Am 02. Mai 2016 wurde der Tierbefreiungsaktivist Joseph Buddenberg in den USA zu einer Gefängnisstrafe von zwei Jahren verurteilt.
Joseph stand zusammen mit Nicole Kissane vor Gericht. Beide wurden im Juli 2015 im Rahmen des Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) verhaftet. Ihnen wird vorgeworfen tausende nichtmenschliche Tiere aus Farmen befreit zu haben und der us-amerikanischen Pelzindustrie erhebliche Sachschäden zugefügt zu haben. Ihre vermeintlichen Taten werden auf den Sommer 2013 datiert.

Bereits am 20. Dezember 2009 wurde Joseph zusammen mit den Tierbefreiungsaktivist*innen Nathan Pope, Adriana Stumpo und Maryam Khajavi verhaftet. Damals wurden die Aktivist*innen im Rahmen des Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) angeklagt. Ihnen wurde vorgeworfen Homedemos vor den Häusern von Akteuren der Tierversuchsindustrie durchgeführt und deren Namen und Adressen veröffentlicht zu haben. Am 11. Juli 2010 wurde das Verfahren gegen die Beschuldigten allerdings eingestellt, weil die Staatsanwälte keine stichhaltigen Beweise gegen die Angeklagten vorbringen konnten. Das Verfahren kann aber im Rahmen des AETA jederzeit wieder aufgerollt werden.

Unterstützt Joseph und schreibt ihm Briefe ins Gefängnis:

Joseph Buddenberg #12746-111
USP Lompoc
U.S. Penitentiary
3901 Klein Blvd.
Lompoc, CA 93436
USA

Unterstützt den Gefangenen Joseph Buddenberg und alle anderen Gefangenen der Tierbefreiungsbewegung!!!
Bis jeder Käfig und jeder Knast leer ist!!!
Totalliberation

Unterstützungswebsite von Joseph und Nicole:
https://supportnicoleandjoseph.com/
https://www.facebook.com/supportnicoleandjoseph/

English:

02. Mai 2016:
This morning in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Joseph Buddenberg was sentenced to two years in federal prison for Conspiracy to Violate the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. The sentencing follows his signing a non-cooperating plea agreement in which he plead guilty to conspiring to free thousands of animals from fur farms throughout the U.S. and to cause damage to businesses associated with the fur industry.

“Today’s sentencing must be understood in the context of the complete illegitimacy of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act,” said Rachel Meeropol, senior staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the lead lawyer on several constitutional challenges to the law. “This is a law bought and paid for by corporations that profit from the exploitation of animals, in the service of nothing but their own bottom line. Prosecuting non-violent liberation of animals as ‘terrorism’ is a transparent attempt to silence an entire movement. The AETA violates fundamental constitutional principles of free speech and due process, and we will continue to challenge it wherever it is used. ”

Buddenberg and his co-defendant Nicole Kissane were indicted under the AETA last July. Earlier this year, both signed non-cooperating plea agreements; Kissane’s sentencing hearing is scheduled for June.

Update: On May 3rd, Joseph reported to federal custody. Write to him at:
Joseph Buddenberg #12746-111
USP Lompoc
3901 Klein Blvd
Lompoc, CA 93436

In early 2016, Joseph Buddenberg and Nicole Kissane signed non-cooperating plea agreements in which they pled guilty to Conspiracy to Violate the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. Joseph and Nicole were accused of releasing thousands of animals from fur farms, and causing damage to other businesses associated with the fur industry, in the summer and fall of 2013.

In May, Joseph was sentenced to two years in prison. Nicole’s trial may begin in September.

Support websites: https://supportnicoleandjoseph.com, www.supportnicole.com, www.facebook.com/supportnicoleandjoseph

History:

AETA4: Case Dismissed--For Now

On February 20th, 2009, four California animal rights activists, Nathan Pope, Adriana Stumpo, Joseph Buddenberg, and Maryam Khajavi, now collectively known as the AETA4, were arrested under suspicion of violating the federal Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA). Their alleged crimes include protesting outside vivisectors‘ homes and publishing their names and addresses, activities that are protected by the First Amendment.

The arrests of the AETA4 mark a dramatic escalation by the federal government and abusive industries against animal rights and environmental activism. Their arrests marked the first under the Bush Administration’s controversial Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, signed into law in 2006. The AETA statute was introduced at the behest of wealthy biomedical and agri-business industry front groups. It passed with inadequate notice, and with only a handful of Congresspersons present for the vote. It is currently being challenged as being un-constitutional.

On July 11, 2010 a US District Court threw out the indictment because the government prosecutors did not say exactly what the protesters did. However, this case is not completely over. The government can still re-indict the defendants with an amended bill of particulars that clearly outlines their alleged actions. For more on this, click [here]

Aus: http://www.narn.org/vips/

A U.S. District Court has thrown out the indictment of four animal rights activists who were charged with violating the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, because the government did not clearly explain what, exactly, the protesters did.

When Joseph Buddenberg, Maryam Khajavi, Nathan Pope and Adriana Stumpo were arrested in 2009, prosecutors said little other than that the group allegedly chalked slogans on the sidewalk, distributed fliers and attended protests. Later, when they were officially indicted, the government was still tight-lipped about how their non-violent, above-ground protests amounted to “terrorism.”

In response, the Center for Constitutional Rights and attorney Matthew Strugar led an effort to have the indictments dismissed. In short, they argued that the charges should be dropped because they seem to involve only protected First Amendment speech, but that in order to make that argument the defendants’ speech must be clearly identified.

Here’s an excerpt from Judge Ronald M. Whyte’s ruling:

In order for an indictment to fulfill its constitutional purposes, it must allege facts that sufficiently inform each defendant of what it is that he or she is alleged to have done that constitutes a crime. This is particularly important where the species of behavior in question spans a wide spectrum from criminal conduct to constitutionally protected political protest. While “true threats” enjoy no First Amendment protection, picketing and political protest are at the very core of what is protected by the First Amendment. Where the defendants’ conduct falls on this spectrum in this case will very likely ultimately be decided by a jury. Before this case proceeds to a jury, however, the defendants are entitled to a more specific indictment setting forth their conduct alleged to be criminal. [emphasis added]

As background, a fierce campaign has been being waged in California against animal research at the University of California system. There has been a wide range of both legal and illegal tactics. Illegal tactics have included the destruction of UC vans, and an incendiary device was left at the home of a UC researcher.

The FBI and local law enforcement haven’t been able to catch the people responsible, though. They’ve only cracked down on the above-ground activists, like the AETA 4, who protest and create fliers.

The previous version of the law was used to convict the SHAC 7 for running a controversial website that posted news of both legal and illegal actions. This case, the first use of the new Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, was clearly an attempt to use this sweeping legislation even more broadly against First Amendment activity. This ruling sternly rebukes the government’s attempt to take activists to trial for “terrorism” without even explaining what they have done.

To be clear, though, this case is not over. The government can still re-indict the defendants with an amended bill of particulars that clearly outlines their alleged actions.

This is a victory worth celebrating, and it should also be inspiration for renewed organizing. Corporations and the politicians who represent them have been pushing this “eco-terrorism” and “animal enterprise terrorism” legislation for years, and they will not sit quietly as the flagship case of their pet scare-mongering law is tossed aside.

If prosecutors choose to re-indict, it should be at their own peril; the animal rights and environmental movements must be ready to respond even more loudly, more forcefully, that activism is not terrorism.

Aus: http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/aeta-4-case-thrown-out-dismissed/3015/