Broughton sentenced to 10 years in UK (Daily Mail)‏

Sent: July 14, 2010 2:07:27 PM

The Daily Mail
Animal rights fanatic who planted petrol bombs at Oxford University
jailed for 10 years
13th July 2010
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...d-10-years.html

An animal rights activist who planted petrol bombs at Oxford
University is starting a prison sentence this afternoon after being
found guilty at a retrial.

Mel Broughton, 49, was protesting about plans to build an animal
research laboratory in Oxford, backed by the university, when he made
the devices out of water bottles and sparklers.

One of them, placed on the roof of Queen's College cricket pavilion in
November 2006, ignited and caused nearly £14,000 damage to the
building.

Two other petrol bombs were hidden under a portable cabin at Templeton
College the following February, but failed to go off.

Broughton, of Northampton, was originally convicted of conspiracy to
commit arson by a jury in February 2009, but successfully appealed
against the conviction in February this year.

The Court of Appeal ordered a retrial, which began at Oxford Crown
Court on June 16. It took the jury five hours and 25 minutes to return
with their unanimous guilty verdict.

Judge Patrick Eccles QC passed a 10-year sentence, to be reduced by
the two-and-a-half years Broughton has already spent in custody.

He said he had no further comment on the case, but had told Broughton
at his original conviction: 'What is not acceptable or permissible in
a democratic society is for you to harass, bully and intimidate those
that engage in lawful research involving animals.

'The firebombs were part of a ruthless conspiracy to instil fear in
all those connected to the laboratory.'

Broughton, who spearheaded animal welfare group Speak, was arrested in
connection with the attacks in December 2007 after his DNA was found
on the base of one of the unexploded devices.

A pack of sparklers was found hidden in an unused water tank by
detectives searching his home. They also discovered documents relating
to Oxford University and its employees.

Each device at Templeton College consisted of two bottles, filled with
4.5 litres of petrol, strapped together. The device that exploded at
the cricket pavilion contained 12 litres of petrol.

Although non-residential buildings at the university were targeted,
prosecutor Neil Moore told the trial the consequences of such devices
igniting were 'very unpredictable'.

He said: 'Given the large quantity of petrol involved, had these
devices at Templeton College ignited, then at the very least it could
have resulted in a substantial fire.'

During the trial Broughton insisted he was not involved in illegal protests.

Speaking outside court, Denis Burke, a complex casework unit lawyer at
the Crown Prosecution Service, said: 'Mel Broughton has always claimed
that he was only a peaceful protester.

'His conviction today demonstrates that, in fact, he was willing to
commit criminal offences against legitimate businesses and
institutions for the furtherance of his cause.

'No matter what your personal convictions are, putting property and
lives at risk through the use of incendiary devices can never be
justified.'

Detective Inspector Kevin McGuire of Thames Valley Police said: 'The
evidence showed the jury that Broughton's interest in the animal
rights cause went further than that of a legitimate protester.

'He has been proven to be someone who believes direct action, in the
form of planting explosives and setting fires, is acceptable.

'By doing so, he has shown that he is willing to risk the lives of
other people for his cause.'

A University of Oxford spokesman said: 'The university has always
accepted the rights of protesters to voice their objections within the
law.

'However, we will continue to work with all relevant authorities to
protect staff and students from criminal activity of any kind.'

One down!!!

Too bad he didn't get alot more time to think about the crime. I wonder how much time he'll actually spend in jail??

If it were here in America he'd probably be out in 2-3 years. Just about enough time to figure out how to be more effective next time.........

Not in Oregon. He would be lucky to get out in 9 1/2 years, if he didn't get into anymore trouble. We don't have anymore early releases.

Thank God for that! Do you still have the death penalty there Hawk?

Yeah, but it doesn't get used very often. We've got several scumbags that have been sitting on death row for years.

We also have another idiotic policy, we won't execute a person that pleads guilty. How stupid is that?

That sure don't make any sense Hawkeye.

Drifter

Actually this is what happens in California. Note that despite the terrorist agenda the loons that support terrorism call it activism and get the courts to agree in most cases or the penalties would be stiffer.


Indictments dismissed against AETA-4 in CA (blog)‏

Sent: July 13, 2010 1:02:34 PM


NOTE: Judge Whyte’s ruling can be read here:
http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/wp-content/Images/100712_aeta4_dismissed.pdf


Green is the New Red (blog)
BREAKING: AETA 4 Case Dismissed, But Re-Indictment Possible
Monday Jul 12th, 2010 3:32 PM
http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/aeta-4-case-thrown-out-dismissed/3015/

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.

Good post once again Mira.

These ALF idiots are so proud of their actions and brag about what they did and then they whine about the courts & police state arresting them for burning out another persons legitimate legal business.



ALF-Mex. claims arson of Chinchilla farm (Bite Back)‏

Sent: July 15, 2010 2:54:48 PM


NOTE: This action has not been confirmed by independent sources

Bite Back Magazine
CHINCHILLA FUR FARM BURNS
July 14, 2010 - Mexico
http://www.directactionloonsof alf/news_july14_10.htm

anonymous communique (translation):

"Late at night on July 5 of this year we attacked a chinchilla farm,
but it was not just any small businessman's farm, but rather we chose
to attack the only registered chinchilla farm in the State of Mexico,
in the rural municipality of Amecameca.

The farm is owned by Patricia Perrin-Sullivan and Thomas L. Carpenter,
members of the Mexican branch of the International Chinchilla
Association. This association, which works to expand the domination
and domestication of animals for human consumption as clothes for
fashion and haute couture, has been mocking the attacks of
ecosaboteurs and liberationists throughout the world, devoting part of
their website to so-called 'vegan fanaticism.' Eco-terrorists, as
these idiots call us, have shown how stupid these people are to think
that we would not come to raid their property and to attack them.
They thought we would put a bomb in some business or that we would be
breaking windows in a demonstration, but they were wrong. Now we are
everywhere, sharpening our knives to tear open the bars of their farms
filled with animal prisoners and to sabotage them causing more
economic damage than ever before.

For this action a lot of time and effort was dedicated in surveying
the area; pictures and videos were taken, information and maps were
compiled from the internet, so that we'd have more information about
the area and the possible escape routes. With this preparation
completed we decided to attack and make our hardest strike for animal
liberation.

So that night, camouflaged by the darkness and with only the moon
lighting our insurgent steps, we arrived at the property in the late
hours of the night. With some bolt cutters we cut the metal fencing
that had protected the farm with much care so that they would not hear
us and so that the dogs who were guarding the place would not chase
us. We opened the fencing from top to bottom and entered. We realized
that one of the two chinchilla sheds was completely abandoned but the
other was full of chinchillas who very softly squeaked and moved in
their cages. Our greatest desire was to free a large number of the
chinchilla prisoners but because of serious concerns about security we
decided to just focus on the shed that was empty and to destroy it so
that it couldn't ever be used as a center for animal extermination
again.
Several attempts were made to open the barred window in the shed where
chinchillas were, but these were in vain. The shed was medium-sized
and was very close to the house belonging to those guarding this
business of torture and domestication, so we decided (as we already
said) to focus on the empty shed.

On the two sheds we left graffiti against this filthy business,
graffiti such as 'Patricia, we have come for your skin!', 'You are in
our sights', symbols of the ALF and other slogans that at that moment
we felt were appropriate, so that they would know who we are and what
we are capable of. Immediately after this we placed an incendiary
device made of about four liters of gasoline at the side of the empty
shed. We left it under a lot of wood so that the fire would spread.
We set the timer on the device and left through the torn wire mesh.
When we were far away from the target, the fire could be clearly seen
as it burned. The abolitionist's flame was present once again on a
tranquil night shaken by the Frente de Liberación Animal in Mexico.
We had struck once again, but this time it was not a bank or a pet
store, now we have focused our sights on larger targets, evolving and
growing in ideology and our actions are at par with the actions of the
dominators of animals and the earth.

Two days after this action, after the workers and the owners saw our
graffiti and threats, after they had seen the charred empty shed and
that the fencing was cut, we sent a threat by e-mail to the owners of
the farm. They must stop operating their business of animal
exploitation. Part of the threat read:

... 'You are warned! We have entered your property and we can do so
again. It will do no good to have lighting or better security because
we will be there, watching you from the darkness, night after night,
until you are distracted, then we will enter and sabotage and liberate
the animals that you keep as prisoners. If this time we didn't
liberate the chinchillas, next time we will!'...

Abraham López and Adrian Magdaleno, this action is dedicated to you.
We send you much strength and an incendiary embrace. Remember that
confinement is only a setback that all true revolutionaries have to
face sooner or later and that the harder the battle, the sweeter the
victory will be!

For animal and earth liberation!
For the destruction of dominating and anthropocentric civilization!
Direct and insurgent attack against the strongholds of the system of
domestication!
Fire to all society based on authoritarian and 'alternative' values!
For the destruction of the prisons and the cages!

Address of the chinchilla farm:

That's typical with most criminals, Mira. They brag to each other about their "capers" but when they get caught they whine and claim they are innocent.

I have to admit, I respect the stand up guys that just say, yep, I did it, now I'll take the consequences.