He’s A Good Boy — He Just Occasionally Commits Acts of Arson!

The Auburn Journal ran an article on March 20 about accused arson Ryan Lewis, 21, who remains in jail in Sacramento while awaiting a trial on federal arson and conspiracy charges.

Lewis, you might remember from our previous coverage of his case, allegedly planted incendiary devices at several sites near Sacramento, most of which failed to ignite. Lewis did allegedly cause about $50,000 in fire damage at an apartment complex that was under construction, but the quick response of the fire department limited damages.

At the site of the attacks, Lewis allegedly claimed the acts in the name of the Earth Liberation Front, allegedly painting “ELF” at two of sites hit by arson.

So the article is a bit odd — the gist of it is that Lewis’ family insisting that he is not a terrorist but simply a low-level vandal.

According to the paper, Lewis’ relatives have been flooding the newspaper with letters making their case that poor Ryan Lewis is simply misunderstood. For example, Lewis’s aunt, Monique Lewis, penned this bit of wisdom about the arsons,

In the ’60s events such as those that Ryan is being accused of would have been considered ‘protesting,’ but now it is labeled ‘terrorism.’

Okay, maybe in parts of the South it might have been considered non-violent to firebomb a Black church or home, but in the rest of the civilized world, such acts were always considered acts of violence. Does Monique Lewis really expect to believe that if someone tried to firebomb her domicile, that she’d just pass it off as nothing more than political protest?

Ryan’s father, Greg, excuses the arsons as simply “political and environmental protest gone awry.” Huh? The only thing that went awry is that most of the devices Lewis planted failed to ignite.

Ryan’s family tries to downplay his connection with any sort of broader Earth Liberation Front conspiracy, but Ryan’s own statement to FBI puts lies to their statements. According to the affidavit filed by the FBI agent investigating the case,

After initially denying any knowledge of the arson attempts, Ryan Lewis admitted to transporting to the Auburn arson scene, components of the incendiary devices knowing that the would be used to commit an arson. These components included six, white, five-gallon buckets containing a mixture of red diesel and gasoline. Ryan Lewis also admitted to having stolen the red diesel fuel from four construction sites in the Auburn area. He also admitted to knowing and being in contact with the individuals who committed the attempted arsons prior to the arsons.

Ryan claimed that he did not have any involvement with the Lincoln arson attempt and that he does not know the identity of the persons who committed that crime or who used his components to commit the Auburn attempted arson. He claimed that following the Lincoln arson attempt, he communicated with the perpetrators of that crime who directed him to deliver the components to the Auburn location.

The statements of Ryan’s friends link him solidly to the first attempted arson, and his own statements link him not only to the other arsons, but to a wider conspiracy involving as-yet-unindicted individuals. By Ryan’s own statements, he’s not some loose cannon running amok by himself, but rather participated in a relatively sophisticated criminal conspiracy that included layers of secrecy to insulate and protect the identities of those involved. Sorry, Greg, but that’s not just “protest gone awry,” but rather a young adult making all the wrong choices.

The Auburn Journal notes that while in prison Ryan has reached out to other extremists,

A posting on the Earth Liberation Prisoners Support Network Web site, www.spiritoffreedom.org.uk, claims “Eco-defense remand prisoner” Lewis has contacted the North American ELP confirming that he welcomes letters of support.

From other information in the affidavits against Ryan Lewis and his friend, it seems Lewis became infatuated with a violent strain of anarchism and saw himself as some sort of modern-day revolutionary doing his part to overthrow “the system.”

It is understandable that Lewis’ family is concerned about his welfare and future, but the bottom line is that people who run around firebombing buildings out of political animus are a menace, and must be dealt with harshly in order to deter those who might think about emulating them. Lewis had numerous opportunities open to him for genuine political protest, but instead chose arson as his means of expressing his discontent. His family asks us to consider mitigating circumstances and try to understand Ryan — something Ryan himself refused to do for others while he was busing fill plastic jugs with gasoline and spray painting “ELF” on his targets.

Assuming he is found guilty, a long prison sentence is more than justified in his case.

Source:

Questions still remain around arson suspects. Penne Usher, Auburn Journal, March 20, 2005.

Tel-Aviv Bans Circuses With Animal Acts

In March, Israeli animal rights group Anonymous for Animal Rights succeeded in persuading Tel-Aviv to ban animal circus acts within the city.

According to a press release from the group,

We are happy to announce that we successfully completed our campaign against animal circus acts, as the Municipality of Tel-Aviv banned animal circus acts.

The Mayor of Tel-Aviv, Ron Huldai, instructed the municipality to avoid any future contracts with circuses that use animals of any sort in their shows.

Its unclear, however, how permanent such a ban is if it depends on the whims of a single individual.

Source:

Tel-Aviv bans circus animal acts. Press Release, Anonymous for Animal Rights, March 13, 2005.

Arkansas Legislature Debates Amendment to State Constitution to Protect Right to Hunt

In March, the Arkansas legislature began debating Senate Joint Resolution 1 which would create a ballot item which, if approved, would amend that state’s constitution to create a right to hunt, fish and trap.

The proposed amendment reads, in part,

(a) Hunting, trapping, fishing, and the taking of wild animals, birds,
and fish are a valued part of our heritage and will be forever preserved for
the people of Arkansas.

No part of this Amendment shall be deemed to supersede Amendment
35 of the Arkansas Constitution or the Game and Fish Commission’s authority
to promulgate rules and regulations consistent with Amendment 35 and this
Amendment.

The Arkansas Fish and Game Commission has expressed concern that the amendment might undermine its ability to regulate hunting, fishing and trapping in the state, which lead the sponsors of the proposed amendment to modify language that was seen as undermining Amendment 35 of the state constitution which created the Fish and Game Commission and empowered it to oversee wildlife conservation in the state.

The amendment was also modified after some feared it would allow hunters to hunt on private property even where property owners did not want hunters.

Some lawmakers, such as Rep. Jodie Mahoney, argued that the amendment was not needed since hunting and fishing are not currently threatened in Arkansas.

Sen. Steve Faris, who co-chairs the joint committee writing the amendment, disagreed noting that hunting, fishing and trapping have come under assault from animal rights activists in other states,

This puts a mechanism in the (state) constitution for hunting and fishing to be forever protected. It’s a sacred thing for this state.

Under Arkansas’ constitution, an amendment only requires that a majority of the both houses of legislature approve it, followed by a majority of voters at the following subsequent election. Currently, supporters of the amendment are aiming to have it on the November 2006 ballot.

The full text of the proposed amendment can be read here.

Source:

‘Right’ word proves irksome. Seth Blomely, March 18, 2005.

Joint committee debates proposed constitutional amendments. Wesley Brown, Arkansas News, March 18, 2005.

Jolene Blalock Speaks Her Mind on Enterprise Demise

Wow, Jolene Blalock speaks her mind in the New York Times on the cancellation of Enterprise,

As Jolene Blalock, who played the Vulcan officer T’Pol on “Enterprise,” explained: “The stories lacked intriguing content. They were boring.” A lifelong “Star Trek” fan, Ms. Blalock said she was dismayed by early “Enterprise” scripts that seemed to ignore basic tenets of the franchise’s chronology, and that offered revealing costumes instead of character development. “The audience isn’t stupid,” she said.

I’ve heard from people that the last couple seasons have been much better, but I imagine a lot of folks were like me who tuned in for the first few episodes of the first season and just never gave the show a second shot.

It also didn’t help that Enterprise was sandwiched between the disaster that was Star Trek: Voyager and the release of the Star Trek: Nemesis film, both of which, if anything, further drove long-time fans away from the franchise when what it desperately needed was to attract new fans. Watching Blalock’s early season strip act was the third strike as far as I was concerned.

The writers complain in the NYT story that it was difficult writing for both long-time fans and newcomers. What the Trek franchise desperately needs is the same sort of reboot that SciFi did with Battlestar Galactica. Do a re-telling and reimagining of TOS with entirely new actors, writers and directors.

Source:

Its Long Trek Over, the Enterprise Pulls Into Dry Dock. Dave Itzkoff, The New York Times, May 1, 2005.

Pat Robertson: Federal Judges More Dangerous Than Al Qaeda

Well, Pat Robertson takes the right wing attacks on federal judges to its logical conclusion by claiming that federal judges are more dangerous to the United States than Al Qaeda, telling ABC’s George Stephanapolous,

Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that’s held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings.

Robertson apparently believes that out-of-control federal judges are more of a threat than Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and the U.S. Civil War.

Wait a week, and Pat will be arguing that the death of Terri Schiavo was worse than the Holocaust and the Black Death.

Source:

Robertson: Judges worse than Al Qaeda. Derek Rose, New York Daily News, May 2, 2005.

Pennsylvania House Bill 213 – Eco-Terrorism

PRIOR PRINTER'S NOS. 215, 1072                PRINTER'S NO. 1177

------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA

------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE BILL

* No. 213 * * Session of 2005 *

------------------------------------------------------------------------

INTRODUCED BY GODSHALL, BALDWIN, BELFANTI, BENNINGHOFF, BUNT, CRAHALLA, CREIGHTON, DENLINGER, FRANKEL, GERGELY, GOODMAN, HERSHEY, HESS, HUTCHINSON, LEDERER, LEH, R. MILLER, S. MILLER, PICKETT, SEMMEL, STABACK, STERN, TANGRETTI, YOUNGBLOOD AND CAUSER, FEBRUARY 2, 2005

------------------------------------------------------------------------

AS AMENDED ON THIRD CONSIDERATION, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MARCH 16, 2005

------------------------------------------------------------------------

AN ACT

1 Amending Titles 18 (Crimes and Offenses) and 42 (Judiciary and 2 Judicial Procedure) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated 3 Statutes, adding an offense and a civil action relating to 4 ecoterrorism.

5 The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 6 hereby enacts as follows: 7 Section 1. Title 18 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated 8 Statutes is amended by adding a section to read: 9 § 3311. Ecoterrorism. 10 (a) General rule.--A person is guilty of ecoterrorism if the 11 person commits an offense against property intending to do any 12 of the following: 13 (1) Intimidate or coerce an individual lawfully: 14 (i) participating in an activity involving animals 15 or an activity involving natural resources; or 16 (ii) using an animal or natural resource facility. 17 (2) Prevent or obstruct an individual from lawfully:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 (i) participating in an activity involving animals 2 or an activity involving natural resources; or 3 (ii) using an animal or natural resource facility. 4 (b) Grading and penalty.-- 5 (1) If the offense against property is a summary 6 offense, an offense under this section shall be classified as 7 a misdemeanor of the third degree. 8 (2) If the offense against property is a misdemeanor or 9 a felony of the third or second degree, an offense under this 10 section shall be classified one degree higher than the 11 classification of the offense against property specified in 12 section 106 (relating to classes of offenses). 13 (3) If the offense against property is a felony of the 14 first degree, a person convicted of an offense under this 15 section shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment fixed by 16 the court at not more than 40 years and may be sentenced to 17 pay a fine of not more than $100,000. 18 (c) Restitution; costs and fees.--Any person convicted of 19 violating this section shall, in addition to any other penalty 20 imposed, be sentenced to pay the owner of any damaged property, 21 which resulted from the violation, restitution, attorney fees 22 and court costs. Restitution shall be in an amount up to triple 23 the value of the property damages incurred as a result of the 24 offense against property. In ordering restitution pursuant to 25 this subsection, the court shall consider as part of the value 26 of the damaged property the market value of the property prior 27 to the violation and the production, research, testing, 28 replacement and development costs directly related to the 29 property that was the subject of the specified offense. 30 (C.1) IMMUNITY.--A PERSON WHO EXERCISES THE RIGHT OF <-- 20050H0213B1177 - 2 -

------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 PETITION OR FREE SPEECH UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION OR 2 THE CONSTITUTION OF PENNSYLVANIA ON PUBLIC PROPERTY OR WITH THE 3 PERMISSION OF THE LANDOWNER WHERE THE PERSON IS PEACEABLY 4 DEMONSTRATING OR PEACEABLY PURSUING HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 5 SHALL BE IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION FOR THESE ACTIONS UNDER THIS 6 SECTION OR FROM CIVIL LIABILITY UNDER 42 PA.C.S. § 8317 7 (RELATING TO ECOTERRORISM). 8 (d) Definitions.--As used in this section, the following 9 words as phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this 10 subsection: 11 "Activity involving animals." A lawful activity involving 12 the use of animals or animal parts, including any of the 13 following: 14 (1) Activities authorized under 30 Pa.C.S. (relating to 15 fish) and 34 Pa.C.S. (relating to game). 16 (2) Activities authorized under the act of December 7, 17 1982 (P.L.784, No.225), known as the Dog Law. 18 (3) Food production, processing and preparation. 19 (4) Clothing manufacturing and distribution. 20 (5) Entertainment and recreation. 21 (6) Research, teaching and testing. 22 (7) Agricultural activity and farming as defined in 23 section 3309 (relating to agricultural vandalism). 24 "Activity involving natural resources." A lawful activity 25 involving the use of a natural resource with an economic value, 26 including any of the following: 27 (1) Mining, foresting, harvesting or processing natural 28 resources. 29 (2) The sale, loan or lease of products which requires 30 the use of natural resources. 20050H0213B1177 - 3 -

------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 "Animal or natural resource facility." A vehicle, building, 2 structure or other premises: 3 (1) where an animal or natural resource is lawfully 4 housed, exhibited or offered for sale; or 5 (2) which is used for scientific purposes involving 6 animals or natural resources, including research, teaching 7 and testing. 8 "Offense against property." An offense under Article C of 9 Part II (relating to offenses against property). 10 Section 2. Title 42 is amended by adding a section to read: 11 § 8317. Ecoterrorism. 12 (a) Civil action and relief.--An individual aggrieved by the 13 offense of ecoterrorism, as defined in 18 Pa.C.S. § 3311(a) 14 (relating to ecoterrorism), may in a civil action in any court 15 of competent jurisdiction obtain appropriate relief, including 16 compensatory and punitive damages, reasonable investigative 17 expenses and reasonable attorney fees and other costs associated 18 with the litigation. Upon a showing of cause for the issuance of 19 injunctive relief, a court may issue temporary restraining 20 orders, preliminary injunctions and permanent injunctions as may 21 be appropriate under this section. During any period that an 22 action under this section is pending, a court may order the 23 cessation of the activity forming the basis of the complaint. 24 (b) Valuations.--In awarding damages under this section, a 25 court shall consider the market value of the property prior to 26 damage and production, research, testing, replacement and 27 development costs directly related to the property that has been 28 damaged as part of the value of the property as well as damage 29 to any records, data and data-gathering equipment or devices. 30 (c) Limitations.--Damages recovered under this section shall 20050H0213B1177 - 4 -

------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 be limited to triple the market value of the property prior to 2 damage and actual damages involving production, research, 3 testing, replacement and development costs directly related to 4 the property that has been damaged. 5 Section 3. This act shall take effect in 60 days.