Support grad student arrested for keeping his sources confidential

Closed Thread
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    345

    Support grad student arrested for keeping his sources confidential

    December 1, 2009

    This is an update and message to all concerned scholars regarding the case of our colleague Scott DeMuth.

    Scott is currently out of jail, back in school, and awaiting trial. We are mounting a support campaign from the academic community and the general public so that he will have the resources necessary for a solid defense.

    RELEVANT FACTS:

    On November 17, 2009, Scott DeMuth was jailed for contempt of court, since he refused to answer questions posed to him by a federal grand jury in Davenport, Iowa. They were interested in questioning him about his knowledge of an unsolved Animal Liberation Front action in 2004 at the University of Iowa. At the time, Scott was only 17 years old and was a resident of the Twin Cities (Minnesota). Scott is a University of Minnesota graduate student and Dakota language student whose research focuses on liberation struggles and social movements in the U.S. and globally. In his work, he has researched and/or interviewed numerous activists from Native American struggles for sovereignty and land, and environmental and animal liberation movements in the U.S. The grand jury was interested in asking him to divulge the names of activists, which would violate the confidentiality agreements that he made with his research participants.

    Scott took a principled stand against the grand jury's fishing expedition, and instead decided to go to jail rather than be party to what many attorneys and the American Bar Association (ABA) view as a dangerous practice that deprives people of basic constitutional freedoms. But it gets worse. Two days later (November 19, 2009) Scott was charged with conspiracy under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) of 2006. This indictment came just one day before the 5-year statute of limitations was to expire. Attorneys have speculated the indictment was rushed through to freeze the statute of limitations, with the intent of buying them time to issue a future indictment. These legal maneuvers are indicative of an investigation that has gone nowhere, and prosecutors who are desperate to locate members of the Animal Liberation Front, no matter what legal acrobatics are required.

    REGARDING GRAND JURIES:

    The federal grand jury is a legal proceeding used to investigate possible organized criminal activity rather than a specific crime. It is held in secrecy, and does not grant rights to representation or the right to obtain transcripts of the proceedings to those subpoenaed: those served with a subpoena face only a federal prosecutor and 16-23 jurors who are not screened for bias. Federal grand juries are used not to prove guilt, but to coercively extract evidence without due process from third parties under threat of imprisonment. They have a history of being used to intimidate and suppress movements for social change.

    REGARDING SCHOLARLY RIGHTS:

    The American Sociological Association's Code of Ethics states:

    Section 11.01:

    "Sociologists have an obligation to protect confidential information and not allow information gained in confidence from being used in ways that would unfairly compromise research participants, students, employees, clients, or others."

    Section 11.06:

    "Sociologists do not disclose confidential, personally identifiable
    information concerning their research participants, other recipients of
    their service which is obtained during the course of their work."

    This scholar-research participant confidentiality is the bedrock of academic research and without it the public would lose trust in scholars seeking important information (concerning, for example, social histories or institutional discrimination practices), leading to the incalculable loss of invaluable data for community preservation, public policy, and university teaching purposes. Scott is being charged with conspiracy for invoking his constitutional rights and heeding to professional codes of conduct.

    REGARDING THE AETA:

    More than 160 non-governmental organizations opposed the passage of the AETA. The opposition includes such influential groups as the National Lawyers Guild, American Civil Liberties Union (belatedly), New York City Bar Association and other bar associations, Natural Resources Defense Council, Humane Society of the U.S., and American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA).

    The AETA:

    - is excessively broad and vague and imposes disproportionately harsh
    penalties

    - brands animal advocates as "terrorists" and denies them equal protection under the law

    - brands civil disobedience as "terrorism" and imposes severe penalties

    - has a chilling effect on all forms of protest by endangering free speech and assembly

    - interferes with investigation of federal law violations by animal
    enterprises

    - detracts from prosecution of real terrorism against the American people

    The AETA is designed to punish actions that instill a reasonable fear in
    employees of an animal enterprise, or their families. In its application,
    AETA also criminalizes many First Amendment activities, such as picketing, boycotts and undercover investigations of animal abuse if they interfere with an animal enterprise by causing a loss of profits. It unnecessarily expands punishments for crimes that existing federal laws already cover. This law has created a chilling effect on constitutionally protected activities and many activists, scholars, attorneys, and elected officials believe that was the intention.

    Our goals are simple and direct: we want the judge, prosecutor, and U.S. attorney to dismiss all charges against Scott, protect academic freedom and integrity, and denounce the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.

    The newly formed Scholars for Academic Justice is developing a website and we plan to roll it by this weekend at the latest. More on that soon.

    In the meantime, here’s what you can do:

    *write a statement of support for Scott (concerning the issue of academic justice in relation to research ethics, grand juries, etc.) (in PDF format please, send to [email protected])

    *sign a petition supporting Scott: Drop Charges Against Scott Demuth! Petition : [ powered by iPetitions.com ]

    *write letters to the editors of the MN Daily, the Pioneer Press, the
    Star-Tribune, the Chicago Tribune, the Quad-City Times, New York Times, and San Francisco Chronicle.

    *write letters to the prosecutor, the U.S. Attorney, the judge, and
    Representative Keith Ellison (see info below).

    *Record a digital audio statement of support. We can help you do this via skype, over the phone, or in-person if you are in the Twin Cities area. Just let us know!

    Please contact David Pellow at [email protected] for more information or to send statements of support.

    Please send polite letters to the following individuals requesting that they work to dismiss all charges against Scott, protect academic freedom and integrity, and denounce the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act:

    U.S. District Judge John A. Jarvey
    United States Courthouse
    131 East 4th Street
    Davenport, Iowa 52801

    U.S. Attorney Nicholas Klinefeldt
    United States Courthouse
    131 East 4th Street
    Davenport, Iowa 52801

    Assistant U.S. Attorney Cliff Cronk
    United States Courthouse
    131 East 4th Street
    Davenport, Iowa 52801

    Representative Keith Ellison
    2100 Plymouth Avenue North
    Minneapolis, MN 55411

    Thank you for your support and consideration.


  2. #2

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    hong kong
    Posts
    3,484

    A bit one sided on the spin ?????

    I guess most of us would oppose cruelty whether animal or otherwise if asked HOWEVER ....................... are you proposing that legal authorities do not have the right to hunt down organizations like the ALF who's raison de jour has been letter bombs, car bombs, acid attacks etc etc.

    Defense of confidential sources in journalism or academia is a worthy and just cause when expanding our experience to expose or educate unjust acts but there is always a left and right shoe available for people to kick out with. Why shouldn't agencies use their legislation to protect their ( in your view ) less worthy aspirations.

    As for your reasoning that Sociologists have some right to make law that we should all abide by is true ROFL. Isn't the international rule of educators " if you have no clue about what degree you want, do sociology? " The crib sheet is here Alternative Ways to Understanding Sociological Ideas...


  3. #3

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    薄扶林
    Posts
    47,964

    What does that have to do with us here in HK?

    This is so US specific...

    Cant these scholars just start a vigil and sing "Yes We Can" till the charges are dropped? Got a black man elected... I don't see why the same tactic would not work to keep a white man out of jail.


  4. #4

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,076

    You would say that Shri, you Fascist Pommy


  5. #5

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    薄扶林
    Posts
    47,964

    Oye! No name calling please. I've never been called a Pommy... never. Simply unacceptable.


  6. #6

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    4,043

    This is a bit misleading as if he was 17 at that time he'd likely not be a grad student. Under most university research policies of which I am quite familiar as a former Governor and Senator of Simon Fraser University, any undergrad research activity such as inferred here would not be acceptable and would not be permitted. Students in Canadian universities cannot just go off and get involved with organizations without complying with university policy. One reason undergrads are restricted (and grad students) is that they don't want to lose research opportunities that are legitimate because a bunch of unskilled amateurs want a bit of it.

    In the USA, the only protection that journalists get is the 5th Amendment which allows you to decline to answer on the grounds that you might incriminate yourself. The modern reality is that the laws in these places are changing to protect national security so there is not much room for escape.

    It seems that the nobility of his cause will be overshadowed by the reality that he was 17 years old and likely not a legit researcher anyways. I know that some US case law has protected media journalists from being harrassed by law enforcement not for what they knew of a crime but just for the sake of interfering with the relationships of the reporter and their sources.

    The US system of justice and grand juries gives them lots of power to force and coerce people to sing like a canary. Hopefully this young guy didn't have Big Bubba as his cell mate.

    One other thing. If this guy was a smart individual vs a naive voyeur of sorts, he'd not want to put himself in a position to witness criminal activity which would be what a grand jury might want to know about. If it is just the names of the members of the organization and not investigation of real crimes then I have a bit more empathy for this guy. There are many ways of conducting research without having to hang out with the bad guys.

    Last edited by Football16; 04-12-2009 at 12:36 PM.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    North Point
    Posts
    203

    [QUOTE=Football16;499127]This is a bit misleading as if he was 17 at that time he'd likely not be a grad student. QUOTE]

    I took the reference to his age to indicate that the incident occurred before he became a researcher, and that he didn't have any actual involvement. In more recent history he has done research much as a journalist would, and developed sources and information in the course of his grad student career. This is the same as a journalism or criminal justice student researching an old case, and developing new leads.

    I know nothing about the case, (could even be a scam for all I know) but the basic principle is still relevant for those of us that care about academic and press freedom.


  8. #8

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    4,043

    Saun-fam.

    It is not about academic freedom and freedom of the press in the scenario you describe. He was being asked according to the OP about a specific event on campus that he was a witness to. It does seem to say the grand jury questions extended to what he knows of the organization from subsequent research and he might be uncomfortable answering those questions for which I have some empathy.

    But if he has knowledge of a crime he has an obligation in law to divulge what he knows of the incident in 2004 or face the consequences.

    Again, I am not sure that this guy meets the criteria for being a recognized researcher, protecting his sources etc. If this was a true criminal organization, I am shocked his thesis supervisors would grant him permission under university research policies to get too close to actual members of groups committing crimes.


  9. #9

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Pampanga, Philippines
    Posts
    29,763

    It seems that the academic research thing is a bit of a red herring. He is an activist. It looks like they suspect him of being involved in the incident, not researching it. Having said that the fact that they can pressure him in such a way to reveal the names of members seems wrong, not sure there is an equivalent process in the UK legal system. Why don't they just get the thumbscrews out?

    Btw his co-defendent is still in prison, why the focus on him?


  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    in my home
    Posts
    3,451

    have they tried water-boarding? i heard its an effective measure to obtain names.