While I'm doing things I didn't want to, here's something I really, really, didn't want to do. As I mentioned above, much of my time these days is taken up pursuing a Master's degree. My studies are focused on free expression/the First Amendment. This I am doing in lieu of (and, hopefully, in advance of) attending law school, which had been my plan before the SHAC 7 were indicted. Thankfully - and oddly - my conviction is not an absolute bar on practicing law, though it will make my effort to do so more difficult. I still intend to pursue my ultimate goal upon release, of defending activists who follow in the footsteps of the SHAC 7 (at least up to the point at which I succeed in having their cases dismissed in advance of trial! :), and contributing to developing a legal framework for increasing legal protections for non-humans. Earning my Master's degree during this time will bring this goal much closer to reality.

But I've gotten myself into a bit of a pickle. I climbed aboard without securing my ticket for the ride. That is, I don't actually have the funds to pay the tuition for grad school. A small portion of it was paid early on, but my last few quarters, though completed, have not been paid for. At this point, my account has been turned over to collections - and I'm guessing I don't get my degree until that minor matter is cleared up.

Since I began school in June 2007, friends and fellow activists have urged me to publicly solicit funds for this purpose, but I have consistently refused. The "public" whose ear I have is the Animal Rights Movement. And, while I hope my education will be a valuable long term investment for the animals, I feel quite uncomfortable collecting funds for this purpose when there is so much need on behalf of organizations and individuals working directly for the animals today, and especially after the SHAC 7, myself included, have relied so heavily upon the generosity of this movement for our legal expenses.

But a letter from a Collection's Agency has caused me to reconsider. As I have contemplated the best role for me to play in the future of the movement, I have concluded that my greatest talent is an aptitude for the law, that there is a need for such skills in our movement, and that I should not abandon an opportunity to use these skills for this purpose out of my own discomfort regarding the propriety of asking the movement to make an investment in them. Certainly people can decide for themselves whether such a contribution is worthwhile.

I did not come to this decision lightly. But come to it I have, and I now ask, reluctantly and humbly, for your contributions to keep my in school by getting me out of collections. My preference, and my hope, is that this plea reach those with the finances enough that they needn't choose between contributing for this purpose and donating to efforts directly on behalf of the animals. If you face this choice, please make you contribution to the latter. But I am distributing my plea broadly in the hope that is reaches the financially well off who I am unable to contact directly.

To be clear, I am not seeking to receive funds personally. Rather, I am looking for individuals who may wish to contribute directly to the University for the specific purpose of covering tuition for my Master's degree. If you are interested and able to do so - that is, able to contribute without impairing your ability to contribute to more pressing animal issues - I would be very grateful. My time in prison has only strengthened my resolve to focus my life's work on this cause, and your contribution today is an investment in my future work in its service.

Contributions may be made payable to:
Antioch University - McGregor
Memo Line: "Lauren Gazzola"

and mailed to the following address:
Lauren Gazzola's Education Fund
C/O Pattrice Jones
13981 Reading Ferry Rd.
Princess Anne, MD 21853

Donations will be held and bundled so checks may not clear right away. Please be patient and rest assured, all money donated will go directly towards paying for Lauren's college tuition.

Any questions, simply e-mail info@supportlauren.com
(this e-mail is checked with more regularity than the myspace, so please ask questions there)

Editors note: as a quick aside, Lauren wrote this before the economy of this country imploded and wanted to make it clear, that asking for monetary help at this time of economic strife causes her even further reservations, but again, she is desperate for help and in my opinion, fully deserving of it.

I really didn't want to do this. That is, start school and stop everything else - reading fiction, writing letters, posting blogs. But now it is November '08, and I am only on Harry Potter 5, I owe my mom a letter, and it has been nearly a year since I posted my last blog. I must admit that I feel a bit as though I have lost touch with the outside world.

However, this is not entirely bad. Long ago, prison ceased to be about what I'm not doing (seeing friends and family, pursuing law school, attending protests), and became about what I am doing: earning my Masters, determining what role in the movement I can best fill in the future, setting goals and achieving them and walking out of here better than when I walked in. To answer my question posted earlier, these are some of the ways to measure a year.

In at least one significant respect, though, I do not feel at all out of touch. Your support has continued to pour in, and I am reminded by my name posted on the mail list daily that we are not forgotten. Thank You. Even better, when I hear about 650 mink released in Utah, 6000 in Canada, and 2000 more in Germany, and that HLS recently lost another dozen shareholders, I know that, in the long run, the imprisonment of the SHAC 7, of HLS campaigners in the U.K. and of AR activists in Austria will be short chapters in the successful story of the animal rights movement. You all are getting along fine without us.

Indeed, another of these chapters may soon come to an end. Oral Arguments in the SHAC 7 appeal is expected for January in Philadelphia. I encourage you all to attend (and I ask you sincerely to dress conservatively). The importance of the SHAC 7 case has always been less about the effect such a prosecution has on the lives of the defendants individually, and much more about the right of every person to speak controversially. To do so boldly, and to join with others in doing so collectively. A large public showing at oral arguments is a powerful image of what is at stake.

And what will be the outcome of this opus? I recently read the government's brief opposing our arguments on appeal. I was stunned. "Please," I said over and over again, "someone, give him more rope!" This brief said everything short of an explicit admission that the defendants are not guilty. I couldn't believe it. I felt, upon finishing the brief, just as I'd felt at the close of the State's argument in my Massachusetts indictment in 2004: "Do these people read these cases?" The MA case was dismissed in advance of trial. I can sum up my expectations about the SHAC 7 appeal as such: I expect we will win more that I hope it. That is, if we lose, I'll live. But I will be utterly shocked. If we lose, I will be surprised much more than I will be saddened.

As my codefendant stated what now seems such a short time ago - this will all be over sooner than we think. And when it is, two, three, four years in prison for six activists won't matter so much as what we accomplished in that time. Are we smarter? Are we stronger? Are we better poised, as a movement and as individual activists, to go forward with efforts and activism that will take the animals toward freedom? Have we learned? Have we grown? The potential for the answers to these questions to be "no" - for me personally and for the movement - has been my only true source of distress in this entire experience. But I know that, at least personally, I can determine that answer now, by using this time effectively, despite its being so very difficult at times. I implore each of you to do the same. This time is only wasted if we don't make something of it.

There is a possibility these may be my final words to you from prison. In the event that they are, I want to be sure to close with my thanks to each and every person who has supported us and who continued fighting for the animals during our hiatus. I have never before felt the power of our movement so forcefully as I have in prison. I am re-focused, re-energized, and re-inspired, and I can't wait to rejoin you all on the picket lines.

My sincerest thanks and irrepressible excitement,
Lauren

Lauren's Birthday is a little over a week away. So now is the time to get the cards, letters and well wishes rolling in! Obviously, prison is a bad place to have to spend a birthday and I know Lauren would love to hear from all of you to make her birthday a little brighter.

Lauren Gazzola
93497-011
FCI Danbury
Federal Correctional Institution
Route 37
Danbury, CT 06811

Lauren's Co-defendants Jake & Josh both have birthdays coming up. Write Them!

Jake's Birthday is February 3rd. Please write to him, and feel free to send some photobooth pictures in celebration.

JACOB CONROY
93501-011
FCI VICTORVILLE MEDIUM I
FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
P.O. BOX 5300
ADELANTO, CA 92301

Josh's Birthday is January 31st! Please take the time to write him a letter and help him feel connected to the active world on this humbling occasion in prison.

You can mail letters, cards, and postcards directly to Josh at:

Joshua Harper
29429-086
FCI Sheridan
Federal Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 5000
Sheridan, OR 97378

Another January 31st birthday belongs to fellow activist, prisoner and great friend, Jonathan Paul. Please get in touch and lift his spirits as he spends his first birthday since beginning his sentence in late October.

Jonathan Paul
07167-085
FCI Phoenix
Federal Correctional Institution
37910 N. 45th Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85086

Thursday, 11/15/07

"In daylight? In sunsets? In midnights? In cups of coffee? In inches? In miles? In laughter? In strife?...525,600 minutes..."

Rent-heads will recognize the above lyrics as wondering, "How do you measure a year?" Today I have served 52 weeks of my 54 month sentence; tomorrow will be one year.

I find it astonishing that I have been in prison for a year. On the outside, there are so many markers of the passage of time: places you've traveled, people you've seen, even small things like a movie you saw or something you bought. All of these things mark time in ways we don't normally realize. Only in a place where each day is a near as one can get to exactly the same as the day before can you really appreciate the variety of a seemingly uneventful life on the outside. Here, time seems to fold in upon itself. This is neither good nor bad; it is neither pleasant nor unpleasant -- it's just surreal. You'd have to experience it to understand.

But a year is a benchmark nonetheless, and today I am looking back. Most importantly, this year went by incredibly fast. You might expect that the sameness from one day to the next would cause time to drag. But for me it absolutely flew. I feel like I just got here.

Secondly, the panic never set in. The best way to describe my feelings walking through that door last year is "underwhelming." I recall that the officer processing me in asked if I'd ever been in prison
before. "No," I told her. "You seem very calm," she said. And I was.

While on house arrest last year, Peter Young and I exchanged letters. Around late summer, as my date to surrender neared, I dared to confess to Peter that, in some ways, I was looking forward to prison. Some time to be away from the responsibilities of my life, not to have to be ambitious, not to have to accomplish anything. Ironically, I saw prison as time not to have to think about how what I do now will affect the future -- my future, the future of animal rights. I saw it as a break.

Certainly this would wear off as the date approached. My nerves would become unsettled. I would be anxious and scared. The moment the door shut behind me, the panic would set in. But I never was and it never did.

At the time I self-surrendered, this facility was overcrowded and I was put in the hole to await a bed on the compound. I was put in a 2-person cell with two people already in it. The only bed space was a
mattress on the floor. I lay down and felt so good. "I don't have to do anything" was my first thought. The day before, I'd reached the end of my to-do list for essentially the first time in 10 years. As I lay on that mattress, I felt the unfamiliar, very pleasant sensation of not being restless, not feeling like I should be doing something other than nothing.

Much as I enjoyed the respite from my busy life, time in the hole did nothing to change my fundamental nature and, after two weeks, I was ready to be out of there and doing things. I remember waking up one
morning and thinking, "Okay, I've had enough of this." A few hours later, I was released out into the compound.

As 52 months stretched out before me, I didn't see how I could ever be bored. There was so much I wanted to read, so many things I wanted to learn, so many muscles I wanted to exercise -- mental and physical. Again, though, I figured I must be crazy. Why was I viewing this as an opportunity? I even considered that I might really have a chemical imbalance: too much serotonin, an inability to feel bad in unpleasant situations. Otherwise, the novelty was bound to wear off. Probably, the higher I was, the harder I'd fall. But the fall, like the panic and the boredom, never came.

As I consider where I stand a year after coming here, my strongest feeling is one of equanimity. I am so grateful to be able to see the hue of the grass I'm standing on, to realize that, though there is the green of my family and friends and freedom on the other side, there is some green grass here too. I've read more in the past year than in many other years combined. The gym here is free. And I actually keep in better touch with many of my friends and family from here than I had at home.

Granted, I have been very fortunate. Both I and my family are healthy. The level of violence in women's prisons is low. This facility has a salad bar. A change in any one of these could easily turn the situation from one of inconvenience to downright misery. Anyone reading recent articles in the Earth First! Journal by various imprisoned animal and eco activists will gather that it is difficult to
generalize about prison experiences.

But it hasn't been all fun and games for me either. I'm convinced I live with the 1400 most irritating people on Earth. I often can't fall asleep at night because I lie there fantasizing about vegan goodies. And I've definitely had more than one infuriating encounter with staff.

But it is precisely in these hardships that I find value in my ability to see the glass as half-full. It is easy to be happy when everything is pleasant. But it feels amazing to be able to be happy in spite of so much that is unpleasant.

Before living it myself, I thought the claim that they could never imprison our hearts and minds was empty rhetoric, a meaningless platitude, cliche, truly a bunch of hooey. If I were in prison, I thought, I'd never be able to feel beyond my immediate confinement. But I was so, so wrong. I can count my truly bad days here on one hand. In my situation, I still have the freedom to choose between rotting in prison and thriving. I insist on doing the latter.

My mom sent me a note recently that said, "Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass. It's about learning to dance in the rain." I do love to dance.

I can't believe it was ten years ago this month that I first stood in a
picket line, the first protest I'd ever attended. We stood in front of
NYU's Bobst Library protesting the University's continued transfer of
chimpanzees to the notorious Coulston Foundation in New Mexico. Since
that day, much has happened: NYU's student animal rights group won
retirement to sanctuaries for the remaining chimpanzees in November,
1997; the Coulston Foundation closed in 2002; the global effort against
HLS was born in 1999; Peter Young went on the run, was caught, went to
prison, and came out; I graduated NYU in 2000; and, oh yeah, I'm in
prison. These things, and many more (including several victories for
the animals) have sped past in the way that all things do when we stop
and look back. On that September day in 1997, I stood in front of the
library holding a sign that read: "Ashamed NYU Graduate." I left the
protest half an hour early to attend my first college class.

I've grown a lot over the past ten years, as a person and as an
activist. I've changed my mind on ethics and tactics, and sometimes
I've changed it back. I've overcome challenges that seemed
insurmountable, risen to occasions from which I wanted to shrink, and
pushed myself to seemingly unsurpassable limits -- all of which look
modest from the other side. I've learned a lot in ten years, and not
always the easy way.

Among the letters that always end up on the top of my pile of "people
to respond to" are those I receive from young people: high school
students, college students, people in their teens and early twenties,
many of whom are just getting involved in activism. Unfortunately these
letters often end up in the middle of the pile as more quickly get
piled on top, and I don't always get to everyone. I know that there are
many more people new to activism who don't write me. I wish I could
speak to them too.

Since I can't speak to everyone directly, I'd like to share here some
of what I learned in the past decade, things I wish I'd known that day
in September in 1997 and in the months and years that followed. I have
no desire to patronize -- much of what I've learned has been from
people younger than I am and people who have been active for a shorter
time than I have been. I hope I'm not actually old enough to claim the
wisdom that only comes with much time. Nonetheless, it's axiomatic that
I know more now than I did a decade ago, and maybe it would be useful
to others for me to share. Use what works, leave the rest, and be sure
to pass your lessons on to those who travel the path after you.

Think Big
If I could impart just one thing to those just starting out as
activists, it would be this: Think big. This is something I learned
from certain of my codefendants, and not until several years after
getting involved in protest campaigns. Many of us feel very small in
relation to the world, though we don't even realize it. Elections seem
much too big to be affected by our one vote, laws are passed in spite
of our letter in opposition, and corporations dominate economics on a
macro scale that rarely has any measurable impact on our individual
lives. Similarly, especially for those of us in our 30s and younger,
major movements for social change seem to have been carried out long
ago (as everything that happened before we were born feels relegated to
some remote past), by famous leaders, under circumstances that appear
quite different from today. The Civil Rights Movement, Vietnam
protests, and labor struggles of the 20th century have almost mythic
status and, much as we don't see ourselves as Odysseus, nor can we see
ourselves as Martin Luther King Jr. or Malcolm X. Or at least I
couldn't.

Prior to my involvement in efforts against HLS, activism was something
I did with little thought of the ultimate goal. We may or may not get
there, but what was important was that we were doing it. Either way,
our efforts for animals were certainly not things that would be
remembered: We'd have no lunch counter sit-ins, Freedom Rides, or "I
Have a Dream" speeches that would be recalled by future generations.
Though I went through the motions of activists before me -- I
protested, I sat it, I collected petition signatures -- subconsciously
I separated the efforts of the animal rights movement from the "real"
movements in the history books.

It was in a bar (more of a dive) on the Lower East Side of NYC, after
just enough drinks that our conversation seemed very profound, that my
codefendant said something that was very profound: He saw the animal
rights movement as the Civil Rights Movement of today -- a movement for
fundamental change, whose time is ripe now and, most importantly, one
that would succeed. What hit me, more than what he said, was that he
believed it. Why didn't I?

It's hard to see the ultimate power of something while you're in the
midst of it, and there is a natural reluctance to compare ourselves to
those we admire. But as I began to think more about it, I realized the
only relevant difference between the Civil Rights protesters and us,
between MLK and Malcolm X and you and I, is what they did -- it was
what they did that made them great.

My routine and obligatory attendance at weekly protests didn't feel
great because it wasn't; I subconsciously felt that two hours of
protest a week wouldn't drive fur from department stores because it
wouldn't. It isn't enough to call oneself an activist, punch in with
the protest clock, and punch out at the end. I couldn't see myself
doing things as great as the people in the history books because I
wasn't.

But we can. And we can accomplish as much. It is a matter of declaring
(to ourselves most of all) big goals and doing what it takes to
accomplish them. The HLS campaign has demonstrated that even the
world's biggest and most politically-connected corporations are
vulnerable to strategy and determination. But for what you have done to
bring HLS to its knees, you may seem very small by comparison. But you
have done it, it has worked, and I think you all are very great. I
expect history will judge similarly.

Presentation Matters
I've attended more than a few demonstrations holding ratty signs,
passing our flyers copied on horrible machines, wearing big pants and
band t-shirts, surrounded by people with greasy hair and tattoos on
their necks and just generally looking like a bunch of idealistic kids
taking up a cause because that's what idealistic kids do. Did we really
think this didn't harm our efforts?

I spent way too much time early on debating this point, with myself and
with other activists. Should we look more like the people who saw us at
the demonstration? Or should we look like ourselves? On the one hand, I
saw that people were more likely to listen to us if we looked
"presentable." But on the other hand, I didn't want to be required to
conform in order for people to be willing to hear us. I now recognize
how asinine the latter view is.

True, we shouldn't have to look like the people to whom we're
outreaching in order to get them to listen to us. But we do. And we
advocate from where we are, not where we wish we were. And where we are
these days is in a place where people respond most to the message in
the prettiest package. Advocacy is marketing.

Advocacy is also an effort at balancing positives and negatives in
order to yield the most net good. Among the opponents I've had when
arguing the "conformity" side of the debate are those who say we
shouldn't compromise one set of values for another (and this point
extends beyond the relatively minor matter of personal expression in
our appearance). But some forms of oppression, exploitation, and
suffering are simply worse than others. Believing that we can advocate
for any cause and never compromise any of our other values is both
impractical and unrealistic. Every time we get in a car to drive to a
demonstration we decide that the good we'll do at the demo yields more
good than the bad done by driving the car.

I'm going to go a step beyond saying "look presentable" and say "look
attractive." This goes for your personal appearance (at least while
representing the animal rights message, which I realize is arguably
always) as well as your propaganda. People respond to celebrities,
advertisements, and some images more than others because they're
"pretty." Look pretty. Make your flyers eye-catching. Does this
perpetuate unrealistic standards of beauty. Mhmm. Does it place more
value on appearance than substance? Yup. But dying in a vivisection lab
is worse.

To the extent that we endeavor to convince people of our own message
(and no matter how large a contribution is made by direct action
campaigns against specific exploitative companies and industries, the
fact remains that the job isn't done until we change the minds and
habits of nearly every person on earth), we should endeavor equally to
give it to them in the most palatable package. To the extent that we
care about other issues along with animal rights, we should deliver
those too in a manner that will yield the most benefit to that cause
with the least cost to others. But at various times one will have to
take precedence over others. Otherwise you can tell an animal slated to
die in a slaughterhouse that you won't comb your hair/ put on make-up/
cover your tattoos because it perpetuates unrealistic standards of
beauty.

Don't Waste Your Arrests
This is something that I always felt to be a good idea but didn't know
just how valuable a clean(ish) record could be until I was sentenced in
the SHAC7 case.

When you are sentenced for a crime, your prior record is taken into
account by the court.
In federal court, at least, any felony or misdemeanor conviction and
any lesser offense carrying a sentence of 30 days or more add points to
the calculation of your sentence for the present offense. This can add
months or years to your sentence. Case in point: In the SHAC7 case,
both Andy and Darius were convicted of the same single count in the
indictment -- violating the Animal Enterprise Protection Act. Darius'
sentence was one year; Andy's was three, the difference owing largely,
if not entirely, to Andy's history of convictions.

To be clear, I certainly am not condemning my codefendant for his
criminal record. It stems from a long history of excellent work for the
animals. Nor am I saying "avoid all risk of arrest" or suggesting that
every arrest will add time to some larger sentence you'll face down the
road. Indeed, very few activists will find themselves in the shoes of
the SHAC7. Additionally, while a federal Pre-Sentencing Report will
report all of your arrests, only convictions -- and only those for
felonies, misdemeanors, and lesser charges carrying sentences of 30
days or more -- will add points to the calculation of your sentencing
guidelines. Every time we attend a protest there is a risk, usually
very minor, that we'll be arrested. These sorts of arrests generally
result in very minor charges, such as disorderly conduct or trespass.
Often they don't lead to any conviction, and rarely do they result in
any jail sentence, much less one for more than 30 days. In short, don't
shy away from protests.

What I am saying is this: Convictions compound themselves and can have
consequences beyond their individual sentences. Make each one count for
something.

• First and foremost, get arrested for the animals, not for jumping
turnstiles, shoplifting, etc. We need activists out of jail and working
for the animals, not spending extra time in jail because they have
prior convictions for shoplifting.

• Don't argue with police for the sake of doing so; don't sit down in
the street because they arrested your friend. Where do you expect this
will get you other than in jail too? Sometimes we have to get arrested
to make a point that will help activists in the future; lawsuits
challenging certain laws or police behavior often must stem from some
arrest resulting from the improper position/application of the law or
behavior. And it is not an entirely uncommon thing for activists to
know their rights better than police officers. I'm all for demanding
our rights and suing to get them if necessary, and I believe many of
these arrests are worthwhile. But arguing with police officers because
you don't want to move onto the curb usually is not.

• Think about your actions. Are you getting the most bang for your
buck? Are you considering the cost in resources of lawyers, legal fees,
time dealing with court cases? Can you do something that will have an
equal impact but not result in arrest? If you do want to blockade
doors, do you really need to be locked to the thing doing the blocking?
Civil disobedience can be a valuable tool in the toolbox but if you can
have an equal impact with a smaller chance of arrest, I think it better
to err away from voluntary arrest if it's otherwise all the same.

• Lastly, don't plead guilty, to your charge or a lesser charge, just
to get the case over with. There are certainly times when it is more
strategic to plead rather than pursue the case, but being sick of
dealing with a case, moving away, or not feeling like showing up for
court are not among them. Convictions for convenience are never
worthwhile.

As activists, we're all bound to face arrests now and again. Not every
one of my pre-SHAC7 arrests was "worth it" and I certainly didn't plan
for every one of them. But I did the best I could and tried to stick
with what seemed worth it at the time. In the end, my criminal history
did not add time to my SHAC7 sentence and I'll be out of prison as
early as possible to keep fighting for the animals.

Use Force
This is something I'd like most of all to say to those engaged in
student activism.

This is not necessarily a suggestion to use physical force, and
certainly not one to use violence against people. Rather it is meant to
dispel the notion that victories on campus require anything less than
what is necessary to achieve them off campus. When you fight a
university administration for fundamental change on campus, more often
than not you have to force them to make it.

By November of my freshman year at NYU, I'd occupied the University
President's office and, along with my fellow occupiers, secured
retirement to sanctuaries for the remaining chimpanzees slated to be
sent to the Coulston Foundation. I spent much of the next three and a
half years writing op-eds for the student newspaper, staffing
information tables, collecting petition signatures, and never
accomplishing as much as I did during the 24 hours in that office.

As in the rest of the world, some things on campus can be accomplished
through negotiation, petition drives, and outreach alone, while others
require a much heavier hand. Implementing a vegan food program in NYU's
dining halls, for example, was best accomplished by demonstrating
student demand and working with the director of the dining halls to
hash out logistics and get the word out. Challenging vivisection on
NYU's campus, however, decidedly was not.

During my time at NYU, I handed out thousands of leaflets, staffed well
over a hundred tables, met with University officials a half dozen
times, and wrote dozens of op-ed pieces. And every time I did, the Vice
President of Public Affairs ran a piece the next day accusing student
activists -- and often me personally -- of refusing to go through
"proper channels" and of generally behaving unreasonably in our efforts
to publicize and halt vivisection on campus. Ten years later, I concede
that he was right.

I was being unreasonable. It was unreasonable of me to bother
collecting student signatures, thinking they'd outweigh the other
interests driving animal experiments in NYU labs. It was unreasonable
of me to engage in an interminable exchange of op-ed pieces and allow
that to distract me from more effective action. Most importantly, it
was unreasonable of me to think that stopping vivisection at NYU would
be a matter of winning the argument.

The factors that drive exploitative practices at universities are no
different -- and no less powerful -- than those that drive them at
corporations. And rest assured that the university president, vice
presidents, and other administration officials will defend these
practices no less fiercely than any CEO or Chairman of the Board. They
will dispatch their own public relations people -- the "Vice President
of Public Affairs" -- to keep critics at arm's length, protect the
university's interests, and portray your efforts as a "threat to
academic freedom," disrespectful of research, and an abandonment of
reasoned debate. When put forward within the context of an institution
of higher learning, such sound-bites have an even greater impact than
they do on the general public; universities are purportedly places
where reasoned debate and critical inquiry supposedly trump special
interests and where change can be accomplished through democratic
efforts and by way of the so-called "proper channels."

Make no mistake: Universities are not so high and mighty that they are
exempt from the forces that control most every other institution in the
world. The people who work and study at them are not so different from
most other people. (Indeed, much of the public at large came from
college themselves.) Just like everyone else, schools have a bottom
line. And just like everywhere else, the "proper channels" are the ones
that work.

Closing
I've certainly learned more than four things in the past 10 years --
and am learning still -- but I'll close for now. Perhaps some of what
I've written will be helpful, perhaps you'll find some of it highly
contentious and other of it entirely useless. Whatever you think of my
latest blog entry, I thank everyone who has taught me over the years
and encourage all of you to keep learning, keep sharing, and keep
fighting.

Lauren

"Hello Everyone. I'm writing to apologize in advance for what will surely be an even poorer rate of response to your letters that I've already had up to this point. You see, right before I came to prison last November - literally 3 days before - I was accepted to Graduate School to pursue a Master's Degree in the First Amendment, and the university had graciously permitted me to earn it from prison. This was a goal I had, to use my time here as best I could to help reach my ultimate goals of attending law school and practicing free speech law (defending all of you!) I still plan to pursue these goals after my release.

So, I began school on July 2nd, and am very, VERY, busy with it. So please accept my apologies if I am unable to respond to your letters. I will still be writing back to people, but it's bound to be fewer of you, and to take longer than it would otherwise. Please know I appreciate all of your mail and support - the AR movement does amazing jail support (more on that another time). I will understand if I end up with less mail, but please know, if you do write, I read your letters and am very thankful for them, even if I am unable to respond.
Again, thank you all so much for your support.
Lauren"

Editors Note: Due to some issues with lost letters between Lauren and her support committee this latest blog is long overdue. We apologize for the lateness in publishing this blog and are working the issues out to make sure it doesn't happen again.

The Rod Blog

06/30/07

Leafing through the New York Times yesterday, what do I suddenly see? - a half page article on Rod Coronado. "Holy ____!" I exclaimed. Then, reading it, I came across words I'd thought Rod would be the last person ever to utter: "I don't believe anymore in illegal direct action."

Every communication from prison to the outside world seems to take eons longer then any within the free world. So I imagine that, by the time you all read this, discussion over the article will have died down. But I can imagine what is happening now, as I write this. Emails are racing back and forth on email lists and inboxes are filling up with threads of the discussion: "Re: Re: Re: Re: Rod doesn't support illegal direct action." Some people will send several emails a day on this topic, denouncing Rod's public comments, or perhaps defending his change of heart. Still more people will be disheartened to hear Rod rebuke that position for which he has been best known for more than a decade. They will be saddened to see the individual who has (in the U.S.) carried the torch of illegal action longest and burned it the brightest, lay it down. I've endured these e-mail threads, overflowing inboxes, lengthy arguments for days and weeks on end, on several occasions. And time after time I am cognizant of the ratio of email banter to increased action. Many of those most vocal in these discussions haven't been seen at a demo in years. and I can't remember a time when vocal denouncements of others have been accompanied by a measurable increase in reported action.

To be clear, I do feel that discussion of tactics, public image, of consistency and of changing course is important for the health and efficacy of the movement. And most activists are not confined to such limited time that they cannot discuss and advocate, discuss and demonstrate, discuss and liberate; a half hour spent discussing is not necessarily a half hour less spent demonstrating. Unfortunately however, in practice, time and time again, I've seen "activists" who haven't been active in years roused to furious discussion of other people's tactics; I've watched multitudes introduce themselves to Rod and tell him they could never do what he's done - I've received letters to the effect myself. In practice, admiration and argument often do replace personal activism.

I've obviously never "directly acted" with Rod outside the bounds of the law - I believe I was in middle school while he was liberating animals and burning things down. But I've been to demonstrations with him. I've spoken at conferences with him and written articles for the same publications. We've handed out leaflets together, protested at homes together, and done jail support together. And from this I take inspiration: seeing this monument to illegal direct action continuing to work for the animals in so many other ways long after his illegal direct action career has ended; to know that, while so many "activists" are discussing, denouncing or admiring the tactics of others, Rod is out there engaging in them. More than a beacon of advocacy for illegal action, I see Rod as a person who, for nearly two decades, through persecution, prosecution, and prison, whatever it was he felt was most effective for the animals at that time, he was out there doing it: when he thought it was exposing horrifying images from animal abuse industries, he did it; when he thought it was liberating animals and burning down buildings, he was out there doing it; when he thought it was most effective to sab hunts, he went out and did it. And if he feels now that legal advocacy, activism, and education are most effective, he'll be out there doing it. That is more then I can say for very many activists I've met over the years, no matter how vehement their opinions, or how loudly they express them.

To echo a recent blog by my co-defendant Jake Conroy, we must be our own heroes; we must do the things that inspire so much admiration within us for others. Let our heroes be mirrors and measures against which we assess and compare ourselves - are we living up to that which we believe to be best? To those who value bumper sticker wisdom: do not be content to admire the change you wish to see in the world, "Be the change you want to see in the world."

There is a chance, however remote it may seem, that each and every SHAC 7 defendant will one day denounce his or her previous activism, change our minds about strategy, tactics or efforts against HLS as a whole and resign ourselves to holding vegan potlucks for the rest of our lives. Readers may scoff at this suggestion but if you've lived in this world for even a short time, you know that anything is possible. And if this happens, I hope you all will shrug it off, because you'll be able to say that you have been doing all you can for the animals, because you and those around you will give your all with or without us. Shrug it off, keep fighting - and bring a tofu dish.

There is a strong temptation that my writing from prison should invariably rally free activists to "keep fighting," "don't back down," and "be fearless." At the same time however, while I certainly feel all of those things, I am also keenly aware that this movement needs more than cheerleaders. It is not enough to fight -- we must fight strategically. And our strategy must account for the efforts of our opposition.

I have heard a lot of misinformation about the SHAC7 case recently: that the interstate stalking charges stemmed from crossing state lines to attend protests; that our conviction has created case law (legal precedent); etc. I wish to present as accurate a description of the allegations against the SHAC7 as I can, as I think it imperative that we all correctly understand the government's most time- and resource-intensive effort against HLS activists yet. I apologize in advance for any boredom this account might induce.

NOTE: The discussion below pertains entirely to the allegations against the SHAC7, as asserted by the government. Nothing contained herein should be construed as an admission of said allegations or related facts.

First, it is important to note that the SHAC7 case has not created legal precedent, or "case law," upon which subsequent prosecutions may be based. Only appellate decisions create case law. For this reason, there is even more riding on the SHAC7 appeal, as far as the movement is concerned, than there was on the trial itself.

Why Was the Case Federal?
There seems to be a sense that being charged with a federal crime is somehow "worse" than being charged with as state crime in the same way that a felony is worse than a misdemeanor. In a technical sense, this is not correct. "Federal" law refers to a jurisdiction, specifically that jurisdiction which the federal government may regulate, versus that which is reserved for the states. "Federal" does not refer to the magnitude of the crime.

Among the activities that the federal government may regulate is interstate commerce (and that activity which affects interstate commerce.) That is why drug possession is generally treated as a state offense while drug transactions may be treated as federal offenses. Federal law also covers those crimes committed on federal property.

In a practical (as opposed to technical) sense, however, finding yourself the subject of a federal investigation and/or indictment can be worse than the same at a state level. The investigative and prosecutorial resources of the federal government are generally superior to that of the states. This includes higher paid and better trained law enforcement (FBI) and prosecutors, as well as more financial and material resources. (Here, I speak generally; this is not at all an indication of my opinion of the government's investigation and prosecution of the SHAC7. Very briefly I will say that the government won its case against the SHAC7 due to the jury's inability to grasp an accurate understanding of First Amendment protections, not through stellar investigative or prosecutorial work.)

On the other hand, there are upsides to being in federal court. For one, judges tend to be both more conscientious and more knowledgeable of constitutional law. This is especially true at the appellate level, where the consideration of substantive legal (including constitutional) questions and the drafting of reasoned opinions are commonplace.

Unfortunately, juries in both state and federal court are often dumb as shit.

The federal element in the SHAC7 case -- the element of the alleged crimes which rendered them federal -- was use of the internet. The internet, phones, and mail are all "facilities in interstate commerce," meaning that they affect commerce between the states. Each count of the SHAC7 indictment alleged that the defendants named therein had either used, conspired to use, or aided and abetted the use of a facility in interstate commerce -- namely, the internet -- to commit the alleged crimes.

The Allegations
In addition to the internet, the other major aspect underpinning the government's allegations against the SHAC7 was conspiracy. Under the law, an illegal conspiracy is an agreement among two or more individuals to commit an illegal act. The crux of the crime of conspiracy is the agreement; the agreed-upon act need not be carried out in order for the independent crime of conspiracy to have been committed. In addition to the agreement to commit and illegal act, the only other element required of an illegal conspiracy is the commission by at least one party to the agreement of an "overt act" in furtherance of the conspiracy; the overt act need not be illegal in and of itself.

The classic demonstrative example of an illegal conspiracy is a bank robbery. If five people agree to rob a bank and one of those individuals purchases ski masks to be used during the robbery, all five people are guilty of an illegal conspiracy, even though no independently illegal act has been committed and even though four of the parties to the agreement have not taken any action in furtherance of the robbery.

Three of the counts in the SHAC7 indictment were conspiracy counts: Count 1 (Violation of the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, or "animal enterprise terrorism"); Count 2 (Conspiracy to commit Interstate Stalking); and Count 6 (Violation of the Communications Act of 1934). In short, the government's theory on those counts was that the defendants agreed with one another and/or other "unindicted coconspirators" (read: other activists) to use the internet to engage in activity which satisfied the elements of each offense charged, and that at least one of the individuals (either one of the defendants or one of the "unindicted [and generally unidentified] coconspirators") took some action to further that agreement.

The three remaining counts of the indictment were substantive (not conspiracy) stalking counts. These required that the defendants either themselves engaged in activity that constituted interstate stalking, or committed acts which provided assistance to someone else, allowing the latter to successfully commit acts which constituted interstate stalking (aiding and abetting).

The Elements
The elements of each count of the SHAC7 indictment, each of which the government was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, are as follows:

• Count 1: Animal Enterprise Terrorism
(1) that the defendants used or caused to be used a facility in interstate commerce for the purpose of causing physical disruption to the functioning of an animal enterprise;
-AND-
(2) that the defendants damaged or caused the loss of property used by the animal enterprise, or conspired to do so.

• Counts 2-5: Stalking
(1) that the defendants used a facility in interstate commerce;
(2) that they did so with the intent of placing a person in another state in reasonable fear of the death or serious bodily injury to that person, a member of the immediate family of that person, or a spouse or intimate partner of that person;
(3) that they used the facility in interstate commerce to engage in a course of activity that did in fact place said person in such fear;
(4) or that they aided and abetted others to do so.

NOTE: Count 2 required that the defendants conspired to commit acts which satisfied each of these elements, while counts 3-5 required that the defendants either themselves engaged in activity which satisfied each of these elements, or that the defendants aided and abetted others to do so, against a specific victim for each count.

• Count 6: Violation of the Communications Act of 1934
That the defendants made a telephone call or utilized a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensued, without disclosing their identities and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number who received the communications, or that they conspired to do so.

It was not specifically alleged (nor did any evidence come into the case to suggest) that any of the SHAC7 defendants had him/herself engaged in any independent illegal act, but merely that each had "agreed" (conspired) that such acts would be committed, or "helped" (aided and abetted) others to commit them.

For example, the gist of the government's argument on Count 6 was that the defendants had encouraged (on the website) people to send blank faxes and that others (not the defendants) then sent them. As explained briefly below, this theory of liability is a big fat failure in light of First Amendment protections. (For those looking for a further articulation of this protection than the summary I have provided below, read the U.S. Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio.) Nonetheless, this was the government's theory throughout the case: that the defendants had agreed to close HLS, and that we could be held liable for the illegal acts of others due to either this agreement (conspiracy) or because we provided political assistance (aided and abetted) those who committed illegal acts.

The First Amendment
The big problem with the government's theory is that the alleged assistance constituting the defendants' "aiding and abetting," as well as every piece of evidence constituting our "conspiracy," consisted of public, expressive speech and/or association.

Let me say first, that -- First Amendment or no First Amendment -- the government did not prove each element of any of the six counts in the SHAC7 indictment beyond a reasonable doubt. This is not merely a hopeful opinion, nor is it an entirely novice opinion. Rather, it is the result of pouring over the testimony and exhibits in our case day after day for months. (Thank you, house arrest!) There certainly are significant First Amendment hurdles that the government will have to overcome in order to prevail on appeal. However, we needn't rely on the appellate court to fall on the correct side of each of these Constitutional tests in order to reverse our conviction. There are holes in the government's case which exist entirely independent of First Amendment concerns.

Nonetheless, I wish to touch briefly upon the First Amendment issues here, as they are the issues most broadly relevant to the various legal battles activists face (civil suits, injunctions, arrests at protests, etc.) The First Amendment protections relevant to the SHAC7 case will be applicable to other cases, even when the facts differ.

Expressive speech and conduct, as well as political association, are presumptively protected by the First Amendment. This means that they are assumed to be to be protected from civil litigation and criminal prosecution, unless the party wishing to limit or punish the expression can establish that it falls into one of the few, narrowly-defined categories of unprotected speech. There are only about a half-dozen such categories, two of which are relevant to the SHAC7 case. It was the government's contention that the content published on the SHAC USA website (which the SHAC7 defendants allegedly conspired to operate) transcended the boundaries of First Amendment protection and fell into the unprotected categories of incitement and/or true threats.

Specifically, the government argued that the publication of reports of past protest activity, coupled with listings of proposed future protest targets, both incited future illegal acts and threatened those listed as future targets of protest. This theory implicates several aspects of First Amendment law.

Incitement
The seminal case defining limits of First Amendment protection for advocacy of of illegal action is Brandenburg v. Ohio. In Brandenburg, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocacy of illegal action up until the point at which the advocacy is intended to produce imminent lawless action and does in fact produce imminent lawless action, or is highly likely to do so.

Imminence here is key. The First Amendment protects the right to argue, advocate, and justify the commission of illegal acts, as long as those hearing the advocacy are permitted the opportunity to hear and consider the advocacy and to decide for themselves whether or not to act upon it. Then, if the listeners choose to do so, they may be punished for actually committing illegal acts; the speaker, however, may not be punished for having argued that those acts should be committed.

The difference between abstract advocacy and unprotected incitement may be illustrated by comparing a speech, pamphlet, book, or -- you guessed it -- internet posting arguing that tactics such as those used by the Underground Railroad or during the Boston Tea Party were justified and should be repeated during present-day struggles, versus a rally in which the crowd begins to riot, vandalizing property on the spot in tandem with a speaker's ongoing encouragement that they continue to do so. In the first example, the time for the listener or reader to reflect upon the advocacy allows the speaker or writer to argue for her position without fear of reprisal based upon the actions of others. In the second example, the speaker's intent to further the criminal acts being committed, and her success in doing so, removes her words from First Amendment protection.

Thus, even if the SHAC USA had advocated illegal activity, and even if the SHAC7 defendants had agreed (conspired) to operate the website, the defendants cannot be liable for for the illegal acts of others, even if the latter occurred because those others were convinced by the advocacy on the SHAC USA website, because the advocacy did not imminently incite the action.

True Threats
The second category of unprotected speech into which the government alleges the publications on the SHAC USA website fell is that of "true threats." The concept of a "true threat" distinguishes speech which may appear to be threatening on its face, but at root is merely political hyperbole, from speech that is truly intended to, and does, threaten those at whom it is directed.

Unfortunately, I'm going to just barely touch upon the issue of true threats. The case law surrounding true threats is less well-settled than that on incitement and remains a matter of some debate. As such, I am reluctant to suggest a position here.

I will say that the government has argued to the Court in the SHAC7 case that a true threat should be defined as a statement wherein the speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death. Notice how this language closely follows the language of the stalking statute under which the SHAC7 were charged.

My apologies for the short shrift given to true threats here. Perhaps post-appeal I will be able to elaborate.

Political Association
Lastly here, relevant to the government's theory in the SHAC7 case is First Amendment protection for political association. In part, the government argued that the campaign against HLS was an illegal conspiracy. Again, a person need not commit an illegal act him/herself in order to be part of an illegal conspiracy. Conveniently, none of the SHAC7 defendants were alleged to have committed an illegal act. But, the government argued, it was enough that they had agreed ("conspired"), with one another and with other activists, to close HLS (legal) by using illegal means (not legal).

Enter the First Amendment yet again. Squaring allegations of an illegal conspiracy with the First Amendment is a difficult task. Reason being, expressive speech, demonstrations, and associating with others for these purposes are not only legal but also protected. When such activity comprises the legal activity alleged to have been taken in furtherance of an illegal conspiracy, the First Amendment cloaks that activity in protection from criminal prosecution and civil penalties. Remember the bank robbery example? There, the act of purchasing ski masks was a legal act satisfying the requirement of an overt act in furtherance of an illegal conspiracy; a speech, legal demonstration, or pamphlet cannot play the same role -- not only are such things legal, they are also protected.

This is especially relevant in the SHAC7 case because there is no dispute that some non-defendant individuals engaged in illegal acts in the course of the global efforts against HLS. However, the collective effort against HLS is not rendered an illegal conspiracy, nor the SHAC7's participation in it illegal, because First Amendment protection for political association drives a wedge between those who engage in protected expression/activity (demonstrations, letter writing, public speaking, etc.) and those who commit illegal acts (vandalism, liberating animals, etc.) in the course of the same effort, prohibiting guilt by association.

When involved in a collective political effort in which some individuals have committed illegal acts, those who have engaged solely in protected expression/activity in the course of the same effort may not be punished because they were part of an effort in which others broke the law. Nor are those engaging in protected expression/association required to stop their efforts and fall silent because others have chosen to work toward the same goal by using illegal means. The First Amendment requires that each individual be judged independently under the law and that their actions not be colored by the actions of others.

In Closing...
Well, I hope most of you stuck with me and that all have found this informative and useful. Of course, "Rah, Rah, Stop HLS" and all that good stuff. But truly, that much should be obvious at this point. Inspiring words are great to hear and fun to say, but to win we will need much more than inspiration -- we need knowledge. What I've written here is only the most basic and elementary overview of relevant First Amendment protections; I encourage everyone to familiarize themselves with the First Amendment more fully and broadly, as it is our greatest tool against bogus charges and frivolous lawsuits. We need to be as informed and familiar with our opposition's strategy as they are, and we need to be able to fight fire with fire. Most often, the fire of animal abusers and their hired government guns is the law. Luckily, armed with (an understanding of) the First Amendment, the law can be our fire too.

The SHAC 7 are having a bad go of it over the past few days and need to hear from you!

Lauren Gazzola and Andrew Stepanian have been barred from using the phone for 6 months. This drastically reduces their ability to communicate with both their support committees and their family and loves one as stamps are limited. Losing their phone "privileges," means that their only means of hearing what's happening outside the prison walls is via mail. Please write, send photos (no polaroids), etc.

Also, some bad news for Jake & Josh as well.

Jake Conroy's prison is on lockdown (meaning he can't leave his cell 24
hours a day, 7 days a week for the indefinite future--probably 2 weeks or
more) due to a major fight at the prison (Jake wasn't involved and is ok.) and Josh Harper informed his support committee yesterday that he was removed from his cell and taken to the hole. No reasons have been given, but there's really nothing Josh can do right now but bide his time and hope he gets let out of there soon.

Prison is bad enough, but the hole means being locked into a cell all day long, losing a lot (if not all) of your possessions (including letters he'd recently received, and a dispatch and response letters he'd just written), down to one 15-min. phone call per week, and losing access to what few vegan options he'd had.

All the SHAC 7 really need your support to help them get thorough these hard times. Please take a few minutes to write all of them:

LAUREN GAZZOLA
#93497-011
FCI DANBURY
FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
ROUTE #37
DANBURY, CT 06811

ANDREW LLOYD STEPANIAN
#26399-050
FCI BUTNER MEDIUM II
FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
P.O. BOX 1500
BUTNER, NC 27509

Jacob Conroy
#93501-011
FCI Victorville Medium I
PO Box 5300
Adelanto, CA 92301

JOSHUA HARPER
#29429-086
FCI SHERIDAN
FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
P.O. BOX 5000
SHERIDAN, OR 97378

DARIUS FULLMER
#26397-050
FCI FORT DIX
P.O. BOX 2000
FORT DIX, NJ 08640

KEVIN KJONAAS
#93502-011
UNIT I
FCI SANDSTONE
P.O. BOX 1000
SANDSTONE, MN 55072


--
Defend Free Speech! Free the SHAC 7! www.SHAC7.com