Assessment.”
That Which Does Not Kill Us…
How, then, does this terrorist threat benefit higher education? First, enhanced security measures aimed at protecting research facilities from animal-rights terrorists inevitably spill over into added protection for institutions’ intellectual property and enhanced alertness, beyond what might occur in a context of anti-Al Qaeda measures, this latter appearing to be far more remote than threats posed by the “crazies” discussed in Chapter Two and the animal-rights crowd, as outlined here.
Second, by forcing us to consider how we run the animal-related aspects of our research programs, the ALFs and SHACs push the advance of research and testing techniques which may be more efficient, more accurate and/or more safe and sanitary than animal experimentation. Stated in its broadest terms, the War on Terror in all its forms --- like any major war in American history --- pushes technological advances. Higher education, as much or more than any other sector of the American economy, reaps the benefits of this technological imperative.
The FBI has contended that ALF and ELF “have become the most active criminal extremist elements in the United States.” While the threat, thus, has greatly increased, so too has official interest in these groups. One might credibly claim that the escalation of violent confrontation --- such as a willingness to harass researchers in their homes --- is in direct correlation to society’s unwillingness to tolerate these organizations’ positions and activities and the increased pressure placed upon them by legislators and law enforcement agencies in the wake of Nine-Eleven. Bundled in with Islamic extremists after the World Trade Center attack, they find themselves social pariahs. They are likely to discover that their more strident speech and terrorist tactics will backfire, as our industry and the criminal justice system combine to confront the enhanced threat with improved tactics and technologies.

What is this doing on national television?

Casey Anthony's first-degree murder trial descended into chaos on Wednesday morning when prosecutors entered a flurry of objections as the defense attempted to question the accused child killer's parents about sexual abuse they allege she suffered at the hands of family members.

"I would never do anything like that to my daughter," the defendant's father, George Anthony, said when asked if he had molested Casey.


"The Law," like Medicine, the Ministry and Engineering was once considered to be one of the four great professions. Lawyers began selling their heritage when the "profession" adopted the billable hour as its fee standard, abandoning retainers in favor of the more lucrative "wage." SOme attorneys really make out under this system. But I am convinced that, by and large, the attorney-client relationship has suffered.
A man phones a lawyer and asks, "How much would you charge for just answering three simple questions?"
The lawyer replies, "A thousand dollars."
"A thousand dollars!" exclaims the man. "That's very expensive isn't it?"
"It certainly is," says the lawyer. "Now, what's your third question?"


Q: What's the difference between a lawyer and a leech>
A: When you die, a leech will stop sucking your blood and drop off.

A lawyer in Charlotte, NC purchased a box of very rare and expensive cigars, then insured them against fire among other things. Within a month, having smoked his entire stockpile of these great cigars and without yet having made even his first premium payment on the policy, the lawyer filed a claim with the insurance company.
In his claim, the lawyer stated the cigars were lost "in a series of small fires." The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason: that the man had consumed the cigars in the normal fashion. The lawyer sued....and won! In delivering the ruling the judge agreed with the insurance company that the claim was frivolous. The judge stated nevertheless, that the lawyer held a policy from the company in which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable and also guaranteed that it would insure them against fire, without defining what is considered to be "unacceptable fire," and was obligated to pay the claim. Rather than endure lengthy and costly appeal process, the insurance company accepted the ruling and paid $15,000.00 to the lawyer for his loss of the rare cigars lost in the "fires."
But... After the lawyer cashed the check, the insurance company had him arrested on 24 counts of ARSON! With his own insurance claim and testimony from the previous case used against him, the lawyer was convicted of intentionally burning his insured property and was sentenced to 24 months in jail and a $24,000.00 fine.

More lawyer jokes at:

The televising of soap operas such as this murder trial is another step down the slippery slope.
Some argue that viewers learn about the legal process by watching. Perhaps some learning does take place. But at what tuition rate? As when pols appear on "Saturday Night Live," the televising of a murder trial for months on end confuses the criminal justice system with "Law and Order," i.e., with entertainment.

Do the parties get a fair trial under the spotlights? In 1965, the Supreme Court didn't think so:

Estes v. State of Tex.
381 U.S. 532, 85 S.Ct. 1628

Petitioner's case was originally called for trial on September 24, 1962, in Smith County after a change of venue from Reeves County, some 500 miles west. Massive pretrial publicity totaling 11 volumes of press clippings, which are on file with the Clerk, had given it national notoriety. All available seats in the courtroom were taken and some 30 persons stood in the aisles. However, at that time a defense motion to prevent telecasting, broadcasting by radio and news photography and a defense motion for continuance were presented, and after a two-day hearing the former was denied and the latter granted.

*536 These initial hearings were carried live by both radio and television, and news photography was permitted throughout. The videotapes of these hearings clearly illustrate that the picture presented was not one of that judicial serenity and calm to which petitioner was entitled. Cf. Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375, 383, 82 S.Ct. 1364, 1369, 8 L.Ed.2d 569 (1962); Turner v. State of Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466, 472, 85 S.Ct. 546, 549, 13 L.Ed.2d 424 (1965); Cox v. State of Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559, 562, 85 S.Ct. 476, 479, 13 L.Ed.2d 487 (1965). Indeed, at least 12 cameramen were engaged in the courtroom throughout the hearing taking motion and still pictures and televising the proceedings. Cables and wires were snaked across the courtroom floor, three microphones were on the judge's bench and others were beamed at the jury box and the counsel table. It is conceded that the activities of the television crews and news photographers led to considerable disruption of the hearings. Moreover, veniremen had been summoned and were present in the courtroom during the entire hearing but were later released after petitioner's motion for continuance had been granted. The court also had the names of the witnesses called; some answered but the absence of others led to a continuance of the case until October 22, 1962. It is contended that this two-day pretrial hearing cannot be considered in determining the question before us. We cannot agree. Pretrial can create a major problem for the defendant in a criminal case. Indeed, it may be more harmful than publicity during the trial for it may well set the community opinion as to guilt or innocence. Though the September hearings dealt with motions to prohibit television coverage and to postpone the trial, they are unquestionably relevant to the issue before us. All of this two-day affair was highly publicized and could only have impressed those present, and also the community**1630 at large, with the notorious character of the petitioner as well as the proceeding. The trial witnesses present at the hearing, as well as the original jury panel, were undoubtedly*537 made aware of the peculiar public importance of the case by the press and television coverage being provided, and by the fact that they themselves were televised live and their pictures rebroadcast on the evening show.

When the case was called for trial on October 22 the scene had been altered. A booth had been constructed at the back of the courtroom which was painted to blend with the permanent structure of the room. It had an aperture to allow the lens of the cameras an unrestricted view of the courtroom. All television cameras and newsreel photographers were restricted to the area of the booth when shooting film or telecasting.

Because of continual objection, the rules governing live telecasting, as well as radio and still photos, were changed as the exigencies of the situation seemed to require. As a result, live telecasting was prohibited during a great portion of the actual trial. Only the openingFN2 and closing arguments of the State, the return of the jury's verdict and its receipt by the trial judge were carried live with sound. Although the order allowed videotapes of the entire proceeding without sound, the cameras operated only intermittently, recording various portions of the trial for broadcast on regularly scheduled newscasts later in the day and evening. At the request of the petitioner, the trial judge prohibited coverage of any kind, still or television, of the defense counsel during their summations to the jury.

The facts in this case demonstrate clearly the necessity for the application of the rule announced in Rideau. The sole issue before the court for two days of pretrial hearing was the question now before us. The hearing was televised live and repeated on tape in the same evening, reaching approximately 100,000 viewers. In addition, the courtroom was a mass of wires, television cameras, microphones and photographers. The petitioner, the panel of prospective jurors, who were sworn the second day, the witnesses**1637 and the lawyers were all exposed to this untoward situation. The judge decided that the trial *551 proceedings would be telecast. He announced no restrictions at the time. This emphasized the notorious nature of the coming trial, increased the intensity of the publicity on the petitioner and together with the subsequent televising of the trial beginning 30 days later inherently prevented a sober search for the truth. This is underscored by the fact that the selection of the jury took an entire week. As might be expected, a substantial amount of that time was devoted to ascertaining the impact of the pretrial televising on the prospective jurors. As we have noted, four of the jurors selected had seen all or part of those broadcasts. The trial, on the other hand, lasted only three days.

Moreover, the trial judge was himself harassed. After the initial decision to permit telecasting he apparently decided that a booth should be built at the broadcasters' expense to confine its operations; he then decided to limit the parts of the trial that might be televised live; then he decided to film the testimony of the witnesses without sound in an attempt to protect those under the rule; and finally he ordered that defense counsel and their argument not be televised, in the light of their objection. Plagued by his original error-recurring each day of the trial-his day-to-day orders made the trial more confusing to the jury, the participants and to the viewers. Indeed, it resulted in a public presentation of only the State's side of the case.


Mr. Chief Justice WARREN, whom Mr. Justice DOUGLAS and Mr. Justice GOLDBERG join, concurring.

While I join the Court's opinion and agree that the televising of criminal trials is inherently a denial of due process, I desire to express additional views on why this is so. In doing this, I wish to emphasize that our condemnation of televised criminal trials is not based on generalities or abstract fears. The record in this case presents a vivid illustration of the inherent prejudice of televised criminal trials and supports our conclusion that this is the appropriate time to make a definitive appraisal of television in the courtroom.

Petitioner, a much-publicized financier, was indicted by a Reeves County, Texas, grand jury for obtaining property through false pretenses. The case was transferred to the City of Tyler, in Smith County, Texas, and was set for trial on September 24, 1962. Prior to that date petitioner's counsel informed the trial judge that he would make a motion on September 24 to exclude all cameras from the courtroom during the trial.

On September 24, a hearing was held to consider petitioner's motion to prohibit television, motion pictures, and still photography at the trial. The courtroom was filled with newspaper reporters and **1638 cameramen, television cameramen, and spectators. At least 12 cameramen with *553 their equipment were seen by one observer, and there were 30 or more people standing in the aisles. An article appearing in the New York Times the next day stated:

‘A television motor van, big as an intercontinental bus, was parked outside the courthouse and the second-floor courtroom was a forest of equipment. Two television cameras had been set up inside the bar and four more marked cameras were aligned just outside the gates. * * *

(Cables and wires snaked over the floor.'FN1

FN1. N.Y. Times, Sept. 25, 1962, p. 46, col. 4. See Appendix Photographs 1, 2, 3.

With photographers roaming at will through the courtroom, petitioner's counsel made his motion that all cameras be excluded. As he spoke, a cameraman wandered behind the judge's bench and snapped his picture. Counsel argued that the presence of cameras would make it difficult for him to consult with his client, make his client ill at ease, and make it impossible to obtain a fair trial since the cameras would distract the jury, witnesses and lawyers. He also expressed the view that televising selected cases tends to give the jury an impression that the particular trial is different from ordinary criminal trials. The court, however, ruled that the taking of pictures and televising would be allowed so long as the cameramen stood outside the railing that separates the trial participants from the spectators. The court also ruled that if a complaint was made that any camera was too noisy, the cameramen would have to stop taking pictures; that no pictures could be taken in the corridors outside the courtroom; and that those with microphones were not to pick up conversations between petitioner and his lawyers. Subsequent to the court's ruling petitioner arrived in the courtroom,FN2 and the defense introduced testimony*554 concerning the atmosphere in the court on that day. At the conclusion of the day's hearing the judge reasserted his earlier ruling. He then ordered a roll call of the prosecution witnesses, at least some of whom had been in the courtroom during the proceedings.

FN2. Counsel explained to the trial court that he desired to protect petitioner from the cameras until the court had made its ruling.

The entire hearing on September 24 was televised live by station KLTV of Tyler, Texas, and station WFAA-TV of Dallas, Texas. Commercials were inserted when there was a pause in the proceedings. On the evening of Monday, September 24, both stations ran an edited tape of the day's proceedings and interrupted the tape to play the commercials ordinarily seen in the particular time slot. In addition to the live television coverage there was also a live radio pickup of the proceedings by at least one station.

The proceedings continued on September 25. There was again a significant number of cameramen taking motion pictures, still pictures and television pictures. The judge once more ordered cameramen to stay on the other side of the railing and stated that this order was to be observed even during court recesses. The panel from which the petit jury was to be selected was then sworn in the presence of the cameramen. The panel was excused to permit counsel to renew his motion to prohibit photography in the courtroom. The court denied the motion, but granted a continuance of trial until October 22 and dismissed the jury panel. At the suggestion of petitioner's counsel the trial judge warned the prosecution witnesses who were present not to discuss the case during the continuance. The proceedings were televised live and portions of the television tape were shown on the regularly scheduled evening news programs. Live radio transmission apparently occurred as on the day before.

**1639 On October 1, 1962, the trial judge is sued an order explaining what coverage he would permit during the trial. The judge delivered the order in his chambers for the *555 benefit of television cameramen so that they could film him. The judge ruled that although he would permit television cameras to be present during the trial, they would not be permitted to present live coverage of the interrogation of prospective jurors or the testimony of witnesses. He ruled that each of the three major television networks, NBC, CBS, ABC, and the local television station KLTV could install one camera not equipped to pick up sound and the film would be available to other television stations on a pooled basis. In addition, he ruled that with respect to news photographers only cameramen for the local press, Associated Press, and United Press would be permitted in the courtroom. Photographs taken were also to be made available to others on a pooled basis. The judge did not explain how he decided which television cameramen and which still photographers were to be permitted in the courtroom and which were to be excluded.

For the proceedings beginning on October 22, station KLTV, at its own expense, and with the permission of the court, had constructed a booth in the rear of the courtroom painted the same or near the same color as the courtroom. An opening running lengthwise across the booth permitted the four television cameras to photograph the proceedings. The courtroom was small and the cameras were clearly visible to all in the courtroom.FN3 The cameras were equipped with ‘electronic sound on camera’ which permitted them to take both film and sound. Upon entering the courtroom the judge told all those with television cameras to go back to the booth; asked the press photographers not to move around any more than necessary; ordered that no flashbulbs or floodlights be used; and again told cameramen that they could not go inside the railing. Defense counsel renewed his motion *556 to ban all ‘sound equipment * * * still cameras, movie cameras and television; and all radio facilities' from the courtroom. Witnesses were again called on this issue, but at the conclusion of the hearing the trial judge reaffirmed his prior ruling to permit cameramen in the courtroom. In response to petitioner's argument that his rights under the Constitution of the United States were being violated, the judge remarked that the ‘case (was) not being tried under the Federal Constitution.’

FN3. See Appendix, Photograph 6.

None of the proceedings on October 22 was televised live. Television cameras, however, recorded the day's entire proceedings with sound for later showings. Apparently none of the October 22 proceedings was carried live on radio, although the proceedings were recorded on tape. The still photographers admitted by the court were free to take photographs from outside the railing.

On October 23 the selection of the jury began. Overnight an additional strip had been placed across the television booth so that the opening for the television cameras was reduced, but the cameras and their operators were still quite visible.FN4 A panel of 86 prospective jurors was ready for the voir dire. The judge excused the jurors from the courtroom and made still another ruling on news coverage at the trial. He ordered the television recording to proceed from that point on without an audio pickup, and, in addition, forbade radio tapes of any further proceedings until all the evidence had been introduced. During the course of the trial the television cameras recorded without sound whatever matters appeared interesting to them for use on later newscasts; radio broadcasts in the form of spot reports were made from a room next to the courtroom. There was no live television or radio coverage until November 7 when the trial judge permitted live **1640 coverage of the prosecution's *557 arguments to the jury, the return of the jury's verdict and its acceptance by the court. Since the defense objected to being photographed during the summation, the judge prohibited television cameramen or still photographers from taking any pictures of the defense during its argument. But the show went on, and while the defense was speaking the cameras were directed at the judge and the arguments were monitored by audio equipment and relayed to the television audience by an announcer. On November 7 the judge, for the first time, directed news photographers desiring to take pictures to take them only from the back of the room. Up until this time the trial judge's orders merely limited news photographers to the spectator section.

FN4. See Appendix, Photograph 7.

The decision below affirming petitioner's conviction runs counter to the evolution of Anglo-American criminal procedure over a period of centuries. During that time the criminal trial has developed from a ritual practically devoid of rational justification to a fact-finding process, the acknowledged purpose of which is to provide a fair and reliable determination of guilt.


I believe that it violates the Sixth Amendment for federal courts and the Fourteenth Amendment for state courts to allow criminal trials to be televised to the public at large. I base this conclusion on three grounds: (1) that the televising of trials diverts the trial from its proper purpose in that it has an inevitable impact on all the trial participants; (2) that it gives the public the wrong impression about the purpose of trials, thereby detracting from the dignity of court proceedings and lessening the reliability of trials; and (3) that it singles out certain defendants and subjects them to trials under prejudicial conditions not experienced by others.
In my opinion, Chief Justice Warren got it right for all time. Just apply his three points, above, to the Anthony trial, and tell me he wasn't right.