Oakland Police Stop Protesters, Threaten Arrest Should They Return

Apparently tipped off ahead of time about a planned protest by Direct Action of San Francisco, Oakland police stopped a planned protest at the home of a lawyer for Valent Biosciences. Activists targeted the man because Valent does business with Huntingdon Life Sciences.

Using about six marked cards, police forced the activists to retreat to nearby Montclair Village where a Honda Civic with six of the activists was stopped by Oakland police. Oakland police warned the activist that if they went into Oakland to protest at the lawyer’s home, they would be arrested.

Direct Action of San Francisco’s Andrea Lindsay complained to the Tri-Valley Herald that, “We’ve done absolutely nothing.” She added that even if activists at such protests vandalize homes, such acts of violence cannot possibly be blamed on the organizers/sponsors of such protests. She went on to defend such vandals, saying,

It’s not just angst-ridden teens. Some are people who sincerely believe in the cause and are convinced that economic sabotage is the only way to bring about change.

This is the same Andrea Lindsay who last October defended the bombing of Chiron’s headquarters.

Source:

Protesters, police get lost in chase. Glenn Chapman, Tri-Valley Herald, August 22, 2004.

Sen. Schumer Predicts "Open Field" Measure Will Pass as Part of Spending Bill

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) held a press conference this week to announce that he is co-sponsoring a bi-partisan “open field” measure which he expects to pass as part of the Omnibus Spending bill that the Senate will vote on in a few months.

Schumer and others have been pushing an “open field” bill for almost a year now. The bill seeks to offer incentives for farmers to open their land for hunting.

It would do this in two ways. First, it provides a liability exemption so that farmers cannot be held legally liable for accidents and other mishaps that may occur on their land as a result of hunting. Second, it provides $50 million in incentives to farmers who voluntarily open their land to hunting.

Schumer said of his proposal,

Hunting, fishing, and birding are not just recreational activities – they’re vital parts of the economy. This plan will help them flourish and that will be good not only for those who participate but for the entire region.

Source:

Schumer Unveils New Plan To Increase Revenue For Local Farmers & Give Outdoor Sportsmen More Access To Private Lands. Press Release, Sen. Charles Schumer, August 2004.

Schumer pushing for hunting easements. Times Union (Albany), August 5, 2004.

Chiron Obtains Restraining Order Against SHAC

A California judge this month granted Emeryville-based Chiron a temporary restraining order against Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty. The restraining order prohibits SHAC or anyone associated with the group from harassing the company’s employees.

The restraining order was granted in light of an August 15 SHAC-organized protest at the home of Chiron attorney William Green. At about 10:15 a.m., protestors wearing masks and black clothing arrived at Green’s home. Despite a neighbor’s efforts to prevent them from entering Green’s property, the activists smashed about a dozen windows at the home. There was some indication the activists intended to use a garden hose to flood the home.

By the time police arrived, the activists were gone. Police told local TV stations, however, that neighbors had written down license plate numbers and descriptions of the activists and they were pursuing those leads.

Sources:

Biotech Executive’s Home Gets Vandalized. KGO-TV, August 16, 2004.

Top Chiron lawyer’s home is vandalized. Henry Lee, San Francisco Chronicle, August 16, 2004.

Chiron moves to limit animal rights group. Nathaniel Hoffman, Contra Costa Times, August 21, 2004.

Chiron gets restraining order against animal rights group. Associated Press, August 22, 2004.

California SB 1525 – Public Notification of Meat Recalls

BILL NUMBER: SB 1585 AMENDED BILL TEXT

AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY AUGUST 23, 2004 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JULY 12, 2004 AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 24, 2004 AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 20, 2004 AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 25, 2004

INTRODUCED BY Senators Speier and Machado

FEBRUARY 19, 2004

An act to add Article 6.5 (commencing with Section 110806) to Chapter 5 of Part 5 of Division 104 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to food safety.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 1585, as amended, Speier. Food safety. The existing Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law establishes requirements for the identification and branding of food, and provides for the administration of those requirements by the Food and Drug Branch of the State Department of Health Services, and, upon request of local agencies, for the administration of certain requirements by local health officers. Violation of this law is a crime. This bill would require a beef meat or poultry supplier, distributor, broker, or processor that sells a meat- or poultry-related product in California that is subject to a voluntary recall requested or issued by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to immediately notify the State Department of Health Services and to provide the department with a list of retailers that have received or will receive any product subject to recall that the supplier, distributor, broker, or processor has handled or anticipates handling. The bill would authorize the department to notify appropriate local health officers and environmental health directors that a supplier, distributor, broker, processor, or retailer in the local jurisdiction has handled or received, or anticipates handling or receiving, a meat- or poultry-related product that is subject to a voluntary recall requested or issued by the USDA. If the department makes that notification, the bill would require the department, local health officers, and environmental health directors to notify the public regarding recalled meat- and poultry-related products, except that, in the case of a restaurant, the bill would prohibit the department, local health officers, and environmental health directors from providing public notification if the local health officers or environmental health directors determine that the recalled product has been removed from the restaurant site. The bill would prohibit both notifications from being made in the case of USDA Class III recalls. By creating additional duties for local government, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. By creating new crimes, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the department to submit to the Legislature for review, by January 1, 2005, copies of all memoranda of understanding pertaining to meat- and poultry-related products. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement, including the creation of a State Mandates Claims Fund to pay the costs of mandates that do not exceed $1,000,000 statewide and other procedures for claims whose statewide costs exceed $1,000,000. This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. It is the intent of the Legislature that this act shall apply only to voluntary recalls requested or issued by the United States Department of Agriculture. SEC. 2. Article 6.5 (commencing with Section 110806) is added to Chapter 5 of Part 5 of Division 104 of the Health and Safety Code, to read:

Article 6.5. Recalled Food

110806. (a) A beef meat or poultry supplier, distributor, broker, or processor that sells a meat- or poultry-related product in California that is subject to a voluntary recall requested or issued by the United States Department of Agriculture shall immediately notify the State Department of Health Services and shall provide the department with a list of retailers that have received or will receive any product subject to recall that the supplier, distributor, broker, or processor has handled or anticipates handling. The list shall include all pertinent identifying codes, including establishment numbers, package codes, product codes, pack dates, and lot numbers, if any, received or to be received, and any other relevant information. (b) The department may, after receiving the information required by subdivision (a), notify appropriate local health officers and environmental health directors, as soon as practicable, that a supplier, distributor, broker, processor, or retailer in the local jurisdiction has handled or received, or anticipates handling or receiving, a meat- or poultry-related product that is subject to a voluntary recall requested or issued by the United States Department of Agriculture. The department shall, if it makes the notification authorized by this subdivision, provide appropriate local health officers and environmental health directors with each supplier's, distributor's, broker's processor's, or retailer's name, address, contact information, affected product identifying codes, including establishment numbers, package codes, product codes, pack dates, and lot numbers, if any, and all other supply chain information available. The department shall not provide the notification authorized in this subdivision for a United States Department of Agriculture Class III recall. (c) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), if the department makes the notification authorized by subdivision (b), the department, local health officers, and environmental health directors shall notify the public in a manner local health officers, in consultation with the department and environmental health directors, deem appropriate regarding recalled meat- and poultry-related products based on their determination that the retailer is present within the local jurisdiction and has received or made the product available to the public. The department, local health officers, and environmental health directors shall not provide this notification for a United States Department of Agriculture Class III recall. (2) In the case of a restaurant, if the local health officers or environmental health directors determine that the recalled meat- or poultry-related product has been removed from the restaurant site, the department, local health officers, and environmental health directors shall not provide the notification required by paragraph (1). (d) The department shall submit to the Legislature for review, by January 1, 2005, copies of all memoranda of understanding pertaining to meat-and poultry-related products. SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution for certain costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district because in that regard this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution. However, notwithstanding Section 17610 of the Government Code, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains other costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code. If the statewide cost of the claim for reimbursement does not exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000), reimbursement shall be made from the State Mandates Claims Fund.

Security Guard Receives $25,000 Reward for Capture of Michael Scarpitti (AKA Tre Arrow)

During the months that Michael Scarpitti (AKA Tre Arrow) was on the FBI’s Most Wanted List, the agency offered a $25,000 reward for information leading to Scarpitti’s arrest. On August 23, FBI officials traveled to Victoria, British Columbia, to present a $25,000 check to the security guard who apprehended Scarpitti in Canada.

Security guard Anthony Bunting stopped Scarpitti as the fugitive attempted to steal a pair of bolt cutters from a Canadian Tire store. Scarpitti claimed his name was Joshua Murray, but Canadian police quickly figured out he was, in fact, Scarpitti.

The FBI also presented a number of officers and investigators from various agencies involved in the arrest and identification of Scarpitti letters of recommendation from FBI Director Robert S. Mueller.

Scarpitti is wanted in connection with two Oregon arsons committed by the Earth Liberation Front. Currently the United States is seeking to extradite Scarpitti who has applied for asylum in Canada.

Source:

Tre Arrow arrest brings BC man $25,000 reward. Bend.Com, August 23, 2004.

Cindy Crawford Changes Mind About Fur

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals was up in arms after yet another defection of a supermodel who would rather go naked than wear fur, unless a fur designer is willing to come through with a paying gig. This time it was Cindy Crawford who has signed on to model for fur company Blackglama.

PETA, in response, has decided to create new posters out of Crawford’s “I’d Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur” shoot,

Anyway, the most amusing part of the whole situation is how Crawford and Blackglama are apparently going to spin Crawford’s suddenly modeling fur — she was never really against fur in the first place!

The New York Post quoted Crawford’s publicist as saying,

This is so unfair. She’s not pretending to be anything she isn’t. It’s so outrageous . . . Cindy was never a PETA spokesperson nor has she taken a stand against fur. She was never in a PETA campaign. All she did was one photo as a favor to Todd Oldham.

Hmmm…so she never notice that PETA was using the photo as part of its anti-fur campaign? Presumably this is the same excuse she uses to explain away that 1995 movie, “Fair Game.” On the other hand, didn’t she notice that she was signing an anti-fur petition?

Come on, the reality is that in the early 1990s, Cindy Crawford thought it would help her publicity and career-wise if she signed on with PETA’s anti-fur campaign. After all, all the other supermodels were doing it. Now, she’s decided it would help her publicity and career-wise if she once again modeled fur. After all, all the other supermodels are doing it.

Crawford’s views on fur are as superficial and insincere as her publicity stills. For a change, I feel absolutely no sympathy for a target of a PETA campaign.

Source:

Onetime PETA cover girl Crawford will model furs. Contra Costa Times, August 20, 2004.

PETA members get ugly over Cindy’s fur u-turn. Ireland On-line, August 26, 2004.

PETA Claws Out for Cindy. New York Post, August 25, 2004.