theopenunderground udog ulinuz nurse war kapital sekten suche


you can receive kirsten's articles, as they are written, via an email list called "eat the press."
go to
to join the list.

@ kirsten anderberg

Please support agitational busker/writer women at


   eat the press 2006 - januar - april
   eat the press 2005 - januar - märz   >>> april - juli   >>> august - dezember
   eat the press 2004

Free Speech Versus Peace Disturbance: A Conflict of Law
By Kirsten Anderberg (

Most people do not realize there is an area of law called “Conflict of
Law.” Laws conflict and this is a specialty area in law, which navigates
around laws that hit each other head on in conflict. I live in the
swirling world of the “Conflict of Law” between Free Speech and Peace
Disturbance/Obscenity Laws. I have been arrested, ticketed and/or charged
with property rule violations for obscenity and peace disturbance for
busking (or street performing) since 1978, and I have also successfully
defended myself from all of those cases/charges in courts or at internal
agency hearings. I have had my Free Speech rights reiterated, in writing,
by judges and city management agencies, time and time again after said
conflicts. Yet this fight continues on, almost daily, as I continue to
busk well into my 40’s. I guess people thought I would either outgrow
political activism or busking, but I actually just came to do them better
and more often with age instead. Which means they have to get better at
finding ways to stop me, as well.

Isn’t “Peace Disturbance” the *definition* of “Free Speech?” Otherwise, it
would just be called “speech.” The reason it is called “Free Speech,” is
it had peace disturbing qualities that required some kind of special legal
protection. The ways people try to define my act, in ways to try to
trigger some kind of alarm, or action, is amusing. Right now, for
instance, David Dickinson, the Pike Place Market Master, is accusing me of
being “scary” and “agitated.” I am actually *laughing out loud* as I type
this. Yes, David. I perform “agit-prop.” It has “agitation” in its title.
And guess what? Agit-prop has been a protected form of Free Speech
everywhere from Russia to America for centuries. And if agitational
political performances scare you, rather than relieve you, well, that is
okay. Art is supposed to trigger *emotion*. And if there is one thing we
can all agree on, it is that I evoke *emotion*. Whether you love me or
hate me, whether we are talking about my busking performances, or my
written work, I simply create controversy effortlessly. It would be
flattering if the fallout were not so utterly annoying.

In The People of the State of California Versus Kirsten Anderberg, in
Santa Cruz, Ca., I was charged with “Peace Disturbance and Obscenity.”
This whole waste of taxpayer money failed, as usual, to shut me down, but
let’s look at the court documents from that case in the 1980’s. Those
court records show a troubled merchant testifying about me: “Kirsten
Anderberg sings very explicit songs concerning her feminism and political
views...there is one lyric that I, I cracked up. There is one song about
how girls don’t fart. That’s one of the songs.” (The song, that
controversial feminist song, “Message From the Media,” says, “and girls
don’t fart, they only fluff”). The court records go on to have the
merchant testifying: “the problem is that, the volume of her voice.”
(Right, you can actually HEAR my lyrics, oh, horror!) The other problem
is when she is asked to leave, she will not leave.” (Yep, my grade school
taught me I have a right to be on public streets doing free speech. If I
am only allowed to do Free Speech at home alone, it is not very effective
or free.)

The ACLU asks this Santa Cruz merchant “Did you ask her to leave that
day?” And the merchant replied, “Yes.” The ACLU said, “Did you tell her
why it was that you were bothered by her singing?” The merchant answered:
“I don’t remember if I actually said why. I just usually when I walk out
and ask her to leave, I say, “You are being disruptive, you are too loud.
We cannot conduct our business. Please find another spot to perform.” It
is interesting that while this merchant is saying I am ruining his
business, it is *his own customers* that were not only tipping me, making
that a lucrative spot I always returned to, but I could always turn the
audience on the street against the cops and others trying to shut me down
(I am a performer after all) and that always adds a sort of circus effect
to trying to squelch my Free Speech rights that angers merchants and
police alike and sets them out for revenge. So this merchant was saying I
was ruining his business, yet the court records say I was not running off
people, but gathering a crowd. That same merchant testifies: “The officer
arrived and asked her to please leave and find another spot. She refused
to leave. At this point, she started hollering at pedestrians on the
sidewalk, asking them if she was disturbing them. A crowd gathered. The
officer was having even more difficulty. It continued. The crowd got
bigger, people were hollering out on the street…the content of her songs
are very hateful towards men…In fact, I remember an incident now where she
offended two of Heinz’s patrons who were men sitting there drinking beer.”
(To be honest, I am PROUD AS CAN BE of this testimony of my behavior that
day. No, I am no armchair feminist. I am out there pissing off men
drinking their beers at the Biergarten and I am outmaneuvering crowds from
police, it is good stuff…stuff you remember, not that Judy Collins crap!)

The Santa Cruz records go on and on about my songs, but it always centers
on my political content. That is what is bugging this merchant in all
honesty. The merchant testified, “it is a song about girls aren’t allowed
to do this, girls aren’t allowed to do that…but the men are allowed to do
this. Why is it men are allowed to do this, women are not? Because we have
to fix our hair, put on makeup and be presentable, it was that kind of a
song.” Okay, I have to laugh. *That* kind of song? What is *that* kind of
song? Name one top 40 artist that does *that* kind of song! *That* kind of
song is called a political, feminist, original, noncommercial, DIY, Free
Speech kind of a song and ain’t nothin’ to be ashamed in doing *that* kind
of song in my book. In fact, I am proud I was singing about makeup and
sexist double standards rather than about some guy who left me and now I
long for him over the Bonney shores…yet we are talking about me being
charged with CRIMES by the STATE for this stuff, and that is where this
gets ugly and tiring.

The use of “qualude” was used to try to stop me from performing in 1992 at
the Pike Place Market. They tried to say “qualude” was “vulgarity” in a
parody song I do of Santana’s “Black Magic Woman.” The song is about this
rebel with a Black Magic Marker, and it talks about his parents’ horrid
life that led him to his rebellion, and one part says, “your mom had to
drink 12 cups of coffee just to get up in the morning, she had to eat
qualudes to sleep your dad, and he works at the insecticide factory, how
else do you expect us to be anything but vicious, juvenile?” It is odd
that they tried to use the word qualude alone like that, as vulgarity, as
it was obviously the use of the word with other concepts, it was the
*image* I was painting, it was the *thought* they objected to, not the
words themselves. But it is interesting how often I am made to defend my
right to sing *images, thoughts alone* against charges of some kind of
illegal “vulgarity” or “obscenity.”

The Pike Place Market in 1993 also told me not to sing a song called “Myth
in Genesis,” about the sexism in Christianity and the bible because “the
Market is a family place.” The song talks about how male-centered
religions have patterns of sexist societies and somehow I am not supposed
to sing about this in Seattle’s Market why, again?

In this current round of crap I am taking from the Market, they sent me
this little quote in a letter dated April 21, 2006, from David Dickinson,
to let me know how performers are *supposed* to act at the Market.
“Daystall performance spaces are intended “to add to the festive character
of the Market,” and to provide “areas within the Market where performing
artists are encouraged to entertain market shoppers in a fashion
consistent with, complimentary to, and as an integral part of the Market
Community.”” Now, let’s juxtapose that with their 1991 apology letter for
harassing me over Free Speech in the Market. This is from the Market
Master in 1991: “I explained to each of (the 3 individuals who complained)
that the content of your songs or speeches is not subject to restriction”
unless it is profane, etc. That 1991 letter from the Market management
also says, “Certainly you are allowed to express your political opinions,
either by speech or song, under a performer permit at the Pike Place
Market. The PDA cannot prohibit this type of Free Speech in the Market
without violating your constitutional rights, nor does the PDA wish to do
so.” I hope someone other than just me can see the obvious problems
herein. So, am I a monkey and the Market tells me when to jump as the
organ grinder, or do I have Free Speech rights to do *agitational,
confrontational, conflictive, scary, feminist, political, comedy and
commentary*? Obviously I am *good* at politics, because when I share what
I think in public, all kinds of shit happens. Oh, no, I said shit. Oh
well, I am not on the street at the Pike Place Market. Let’s go for it.
You can go call the FCC and the thought police after reading this if you
need to.

This harassment for Free Speech rights over and over and over is getting
STANDARDS SO BACK UP, THOUGHT POLICE! Busking is a Free Speech tradition
and no, we are not here as some frilly accessory to the commercial vendors
at the Pike Place Market. I do not HAVE to “add to the festive character
of the Market” in any way besides agitated confrontational feminist
performance, for as the Market has said in its own letters to me, to
censor me in any other way would infringe on my constitutional rights, and
they do not want to do that. Yet, I am now being brought into a hearing to
defend my busker permit, 27 years into this, once again, and now on the
charges of being “agitated” and “disruptive” to the Market’s
commercialism. Again, isn’t that what Free Speech is? Disruptive,
agitated, noncommercialism? Otherwise, it would just be called Speech.
When are people going to finally *get* that Free Speech is inherently
controversial speech and it is constitutionally protected, conflict of
laws or not! I would even argue the more controversial a political
performance is, the more constitutional protection it has, otherwise, what
is the point of the “protection” at all?

Please support agitational busker/writer women at

Is It Loud Or Is It Political?
Arbitrary “Loudness” Charges And Political Free Speech
By Kirsten Anderberg (

The Pike Place Market in Seattle, Washington has had a notorious
reputation for squashing free speech rights in the Seattle area for nearly
30 years. There is the obvious assault on free speech: The Market’s
security goon squad, run by the Preservation and Development Association
(or PDA), will arrest you for trespass at the Public Market if you try to
play political music anywhere on the Market premises, even in the legally
mandated “free speech” spot, without paying the PDA thugs who run the
Market, $30. For not PAYING the PDA for your FREE speech rights on public
streets in Seattle, these PDA thugs assault you aggressively in PDA
uniforms with no or false name tags, no badge numbers, and they will not
tell you their names when asked, and will run you out of the market,
physically. I, personally, have documents going back decades that clearly
illustrate a pattern of illegal harassment of me for political content
alone, as a busker (aka street performer) there. I have documents of them
trying to arrest, intimidate, harass and ban me from the Market repeatedly
for almost 30 years now. (My first permit to busk in the Market is dated
1978.) I have been at the Market longer than most who work for the PDA.
And each and every time I am harassed for street performing, I have
overturned these ill-fated attempts at trying to stop this feminist
busker, spreading feminist messages that police, vendors and male buskers
hate all the same. But I have noticed another pattern: Since I am breaking
no rules or laws with my feminist comedy on the street, inevitably each
and every failed venue that tries to stop me, resorts to charging that, I,
one woman with a guitar, was “too” loud. This arbitrary standard of “too”
loud correlates directly to the political content. If I am singing a nice
apolitical swing song, it can be sung ten times as loud as a political
song, before being labeled “too loud.” Basically, if you can HEAR the
political words to a song, IT IS TOO LOUD. *That* is really the pattern I
see emerge after 27 years as a professional feminist busker.

I see the use of “too” loud written into the Market’s “free speech spot”
rules. Under Washington State law, the Pike Place Market is required to
have a designated FREE SPEECH SPOT where the public can spread political
messages without that mandatory $30 fee to keep the PDA thugs from kicking
you out of the Market. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who
defended me in 8 peace disturbance/obscenity charges in Santa Cruz, Ca.
for feminist busking, told me that this spot *must* exist at the Market.
So when I asked where this spot was at the Market, the PDA handed me a set
of “rules” for their “free speech spot.” Not only does rule #5 on this
current set of “rules” for the “free speech spot” say “no music,” but that
rule #5 also says “no loud speeches.” Interesting. It does not say “no
speeches” as that would be too obvious and laughable for a “free speech
spot.” But by throwing “loud,” that MAGICAL undefined arbitrary term, into
the mix, the PDA now has a way to regulate political content of speech *in
the free speech spot.*

This situation begs the question: Are their different standards of “too
loud” and “allowed loud” for political and nonpolitical performance at the
Market? For example, can a 3 piece jug band singing about drinking and
“balling all night” be as loud as they want in this open air Market, and
not be labeled “too loud” thus violating some rule of loudness, while one
woman with a guitar singing about welfare mother rights above the bustle
of a public Market outside, is labeled “too loud,” no matter what loudness
she sings at? Is this not just a cowardly way to steal free speech rights
on the streets from women in some archaic use of false law? As a woman
busker, this directly affects my food money. This is not just some
ideological argument. We are talking about interruptions to my income
because people are playing semantical games with vague words in rules that
are used on me when I try to use my First Amendment Rights.

In documents spanning almost 30 years in my archives, I have this issue of
loudness used on me mixed right in there with politics equally. Somehow
this “loudness” thing seems to be the only way vendors, security, police,
etc. are able to get around feminist women doing comedy openly on United
States’ streets. Because everyone knows how absolutely dangerous it is to
have a woman standing in the public square singing AT AUDIBLE LEVELS about
women’s rights, birth control, deadbeat dads, saving our forests, and
civil rights issues. If people cannot figure out how to ban me for my
politics alone, they resort to scratching around for some other way to
shut me down (or shut me up, more realistically). Santa Cruz tried calling
my work “obscene” which failed under legal obscenity standards, and the
Market tries to say I am “too loud” with no definition or standardization
of such terms and has failed repeatedly at that angle to shut me down.

In a series of documents from 1990-91 involving the Pike Place Market and
myself, we see a complaint filed by me on Sept. 17, 1990 with the
complaint title being “Craftspersons heckling and harassing street
performer here since 1978.” That same day the PDA received the following
complaint from one of the offending craftspersons. On 9/17/90, Patrick
Barrett, Craftsperson # 77, filed a complaint that says “Harassment by
street performer. A street performer is using the interim between songs to
deliver, at full vocal volume, political harangues to passersby and
craftspeople. Today the subject was how racist the Market is in light of
the internment of Japanese Americans in WWII. It is against the rules for
street performers to engage in any other activity than providing
entertainment. Hyde Park’s “Speaker’s Corner” is some 3,000+ miles to the
East of the Market. Description of performer…carries guitar case with
“destroy Exxon” bumpersticker. Finally, she has been doing this for at
least 2 years. Maybe it is time that her permit to perform is revoked, and
if she’s performing without a permit, that legal action be taken.”

I hope you get what that complaint said. It said Free Speech is located
3,000 miles from the Pike Place Market according to this crafter and he
suggested I be legally prosecuted for what again? Can you find within that
complaint, like a Where’s Waldo puzzle, the reason this man is so upset
about me performing at the Market on public streets again?! Do you see
anything “illegal” in what he described me doing on a public street? What
was the public threat I created again? How is what he described there
“harassment” by a busker on a crafter again? That looks more to me like a
crafter harassing a busker! The Market, itself, has a picture display on
site about the shameful past of United States history that affected the
Market’s Japanese American farmer population directly. There was an
internment camp on Bainbridge Island across the Puget Sound from the
Market and the current Puyallup Fair Grounds was a previous internment
camp during that era. I have friends whose parents would not take them to
that fair because their parents were interned there. That era of our
history is not only important to remember, but it is also Market history
and so this man’s objection to my history lesson on the street had much
more to do with his own racism, than any rule I violated. Yet in 1991, I
finally had my permit revoked and later reinstated after a hearing, by the
PDA, for this racist heckling and harassment by crafters and vendors on
Sept. 17, 1990. Somehow whenever I am attacked by vendors and crafters at
the Market, I am the one who has to defend myself afterwards in hearings,
never the violent or offending vendors/crafters, which makes me resent the
bullied $30 out of buskers for free speech there even more, since we are
not given ANY rights or amenities for that $30 at all.

In a letter dated Jan. 3, 1991, the PDA asserts my rights to free speech
and my right to use my performing time as I want politically, due to the
situation created by Barrett and his complaining friends who tried to get
me banned in a gang effort that time, just as Market crafters have again
tried now in April 2006, as well. Back in 1991, these offending crafters
and vendors were given notice from the PDA that the vendors and crafters
are not allowed to get into direct conflicts with the performers and must
call the PDA for intervention if they do not like something. The Market
rules say vendors and crafters may not heckle, assault or in any way
disturb performers’ performances. Yet they continue to do so regularly,
with the blessings of the PDA, and on top of grievances filed continually
by buskers about vendor and crafter abuses.

In this 1991 letter to me, the PDA says, “For your information, I spoke to
the 3 individuals who filed complaints with me on or about the same date
that I initially responded to your complaint. I explained to each of them
that the content of your songs or speeches is not subject to restriction,
unless you are verbally abusive or using profanity…I have further
explained to them that the PDA does have the right to ask performers to
tone down the volume of performances if neighboring businesses feel it is
too loud.”

There are problems therein. First of all, “verbally abusive” seems very
arbitrary and one-sided. If it comes from a street performer towards a
crafter/vendor, it is “abusive,” but if it is heckling and harassment from
crafters/vendors, it is not “abusive” apparently. Apparently heckling,
yelling and shouting obscenities at buskers is not “abusive” in the Market
terminology, but a busker telling a heckling crafter to shut the hell up
is considered “abuse.” Additionally, you can see right in that letter they
are trying to carve out a nondefinable out for these merchants, with a
loudness rule that is defined *by* the offending complaintants, which
cannot work.
The 1991 PDA letter to me about crafter harassment continues, “I let them
know the appropriate way to deal with these types of things is to
immediately notify either myself, or another PDA staff member or security
guard, rather than getting into some form of conflict with the
performer…Certainly you are allowed to express your political opinions,
either by speech or song, under a performer permit at the Pike Place
Market. The PDA cannot prohibit this type of free speech in the Market
without violating your constitutional rights, nor does the PDA wish to do
so…Under the First Amendment, you can sing or say anything you like as
part of your performance, provided that the volume of your performance
does not significantly interfere with verbal communication at neighboring
business.” There it is again. Always this rider of undefined loudness
standards attached to my free speech rights as their little out later. And
that quantifier of my performance loudness interfering with their verbal
communications as a standard, begs me to demand that ALSO be placed upon
the vendors, and they not be allowed to TAKE busker spots with their usual
method of just cranking up a radio to *drown us out* so we cannot play.
This happens constantly and the last time I had to make a PDA officer get
a merchant to stop this tactic was on April 19, 2006 with the flower shop
next to Left Bank Books. This loudness standard must go BOTH WAYS if it is
to be taken seriously. Vendors must not be allowed to interfere with
buskers’ air space for business EITHER. That would apply to the Fish
Throwers at the Clock busker spot, as well. They regularly “take” that
spot with a concerted joint effort of loud yelling when they do not like
the politics of the busker performing there.

Currently I am awaiting some type of contact from the Market over an
assault on me as a Market busker, that occurred from three
vendors/crafters on April 19, 2006. It is interesting that it was a group
of 3 that harassed and invoked hearings in 1990 as well. Crafters/vendors
seem to think 3 is a magic number to assault buskers with. But what is
going on right now, is IDENTICAL to what happened in 1990-91. Except this
time, the vendors/crafters resorted to physical violence and this time,
Matthew Fleig, PDA officer on scene, wearing a shirt that says “Gil,”
facilitated the assault of a busker, ON THE BUSKER SPOT, on April 19, 2006
and due to that, I am now SUING the PDA. It is long overdue.

Three angry, aggressive, violent crafters/vendors who did not like my
politics during a set on April 19, 2006, left their crafts booth areas and
came ONTO the performance spot, and physically assaulted me until I left
mid-set in a gang-like riot. I left fearing for my physical safety from
this mob and the PDA agent facilitating it all with blessings. This
directly violates the Market’s own rules, and the PDA policy and also
directly conflicts with the guarantee I received in WRITING in 1991 that
this harassment by crafters would end. Not only has the harassment from
vendors/crafters against buskers not ended, it has escalated to physical
violence now. Stay tuned as this ongoing saga continues but my prediction
is, somehow, the Market is going to try to use LOUDNESS as their scapegoat
once again, since they realize all the vendors and crafters are really
complaining about my politics and nothing else. I *predict* the PDA will
try to charge me with some kind of arbitrary “loudness” rule violation in
the next week or so, retroactively for the April 19 assaults of a busker
there. I am going to challenge that and force this loudness nonsense to a
standard equal for political and nonpolitical performance, and we also
need an independent measurement for loudness, as well. Stay tuned…this is
not over.

Kirsten filed a Civil Rights Violation Complaint which was accepted and
has already passed intake on April 20, 2006, with the City of Seattle’s
Civil Rights Commission. She has also filed two separate assault lawsuits
against the PDA for situations arising from the April 19, 2006 assaults on
site. In 1991, Kirsten said in her complaint to the Market, “I will play
at the “private” public Market and I will not be harassed by crafters. I
want their permits revoked if this is to continue and I will fight legally
if need be.” Well, the crafters are not properly reprimanded, and since
this has not ended, but escalated, I am now making good on that promise I
made back in 1990 to the PDA. I said if this was not remedied, I would
sue. And now that is where we are, 15 years later. Suing over the same
situation the Market promised me it resolved 15 years prior. This
situation has gone on long enough and needs outside entities to monitor it
now. It is clear the PDA is not capable of managing the Market with any
respect for feminist buskers’ free speech rights. And no, the problem is
not “loudness.” The “problem” is free speech and feminist politics. And
that “problem” has constitutional rights and she knows them quite well.
(Now you see why they fought letting women into law schools and colleges
so vehemently…to avoid these types of “problems.”)


Rob “los Ricos” Thaxton Is Coming Home!
By Kirsten Anderberg (

It’s been nearly 7 years since Rob “los Ricos” Thaxton was arrested in
Eugene, Or. during a “Reclaim the Streets” celebration, on June 16, 1999.
In what has now become identifiable as a serious political war on
activists in the Pacific Northwest, Rob was one of the first comrades to
fall, and be used as some sort of judicial example, to try to quell
political dissent in the United States, not just the Pacific Northwest.
Later that same year Rob was jailed, activist activity would boil over at
the WTO protests in the streets of Seattle. The war on political activism
in the Pacific NW continues today, 7 years later, with fallen comrades
left and right, trapped in the quicksand of high-priced legal
representation and erratic governmental prosecutions backed by new federal
laws that directly conflict with the U.S. Constitution.

In a recent public statement from Jeff Luers
(, he says, “The FBI
devotes more time and energy to activists than it does Al-Qaeda.” It sure
does seem that way. And what is even more odd, is Eugene courts sentenced
an “anarchist” who destroyed 3 SUV’s and threatened no human life, to a
longer prison term than the U.S. Federal Courts gave the “American
Taliban” ( In
the case of John Walker Lindh, the "American Taliban," he was found armed,
hiding with a group of Taliban fighters, in a fight against U.S. military,
that killed a CIA agent in Afghanistan. In 2002, he was sentenced to 20
years in jail for his part in that fight. His attorney is now arguing that
sentencing is excessive because "another American citizen Yaser Hamdi who
was also captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan, taken into American
custody at the same time under the same conditions" was "freed after less
than three years." Compare that to the sentencing of an environmental
activist labeled an "eco-terrorist" by the government, Jeff Luers. Jeff is
accused of and sentenced to prison for destroying property, 3 SUVs. No
human life was threatened. The property damage was not even that great. He
was sentenced to 22 years due to his allegiance to the philosophy of
environmental defense, basically. Rob Thaxton defended himself against a
riot officer, and was sentenced to 7 years in Oregon prisons. Rob received
4 MORE years in jail than an “American Taliban” caught fighting in an
armed struggle against American soldiers! There is no logic to these huge
chasms in judicial discretion going on in American courts nationwide. Talk
about Blind Justice! Someone needs to get American Justice a walking cane!

Prisoners like Jeff Luers and Rob Thaxton have been used by the U.S.
government to try to strike FEAR into the hearts of activists who are
concerned with issues such as fair trade versus “free” trade, sustainable
ecosystems, police accountability, cooperative living versus corporate
slavery, biodiversity, clean air and water, old growth protection, and
other noble and necessary causes. The idea was Jeff got 22 years, Rob got
7 years; you better THINK before you get involved with activists in Eugene
or you could end up like them. But Rob made it through the 7 years in
prison with his integrity and political beliefs intact. He was one of the
first to fall. When Jeff Luers fell, Rob was there already to help him
inside and Rob *did* give friendship to Jeff and other fallen comrades as
they trickled into prison after Rob. Now Rob is one of the first to come
back out alive to us, and this is A CALL TO ACTION FOR ROCK SOLID SUPPORT

Prisoner support is not just about supporting prisoners during arrests,
arraignments and sentencing. It is not just about writing letters or
sending books while people are imprisoned. Prisoner support MUST also
incorporate support for RELEASE. If these political prisoners are
abandoned in prison along the way, their release can turn into a
frightening event, rather than a celebratory one. Fears of homelessness,
poverty, social stigma, return to prison, and more, haunt prisoners with
no support upon release. You may think a prisoner’s release date would be
the happiest day of their life. But for many without proper support, the
day of release can end up as frightening as the day of conviction. We MUST
NOT let that happen to our activist comrades in the Pacific NW. The
Pacific NW corridor can do better than that. I KNOW we can learn how to
create a proper support net for our own as they emerge from prison after
serving long sentences. And right now, that safety net is pretty ragged
and not very safe. We need to make that a solid safety net.

I visited Rob on April 15, 2006, in a Salem prison, and his soul is still
intact. He has kept his vision and strength for 7 years trapped, wings
cut, by the state, and even when he is released on June 29, 2006, he is
not really free yet. Upon release, Rob will be under very tight state
supervision and his Parole Officer (P.O.) can say where he can live, who
he can socialize with, etc. Rob will be on a leash, in many ways, still,
after 7 full years time served, and community support could at least make
that leash seem less claustrophobic. What the state really seems to
respond to is money; either in high-paid attorneys, high rents paid before
getting out, family with money, or other forms of class privilege
displayed for more freedom, is how it seems to me. Somehow money is
equated with “responsibility” in the jail system. Rob has no family money
and while Rob was in prison, he did work jobs constantly but his pay was
so below the minimum wage as to completely laughable. Thus, it seems a
Catch-22. They keep you in prison, make you work, yet take most of your
pay, and then release you with no provisions and basically DARE YOU to not
end up back in jail quickly.

Additionally, they are forcing Rob into Lane County, which is one of the
poorer counties in the Pacific NW, in comparison to say Seattle, or
Portland, where the State of Oregon will not let Rob go, as of now. Rob
has housing in Seattle, he has a job in Portland, yet they are forcing him
to live in Lane County, or Eugene, upon release. Rob has never lived in
Eugene before. He was passing through when arrested. Lane County has
little to no readily identifiable provisions to accommodate prisoners
coming out of its prison system. To land prisoners with little community
ties onto the streets of Eugene with no provisions should outrage Eugene
citizens as much as the prisoners themselves, to be honest. That is a
COMMUNITY issue in many ways, and on many levels.

Rob is supposed to find housing, with a very limited income, as a
convicted felon, from within jail, before his release, with no access to
phones or computers. He can use snail mail only. Could you pull that off
after 7 years in jail? I don’t think I could. I think that would be a
ticket to homelessness, then criminalization, then back to jail, if that
was me. Or at least that would be *my* overwhelming nagging fear prior to
release. All the joy of release would be preempted by that fear, I
believe. Thus, let’s make sure Rob does not suffer thusly upon release
from prison.

Please consider helping out in one or more ways suggested below. He needs
to see he has support BEFORE release *for* his release. He has a little
over two months left in prison. NOW is the time to send money, cards,
support and help with housing. The way we support Rob upon his release
will also be a signal to other NW activists jailed after him, that we can
also support them on their release. Let’s begin to embrace POST-PRISON
support as part of “Prisoner Support.” All donated money and items can be
sent to Rob Thaxton, POBox 9038, Seattle, Wa. 98109 or contact and your messages will be given to Rob within one week.

I am asking our community to show emotional and material support of Rob’s
release in the following ways...

1. HOUSING: Do you have housing you can offer Rob in Lane County or
Eugene, starting June 29, 2006? He needs his NAME ON A LEASE and Rob can
pay rent PRIOR to June 29 via money he has from fundraising efforts on his
behalf. The lease needs to be signed and paid for in early June, so that
all the paperwork can get to his PO early so he can be released on his
release date to HIS OWN HOME. (We have people to facilitate the actual
signing and exchange of money on his behalf prior to release). He would
like housing with some privacy as he just spent years in close quarters
and some quiet and space would be nice, but he could live in a room in a
cooperative housing situation as well. As this is Rob’s pressing concern
right now, ANY tips regarding housing are appreciated and needed.

2. MONEY: Rob needs money for reentry. He needs rent money, he needs
clothing money, he needs to buy ID, and all kinds of things you and I
would take for granted. Please consider sending a donation today (make
checks, MO’s, out to Rob Thaxton) to Rob Thaxton, POBox 9038, Seattle, Wa
98109. He needs money PRIOR to release in June 2006 to pay rent and
alleviate worries at the time of release. Rob has asked I collect these
funds for him, thus I am facilitating that.

3. MAKING A HOUSE A HOME: Do you have any DIY/homemade art that would help
make a new housing situation feel like a HOME? Send such accoutrements and
we will use them to decorate his new living space to make him feel at home
once out.

4. CLOTHING: Rob needs clothing. Sounds crazy, but it is true. Do you have
any unusual/cool clothing you could send his way so he can begin a life
out of the uniform he has lived in for 7 years? He likes dark colors, such
as deep greens. He says he never wants to wear a button collar on a shirt
again, if possible.

5. WISHLIST: Some of the things Rob has wished for are: Camping equipment
such as tent, sleeping bag..., laptop and/or computer equipment, musical
equipment such as guitar and amp, podcasting equipment and software, a

6. FUNDRAISERS: In the coming months, any fundraisers that can be promoted
and facilitated to benefit Rob’s release would be greatly appreciated.
Contact us and we can help you promote the events.

7. MEDIA: Rob is an eloquent writer and if any media is interested in
buying freelance articles from Rob on his release and time served for
“rioting” in Eugene, he can use the money and would be willing to write
such pieces.

8. WELCOME HOME CARDS: I am collecting “Welcome Home” cards to give Rob on
the day of his release. Send them to Rob Thaxton/ “Secret Project” at the
POBox above. I will give them to him on the day of his release (so do not
tell him about this secret project if you write or see him)!

More updates will follow.


Who’s Watchin’ Your Kids, Mister?
By Kirsten Anderberg

Who’s watchin’ your kids, Mister?
Yeah, that’s what I said.
Before you hit on me,
Let’s get one thing clear
You got some woman stuck at home
Chained down by your kids somewhere?

You’re traveling coast to coast
You’re the jet set activist
With the most
But who’s watchin’ your kids, Mister?

You been performing next to me
For 20 something years on tour
This year I found out you’re the dad
Of an 18 year old daughter,
And you call yourself a “father?”
Who’s been watchin’ your kids, Mister?

You’re a traveling sperm show
Keepin’ all your “options open”
So you’re a “big player” now
You’re an “activist” prisoner freed
But who’s watchin’ your kids everyday, Mister?

Building your career
Getting your degrees
Cheating at the office
You’re a rock star in your dreams
But who’s watchin’ your kids, Mister?

Off to the strip club with your brothers
Off to the bars, you’re never home
Sisters you need to be asking,
“How many women you got chained down
With your kids somewhere alone?”

Before you hit on me,
Let’s get one thing straight
How many kids you got, Mister?
And who’s watchin’ your kids while we date?


Deadbeat Dad Prisoners

Male Prisoners Holding Women Hostage for Childcare
By Kirsten Anderberg (

Let’s say you are male and went to prison; it doesn’t matter what for. You
could be a “political” prisoner or just someone who got caught committing
“a crime.” Let’s say you go into prison for 10 years, entering prison
right after your kid is born. For 10 solid years, the mother of your child
cooks, cleans, buys school lunches, is there for your kid’s pains and
struggles…So 10 years pass, and the man finally gets out of prison. Is his
#1 priority now to PAY THAT WOMAN BACK for 10 years of 24/7, 100% child
support and childcare of HIS kid, so that SHE can finally have help and
some freedom? Not likely. The most common scenario seems to be (and I
stress *seems*) the men in prison CONTINUE to use the women for 100% FREE
childcare, FREE LABOR, once *out of prison*! So let us explore how a
majority of male prisoner “fathers” are using women for endless free
childcare without any consciousness, like all other deadbeat dads. No
difference. If you think prison makes deadbeat dads sacred cows, you are
going to be upset by this article, and I don’t give one damn.

So you’ve spent your last 10 years in prison and the mother has brought
your little child to visit you, has helped the child write to you,
etc…again, all MORE WORK for her. These men proclaim to be “fathers” due
to one night’s sperm and 10 years full time unpaid labor covering his part
of child rearing responsibilities by the woman involved. That may sound
harsh, but let us look at what happens when the men ARE capable of kicking
in with their 50% of childcare responsibilities once out of prison. (And
that is again, overlooking the 10 years of 100% childcare he still owes
the mom).

So you have been in prison and now are finally getting out. You’ve bragged
endlessly while in prison about being a “father,” bragged endlessly when
you get out, it is your child that matters most. So it is your last 6
months in prison. Are you going to 1) try to play as many women you can
once out, lining them up from prison, lying to each one about the others,
telling each you are going to be so lonely when you get out, 2) not try to
get housing or jobs so you are homeless upon release and dependent upon
women not only giving you 100% free childcare, but now taking care of your
adult ass as well, or 3) grow up, be responsible, and prepare to take over
a full active role in your child’s life 24/7, by providing the kid with
stable parenting from her own father, not just her mother? It appears (I
stress *appears* here) options 1 & 2 are 100 times more common than option
#3 for male prisoners. Yet women prisoners who are mothers, their number
one priority upon release most often is getting housing ASAP and getting
her kids back into HER own childcare, 24/7. Male prisoners could learn
something from the mother prisoners coming out of prison and how THEY
prioritize their kids as parents.

You may be feeling really uncomfortable right now that I am talking about
this. But we are going to discuss this as it is EXPLOITATION of women,
plain and simple. I don’t care if it is prisoner men exploiting the
mothers/women or free men: a deadbeat dad is a deadbeat dad is a deadbeat
dad. One disturbing FACT is that “the largest group of incarcerated
fathers (are) those who had contact with their children before getting
arrested, but did not live with or provide daily care for them. The
Department of Justice has found that over 60% of imprisoned fathers did
not live with any of their children or the mothers of their children
immediately prior to incarceration.” (
This indicates many of these men were
already in a pattern of taking women for granted for free DAILY childcare
services, of exploiting women for free labor doing a job that they,
themselves, are not interested in doing daily, even PRIOR to
incarceration. So it is not shocking these same men (“fathers”) do not
provide daily care for their kids once out of prison either. For every
father walking around daily without his kids, a woman is usually being
exploited somewhere for free labor doing a job the man wants no part of:
that job being childcare.

Many male prisoners who are claiming to be “fathers” seem to have an out
to their own child support and childcare responsibilities coming and
going. They weren’t responsible for any of the labor or money involved
with raising their kids while in prison and then they are considered too
dangerous to be handed their kids AT THE JAIL DOOR UPON THE DAY OF
RELEASE…to begin to realize what being a “father” REALLY means. These men
come out of jail poor and claim they not only cannot pay the mother for
her endless free labor and costs raising his kid, but he also feigns an
inability to offer his full 50% of childcare upon release. It SEEMS that
most men in prison continue to exploit women for free labor in the form of
free 24/7 childcare once OUT.

Let me break it down for you. If you are in prison, and claiming to be a
“father,” the number one priority you better have preparing to leave
prison is getting housing and funding to be able to take care of your kid
so you don’t hold her mom hostage with 100% childcare duties any longer.
Parenting is not taking your child out of some box like a toy every now
and then when you want to “play” dad.

So just because the dad of your kid went to prison, you, the mom are now
prisoner of his childcare left undone. Forevermore, it seems. And the men
in prison are treated like “victims,” yet no one even NOTICES the women in
welfare offices struggling just to survive due to the burdens these men
left on these women. The women are stigmatized, not treated as “victims”
as in prisoner support, with new books they want sent to them, letters of
support sent to them. There are A LOT of anarchist “prisoner support”
resources, for instance, as compared to zero, or very very few, anarchist
support resources for “welfare mothers,” or even “single” mothers. Even
though those men getting prisoner support often left ALL their childcare
responsibilities on the backs of some innocent woman who is picking up his
slack, and now living in poverty and depression, stuck at home with his
kids, never free to just go out, carefree, childfree, to pursue HER
dreams, or even to protest poverty...It seems the prisoner support is for
the men, not the women they held, and will continue to hold, hostage for
their childcare. Men coming out of prison should be handed FULL TIME
parenting duties AT THE DOOR they leave jail from. So these men finally
understand what PARENTING is and appreciate the years of free labor just
given them by women, raising their kids.

If you are a male prisoner, and have a child, you ain’t coming out of jail
to go “travel” as some “player,” baby. You are gonna get housing secured,
get income coming in, JUST LIKE THE MOM DID FOR YOU FOR 10 YEARS, and
start *taking care of your own kid.*, OKAY? And if you do ANYTHING ELSE,
you are just blowing hot air with that “father” crap. And you know it.
Just look at what women prisoners who are mothers do to prepare for
release. Male prisoners who are fathers should be doing the EXACT same
preparation. Just because the mother did provide 100% childcare and child
support for YOUR kid while in jail, that does not mean male prisoners who
are fathers have no duties once released since the kids had “stable homes”
provided solely by mom in the past! No, the reaction to that past support
should be men need to PAY BACK the mom with as much childcare and
available parenting as she wants upon release. Not the men shirking their
own childcare furthermore.

But prison combined with male chromosomes seems a lethal combo for kids.
Too many men coming out of jail lay claim to “father” status, with only
selfish thoughts in that. Yeah, your kid needs her daddy homeless, chasing
skirts, making more kids without a daddy, after 10 years in prison. Use
your hearts and minds, men. You know this is total bullshit. Either step
up to the damned plate and start being REALLY responsible for your own
kids, 24/7, 100%, like moms, or AT LEAST 50%, as payback at least, upon
release or you have no right to call yourself a “father.” As Tupac Shakur
says, “unless you got the time, it’s a crime, so don’t even bother.” That
applies to men who serve time too, brother.

I am not going to treat men in prison with kids as kids themselves. These
men are adults and like any sweat shop owner, like any owner of a slave,
to use women for free labor to cover your traveling sperm show is
despicable. To assume women are free childcare units is disgusting. If you
have a kid, and are not taking care of that kid 24/7, then WHO is picking
up YOUR slack? And how are you gonna pay them back? If you are a male
father in prison, you need to deal with that question as you prepare for
your release. How are YOU gonna PAY BACK those who picked up YOUR SLACK?
For YOUR kid? How are you gonna pay YOUR KID back?

Are you gonna pay your kid back for all those years you were missing by
being gone some more upon release, proving it was not prison, but your own
selfishness that kept you from fathering? Do you know how many kids are
totally disappointed to find out their dads really don’t care about them,
once their dads get out of prison and do not take their parenting duties
seriously? When they barely see their dad any more frequently when he is
out of prison than when he was in prison? Kids aren’t dumb. The kids of
prisoners wait, watching, to see if daddy will care once out. And if you
are out doing ANYTHING but making a stable environment for the kid,
available 24/7, they interpret that into reality. The time you give your
kid EVERYDAY is how they will measure your love. You gonna love your
babies, brothers? Or you gonna ditch ‘em with their mammas, and go play
with other women? You gonna act like your own pappa you HATE, who left YOU
alone with your mother, or you gonna step up to the plate and stop this
cycle? WHO is taking up your childcare slack upon release, my prisoner
brothers? AND WHY?


Make Love, Not Stumps: In Defense of The Biscuit
By Kirsten Anderberg (

(This is a review of the DVD “In Defense of The Biscuit,”
(, a film by Pat Paterson, Production/Design by
Justin Rohde.)

“The Creator gave us…this voice to be able to speak for the voiceless. And
that is all the green upon our Mother Earth, the one-leggeds, the “tree
people,” I call them…People said when you take the trees off of the
mountain, they’re the ones that call the wind and the rain. And when you
do that, it causes a domino effect of destruction all the way down that
mountain to the rivers and streams. And this is what is happening over
here.” – Agnes Pilgrim, the oldest living descendent of the Takelma
Indians (from the DVD, “In Defense of The Biscuit”)

The Battle for The Biscuit revolves around a pristine forest area in the
Siskiyou Mountains in Southwest Oregon. The area was almost named a
national natural monument in 2000, but by 2002, it was being eyed by
corporate loggers for the largest proposed timber sale on public land in
U.S. history, even though the proposed logging zone included approximately
9,000 acres of “protected” old growth. The issue of the Biscuit fire and
subsequent logging, is a textbook example that all should study about
“burn logging.” Burn logging is a backdoor to logging protected areas,
basically. Timber companies promote the misconception that a burned forest
is a dead forest, then they push to “salvage” all that remains inside
these “dead” protected forest zones, thereby disrupting, and destroying,
the natural bioregion that has been there for thousands of years. The
logging industry tries to promote the idea that a burn trumps all previous
forest protection in the area, and acts as if they are “fixing” the forest
after a fire by cleaning the area up and replanting, but science and
history show that is flawed “logic” on many counts.

The first misconception that the forest defenders of Biscuit have educated
many of us about is the reality that forests need fire! Agnes Pilgrim, the
elder quoted in the beginning of this article said that the Takelma elders
used to light fires in the forests as fire was a component of a healthy
forest, and it added nutrients to the soil. Indeed, old growth trees that
made it through 300-400 years, including many a forest fire, still stand
in the Biscuit fire area. When lightning started the Biscuit fire in 2002,
which burned to a perimeter of about 500,000 acres, the fire burned spotty
and thus approximately 60% of the area inside the fire zone did not burn.
The landscape is still productive, and this landscape, and its unique
biodiversity, have survived repeat fires in this area for hundreds and
thousands of years. To strip it now due to one lightning fire is insane.
We have got to get it through our heads: Burned forests are alive. Burned
forests are full of life.

Big trees are really important, and you cannot just manufacture new 300
year old trees in tree farms within our generation. The “In Defense of The
Biscuit” DVD educates not only about burn logging, but also about “legacy
trees,” or what the timber industry calls “snag.” Legacy trees, as
explained by Dominick DellaSala, of the World Wildlife Fund, are big, old,
dead, trees. To take these downed or still standing burned, or “dead,” old
trees out of the area, is destructive on many levels. These legacy trees
provide homes for hundreds of species of insects in their bark, which
birds then eat. The trees fall in creeks and provide spawning habitat for
salmon, and the trees also provide nutrients to the soil as they
decompose. These legacy trees provide moisture and return essential
biomass to the forest floor. They provide shade to help seedlings and also
add integrity to the soil stability. Standing old growth trees, dead or
alive, can cool the ground below them by 5 degrees.

The Biscuit logging plan called for 1.5 legacy trees to be left per acre,
which is not discernable from a clear cut in all reality. We need those
legacy trees, or snag, to be left where they lay, so our children can see
these forests later. The proposed Biscuit logging project (ironically
named the “Biscuit Fire Recovery Project” by the Bush administration)
wanted access to 372 MILLION board feet of timber. Also, this logging
would put roads where roads were not before, and those roadless areas were
previously protected by the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. If logging
roads were installed for this logging project, approximately 48,000 acres
of forest that previously had roadless protection, were now threatened. So
this is the setting for the actions in the battle to save The Biscuit.

This “In Defense…” DVD documents grassroots action taken by earth
defenders to stop questionable, and perhaps illegal, logging of public
lands under the guise of burn logging. It appears that the logging
companies were told they could not begin logging until the sensitive
environmental matters were addressed by a court, but John West, owner of
Silver Creek Timber Company, took some extraordinary steps to jump the gun
on the logging, and it could very well be said that the Biscuit activists
in this DVD saved acres of old growth forest from the ravages of clear cut
in 2005. The DVD documents several protest tactics, and also, several law
enforcement tactics, as well. The use of indy media, in collaboration with
the protesters and law enforcement watch-dogging is effectively sampled in
this DVD as well.

Defenders of The Biscuit set up camps to block the roads the logging
trucks would need to use to enter the forest areas in question. In March
2005, several confrontations with authorities are well documented on this
DVD. As logging industry vehicles approached the blocked roads, and
stopped to talk to the protesters in the road, other protesters padlocked
themselves to the stopped logging vehicles, creating chaos. Others on the
road were not simply standing in the way, but were locked down to drums
full of cement. The logging trucks were not going to just be able to talk
for a minute and roll on through, that was clear.

As the logging vehicles’ drivers get antsy, and want to roll on through,
even with protesters locked under their axles, indy media reporters with
cameras rolling chanted, “you’re on camera, people’s lives are at risk,
you are on camera, please turn off your engine, people are sitting in
front of your rig and are under your rig, locked down…” Other footage in
this DVD shows a police officer on scene literally covering his badge with
his hand from the indy media reporter, even as the reporter is saying,
“Why are you covering your badge?” Police are also shown keeping indy
media reporters off the bridge as they interact with protesters on the
bridge. It is amazing to me how often police want to do their job without
public scrutiny while on our public dime. Or they do not want to reveal
their identity as required BY LAW while employed by us, the public. I see
this shady behavior very often when police deal with protesters. Lots of
covered up badges and missing name tags, badges and tags required by law
and required to be visible while on duty. Why are police so afraid of
being identified as they interact with activists?

As protesters laid their bodies on the line to stop this logging before it
at least was heard in the courts, as the courts themselves had demanded,
arrests began. Protesters called out “No, no, that’s clearly not John
West,” as protesters were arrested, inferring John West, who was
reportedly jumping the gun to log here, was the one who should be
arrested. Direct action was the tactic taken to defend Biscuit, because
the letters had been written, the calls to legislators had been made, and
this logging just kept rolling forward. So people got together to stop
this, with physical direct action, and that is one of the important
messages of this DVD. It documents how a bunch of people said they were
not going to stand by and let their forests be pillaged due to apathy,
fear of the state or pacifism. This group of activists took a stand for
what they believed in, and in doing so, saved an ecosystem.

Part of the DVD documents a Women’s Day of Action, where women take over
the Biscuit road blockades. A woman who is 9 months pregnant makes a bold
statement, along with women ranging in age from their 70’s to 20’s.
Grandmothers, mothers to be, and younger women joined together to show
solidarity in this action and 20 women were arrested in that day’s
actions. “Hi, my name is Ara, and I’m a mother of 2 children, and I’m here
for their future,” was the simple but powerful statement made by one of
the women defending The Biscuit that day.

An interesting mixture of young and old came together in this DVD as well.
An older woman activist named Joan Norman (who has sadly died in a car
crash since) is shown giving her favorite forest action t-shirt to her
younger Biscuit defender comrade, Laurel Sutherlin, of the Oxygen
Collective, in a moving interaction. The t-shirt says, “When the earth has
been ravaged, and the animals are dying, a tribe of people of all races,
creeds and colours will put their faith in deeds, not in words, to make
the land green again. They shall be known as the warriors of the rainbow
protectors of the environment.” The base camp for the Biscuit defense
produced a week long skill share with rope climbing skills, media and
legal education, natural education and more. These protests to save The
Biscuit created community, as well as action.

The no nonsense approach that these forest defenders took is to be
commended and should be studied by activists facing similar dilemmas in
their areas. A woman named Marilyn had had enough of this logging nonsense
and she just locked herself to her steering wheel, in her “broken down”
truck on the logging roads, with others locked down to her axle. When she
expressed her disgust for the cameras, I really could relate to her
frustration and her need to DO something when writing letters was not
working. When the authorities and loggers tried to penetrate the Biscuit
area, this DVD shows how they would get through a main blockade only to
fall victim to yet smaller blockades, such as broken down trucks like
Marilyn’s, in the way up ahead. This nonstop agitation and sustained civil
disobedience caused endless delays in the logging of the Biscuit burn
area. And also bought time to educate the public, by getting the message
out to the media via a news story they would cover beyond John West’s
negotiations with the state.

The DVD ends with the actions in 2005, so I wanted to do a little follow
up. I talked to Josh Laughlin, of the Cascadia Wildlands Project
( about where the Biscuit protests stand now. He said
that the protests were productive in that of the 372 million board feet of
timber first proposed for the logging project, only 70 million board feet
were logged by 2006. He said that due to the public awareness and
resultant opposition raised, and public pressure from places like the
Oregon governor’s office, as well as several lawsuits still in the courts
now between environmental groups such as Cascadia Wildlands Project, and
the logging interests, that the Biscuit logging issue seems to be getting
somewhat under control. He said that the trees rot over time and thus
become less attractive and less economically feasible to loggers, so the
longer this issue sits in litigation, etc., the less the timber industry
will want to log the area, as the trees are less useful by the day. In the
end, the loggers got away with logging 1/6 of what they proposed, and that
has got to be seen as a victory by any account. And although victories
were had in defense of The Biscuit, all agree that there is a need for
constant vigilance to keep our forests alive and healthy, regardless of
past successes in this arena.

I believe this DVD should be shown in every high school and college across
the land. There are many issues addressed in this video that the average
person probably does not know about. There is a world happening out here
that many do not even know exist. A world where people put their fears
away and go to the woods to lay their lives on the line for the land. Yes,
it is still happening today. Eco-activism did not die with the national
pronunciation of Earth Day, folks. Direct action such as those taken in
defense of The Biscuit can be employed all over, and can be applied to
many causes. This DVD shows you not only that you can make a change, but
HOW to make a change NOW. It shows you can trump fear with courage, that
you can trump authority with action, and that is a powerful lesson in this
day and age.

For more information, visit:
The Biscuit Alliance (
Portland IMC Biscuit Action Page
Oxygen collective (
Cascadia Wildlands Project (
What's What/Biscuit Article
Who's Who/Biscuit (
Sisikyou project (
Earth First! (
Kalmath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center (
Cascadia Rising (


Spies Bragging About Their Infiltration
By Kirsten Anderberg (

“MR. WEINGLASS: Do you remember Jerry Rubin talking about the oppression
of black people in America?
BOB PIERSON: I think he did make reference to that, yes, sir.
MR. WEINGLASS: Do you remember Jerry Rubin saying these words: "We're not
interested in protecting the privileges of the white race because white
people in this country have been oppressing blacks for the past hundreds
of years, and we're a white generation that says finally, 'No, you're not
going to continue.' If the cops are going to beat on blacks, they're going
to beat on us, too." Do you recall Jerry Rubin saying words to that
BOB PIERSON: In essence, sir, yes, sir.” – Transcript from the Chicago
7/8 Trial

In Jerry Rubin’s classic book, “Do It!,” published in 1970, Chapter 31
talks about a “bodyguard” for Rubin, whose name is Bob Pierson. This
bodyguard turned out to be a state spy, and bragged about his infiltration
later with exaggerated sensationalism in the press. Jerry Rubin was
involved with the yippie side of the Chicago Democratic Convention
protests of 1968, which is how Bob got assigned to Rubin. With the current
unabashed return of Hoover-esque, unregulated, FBI spying activity on
Americans, looking back 35 years to the Anti-Vietnam War Movement, shows
us not much has changed.

The five page chapter on Rubin’s “pig” as he calls Bob, starts with Rubin
being introduced to Bob by a tall woman named Sunny, who “had tattoos on
her arms and legs.” Rubin describes Bob as wearing “a black leather
jacket, black t-shirt, black vest, boots, black helmet, sunglasses and a
two-day beard.” In the court testimony at the Chicago 7/8 Trial,
Pierson says he bought “the attire of a motorcycle gang member” for
infiltration purposes. The court testimony has Bob saying he hung out with
the Headhunter cycle group for a few days, and then Sunny, a woman biker,
led him to the yippies and Rubin. The court records also show a protection
of every question asking if Sunny knew Bob was a cop. Rubin says Sunny and
Bob bought him ice cream. And over time Bob started telling Rubin to “eat
and sleep well.” Rubin complained he was like “a Jewish mother.”

Bob would later recount this period of his life to the press; Jerry quotes
Bob as saying, “By that time, it had been several days since I’d had a
bath, and the stench alone was enough to put me in solid with the
demonstrators.” Bob further expounded on his spying techniques; “I
arranged with my police contact to leave notes in the men’s room in
Lincoln Park, because many of the yippies don’t bother to use toilets, but
dispose of their human waste out in the open.” Sounds like the trash talk
we hear the feds saying about anarchists nowadays. The police talked about
hippies in the 1960-70’s almost in the exact same terms that they talk
about anarchists and environmentalists today in 2000. With disgust and
inflammatory generalizations.

Rubin recalls one night during the summer of 1968, in Lincoln Park, when
the police shot tear gas into a crowd of protesters, and “Bob zoomed out
of there like a scared mutherfucker.” Rubin then goes on to tell a
frightening tale of how he was walking down the street at around 10 PM
from a protest area and a car pulled up, and 4 men jumped out. They
grabbed Rubin by the hair, and forced him into an unmarked car and took
off. Rubin says they said, “We’re going to put you in a bag and drop you
in the river, Rubin. Whenever you’re on the streets, Rubin, there’s
trouble.” Rubin recounts, “One porker radioed: “We got Jerry Rubin.” They
took me to pig headquarters. A small room…those overweight dudes who hang
around the fringes of demonstrations with cameras and tiny tape recorders,
sport shirts falling over their pants to conceal their guns. They try to
act real chummy to us (“Hi, Tom! How you doing, Martin!”) while they
collect dossiers and plot our destruction. They shouted questions at me:
“Who won, Jerry? Who won?” :You guys ever take baths?””You each have your
own girl friends or do you sleep with each other’s?”…”Why not get your
guns and fight it out now? We’re ready.” “You communicate with the Chinese

Jerry recalls after all these questions, they accused him of causing the
Chicago riots, and he said he could not have caused the riots because he
did not know enough people for that. Jerry recalls the police asking him,
“How many people do you know?” Jerry replied, “124.” And the cop said, “It
shoulda been 123.” Jerry then recalls cops pouring into the room to watch,
he says about 30 were in the room watching. Then, out of nowhere, in walks
Bob! But now Bob was “slick-haired, clean shaven, dressed in a suit.” A
few hours later, Jerry Rubin was charged with a felony, “solicitation to
commit mob action,” and jailed on $25,000 bail, based on Bob Pierson’s

And reading Bob’s account of his spying adventures with the yippies, you
can see that this guy fell for every spoof thing the yippies threw at him.
It reminds me of snipe hunting as kids! When I was a teen in the 1970’s,
the Los Angeles police came to our school and gave us these ridiculous
comic books entitled, “Users Are Losers” about how pot would ruin your
life. When we looked inside, the names the police said “kids” used for pot
were insane. So insane, that the stoners at my school started referring to
pot by the insane names the cops said people use, as they were so funny. I
remember kids at my high school thinking that stoned kids were arrested
and asked by cops, “What names do you call pot?” and the stoned kids would
think up the craziest stuff and tell it to cops, who would write it down
as fact. Kids at my school began referring to pot as “bobo bush” after
reading the “Users Are Losers” comic book, for instance. I remember “got
any lettuce?” was another one. So, it is not surprising to me that spies
have not only gotten things wrong in the past regarding cultures they know
nothing about and cannot tell therefore, when they are being played with,
and that same type of cultural misconception is happening now with the
gross mischaracterizations of environmental activists and anarchists in

So, with that context, read what “Do It” quotes Bob Pierson saying to the
press about the protest culture he spied on in Chicago 1968: “I saw yippie
leaders stuffing narcotics into cream-filled cookies to be fed to
demonstrators when they confronted the police. I didn’t even know what the
drug was, but I was told that it would give the young people the kind of
jolt that would make them ferocious when they fought the pigs.”

The day after Rubin’s arrest, the Chicago Tribune headline was, “How Cop
Spied on the Yippies: Unshaven, Unbathed, He Infiltrated Top Ranks to Gain
Secrets, Made Bodyguard and Chieftan.” Rubin recalls shortly thereafter,
“The New York Daily News revealed that Bob copped my “secret dairy” and
“turned it over to his superiors.” Then came, “Bob’s own sensational
fantasy,” as Rubin calls it, in the December 1968 issue of “Official
Detective” Magazine. This article in Official Detective Magazine came up
in the testimony at the Chicago 7/8 trial and in court, Bob claims the
editors misquoted him. Bob is quoted further as saying in print, “If these
were children, where were their parents? Why weren’t they at home, instead
of in a far-off city with the avowed purpose of stirring up trouble?” I
can only respond with my own feelings about this. Right, Bob…since these
kids were not home, they should be beaten and assaulted with chemicals by
rogue police in this far-off American city. Bob went on to brag of how he
“joined in with the chants and taunts against the police” and how he
“taunted the police into hitting (him) with their clubs” to try to gain
street cred.

Jerry finally sums up this spying bodyguard episode in the end of the
chapter: “An undercover cop is some trip! To glorify his own fantasy, he
glorifies the people he spies on and makes us 1,000 feet tall. Pierson
turned us all into Superfreeks.” Rubin says Bob exaggerated the yippies’
powers, saying they were capable of doing grander crimes than all of the
“regular freeks” put together. Much as today, the crazy stories of
conspiracy the FBI are making, using words like “calls” to describe
friends, “aliases” to describe pen names, and “eco-terrorism” to describe
nonviolent civil disobedience where no one is killed, is very similar to
the mind set we see in Bob Pierson 35 years prior. Rubin ends the chapter
with: “If there is ever a Hollywood movie about the yippies, Bob Pierson
should write the screenplay. Big Bob is a yippie. He takes his fantasies
for reality.”


Search/Arrest Warrants for Activist Arrests Last Month -

What were the FBI looking for? "...evidence of association of
co-conspirators with ALF/ELF, including publications ox communiques by or
related to ALF/ELF, lists of potential victims, and manuals on how to
construct incendiary devices, both written and on computers; evidence of
financial and telephone records, including credit card statements,
receipts, checks, bank statements and telephone bills; and two way radios,
including hand-held radios or walkie talkies, person to person
communicators, scanners and documents or lists of scanner codes..."

This is a reprint from Portland Indy Media (

(author: Gumby Cascadia
Following is a Word format copy of a publicly available arrest and search
affadavit from FBI Special Agent John L. Ferreira. Its dissemination is
meant to inform and educate, not to cause further speculation. This
document is public record and may be disseminated widely.)

Arrest and Search Affadavit re: Recent Arrests

AO 442 (Rev. 12/85) Warrant for Arrest
United States District Court
District of Oregon




To: The United States Marshal and any Authorized United States Officer

QUINTANA, and/or MARlA QUlNTANA and bring her forthwith to the nearest
magistrate to answer a(n)
Indictment, Information, X Complaint, Order of court, Violation Notice,
Probation Violation Petition
charging her with identify theft, in violation of Title 18 United States
Code, Section 1028(a)(7).

Name of Issuing Officer: Thomas M. Coffin
Title of Issuing Officer: United States Magistrate Judge
Date and Location: Eugene, Oregon

Bait fixed at "detention"
Name of Judicial Officer: by Thomas M. Coffin

This warrant was received and executed with the arrest of the above-named
defendant at
Date Received
Date of Arrest
Name and Title of Arresting Officer Signature of Arresting Officer


I, John L. Ferreira, being first duly sworn, depose and say:


1. I am a special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI")
and have been so employed since September 1978. For the past ten years, I
have been assigned to the Eugene Resident Agency of the ("FBI") working
numerous federal violations to include domestic terrorism matters, more
specifically arson, and destruction of property claimed by the Animal
Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF).

2. The information set forth in this affidavit includes facts gathered by
myself, and information provided to me by other federal and state law
enforcement officers. Unless I indicate otherwise, statements that I
attribute to various persons are set forth in substance only.

3. This affidavit is being submitted for the purpose of obtaining four
separate search warrants and a seizure warrant in connection with the
continuing investigation of a number of arsons committed in the Northwest
by persons associated with the ALF/ELF movement. Three of these arsons are
more specifically described in paragraph 4 below. Because this affidavit
is presented solely to establish the probable cause necessary to justify
the issuance of these warrants, it does not necessarily


Include all of the information known to me about the matters presented in
the affidavit. Authority is being sought to search the following premises:
the residences of Stanislas Meyerhoff, 414 Four Seasons Drive,
Charlottesville, Virginia; Kevin Tubbs, 520 South 71st Street,
Springfield, Oregon; Daniel McGowan, 510 East 13th Street, Apartment 14,
New York, New York; and the residence and business of William C. Rodgers,
109 N-A McCormick Street, Prescott, Arizona. The items for which affiant
and others under his direction will be searching include: certain evidence
of association among co-conspirators, including address and/or telephone
books, personal diaries and photographs; evidence of communication among
co-conspirators, including correspondence, voice mail, computer e-mail and
web-site messages; evidence of false identification used or possessed by
co-conspirators, including identifications of Ronald Calloway, Dylan Kay,
and Jamie Moran; evidence of association of co- conspirators with ALF/ELF,
including publications or communiqués by or related to ALF/ELF, lists of
potential victims, and manuals on how to construct incendiary devices,
both written and on computers; evidence of financial and telephone
records, including credit card statements, receipts, checks, bank
statements, and telephone bills; and two way radios, including hand-held
radios or walkie talkies, person to person communicators, scanners and
documents or lists of scanner codes. Additionally, authority is


being sought to seize a 1989 blue/silver Toyota pickup truck registered to
Rodgers, Your affiant believes these items constitute evidence in, or are
relevant to, the continuing investigation of a number of Northwest arsons,
including those specifically described in paragraph 4 below and committed
in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 844(i), Title 18,
United States Code Section 844(n), Title 18, United States Code Section
924 (c), and Title 18, United States Code, Section 372.

4. A cooperating witness (CW) who has proven very credible, identified an
ALF/ELF cell which was responsible for several ALF/ELF claimed arsons to
include the arson at t h e Animal and Plant and Health Inspection Services
Facility (APHIS] in Olympia, Washington on June 21, 1998, the arson at
Superior Lumber Company in Glendale, Oregon on January 2, 2001, and the
arson at Jefferson Poplar Farm, 79214 Collins Road, Clatskanie, Oregon on
May 21, 2001. The CW participated in the arsons of the AHPHIS Facility and
the Superior Lumber Company Office. The CW participated in the planning
("dry run") of the arsons of the buildings at Jefferson Poplar Farm. The
CW provided details of the arsons to include the incendiary devices used,
the placement of the devices, and the description of the targeted area
most of which matched the fire cause investigation conducted by the
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms a n d Explosives (ATF) and other State


and Local fire investigators. The CW also provided details of the dry run
of Jefferson Poplar Farm which were corroborated by separate consensual
tape recordings of conversations between the CW and Meyerhoff and the CW
and McGowan. Additionally, the CW indicated that two-way radios and
scanners were used by the co- conspirators who participated in each of the


5. In a debriefing of the CW during the period September 21 through 23,
2004, the CW provided the following information regarding the arson at the
APHIS Facility in Olympia, Washington on June 21, 1998:

a. On or about June 20, 1998, the CW, Kevin Tubbs, and Josephine Sunshine
Overaker drove from the Eugene, Oregon area to Olympia, Washington to
commit the arson of the APHIS Facility. They were in a van registered in
Tubbs' false name of Ronald Calloway. The plan was to commit two ALF
arsons at the same time. The other arson was planned by another cell,
targeting the Animal Damage Control Facility, also in Olympia, Washington.
Tubbs communicated with Joseph Dibee, also known as Seattle, who was part
of the other cell. Dibee was to supply the timers for the incendiary
devices for both arsons. The CW, Tubbs and Overaker also planned to meet
William C. Rodgers, also known as "Avalon," who


resided in Olympia, Washington, and together commit the arson of the APHIS

b. On the way to Olympia, Washington, the CW, Tubbs and Overaker stopped
in Tacoma, Washington to shoplift item s for their pre-planned arson,
Overaker was arrested for shoplifting sponges and a mag light at Home
Base, Tacoma, Washington. Because Overaker was arrested, the CW and Tubbs
decided to contact Dibee to call off the two arsons. The CW and Tubbs were
unable to contact Dibee. In the meantime, the CW and Tubbs were having
trouble with their van, but were able to temporarily fix it and meet
Rodgers. Overaker, who was released from jail, was with Rodgers. They
decided to commit the arson of the APHIS Facility since they were unable
to contact Dibee to call off the other planned arson. Overaker was told to
find an alibi as she was not permitted to participate in the arson because
of her earlier arrest.

c. Because they were unable to meet Dibee who was to supply the timers for
the incendiary devices, Rodgers purchased lighter sticks (fire starters)
at a store in Olympia, Washington that were to be used in lighting the
fuel. With Tubbs driving, the CW, Tubbs and Rodgers traveled to Olympia,
Washington in Rodgers's


truck. The CW and Rodgers set the incendiary devices (buckets of fuel and
the lighter sticks) at three locations on the outside of the APHIS
Facility, and the two of them then set the fire at the three locations.

d. After setting the fire, the CW, Tubbs and Rodgers drove to the Federal
Way, Washington area where Tubbs had' parked his van. Overaker was w a i t
in g for them in the area where the van was parked. Tubbs and Rodgers
drove in Rodgers' truck to Olympia, Washington where Tubbs dropped Rodgers
at his then residence. Tubbs used Rodgers' truck and drove to Springfield,

e. The CW and Overaker stayed with the van. The CW tried to fix the van,
but failed. The CW left the van at an automotive business, and the CW and
Overaker then hitch-hiked back to Eugene, Oregon.

6. On December 10, 2004, I placed a body recorder on the CW who had agreed
to record a conversation with Tubbs, The CW and Tubbs talked about
Josephine Sunshine Overaker being arrested for shoplifting just prior to
the arson at the APHIS Facility in Olympia, Washington.

7. Independent investigation determined that Overaker was arrested on June
20, 1999, for shoplifting in Tacoma, Washington. The arson at the APHIS
Facility, which was claimed by the ALF,


occurred on June 21, 1998. Also, there was a second arson at the Animal
Damage Control Facility in Olympia, Washington, which also occurred on
June 21, 1998, shortly after the arson at the APHIS Facility.

8. Investigation identified the van registered to Ronald Calloway being
abandoned at E a g l e Tire and Automotive, 1515 South 344th Street',
Federal Way, Washington on June 22, 1998 (the day after the arson at the
APHIS Facility).

9. On June 16, 2005, I placed a body recorder on the CW who had agreed to
record a conversation with Tubbs. The CW asked Tubbs about his abandoned
van. Tubbs replied that "someone signed the permission slip to have it,
like salvaged or whatever."

10. On November 18, 2005, I placed a body recorder on the CW who had
agreed to record another conversation with Tubbs. Tubbs and the CW
discussed the arson at the APHIS Facility. Tubbs talked about a "friend"
(Dibee) who failed to show up with the "shot glasses or can opener"
(timing devices), but left the area because the CW, Tubbs, Rodgers, and
Overaker were late getting to the staging area,

11. The CW's account of how the arson took place and the method of
ignition was also consistent with the ATF fire investigation. Fire
investigators from ATF determined that at the APHIS Facility, there were
three independent areas of origin


and that accelerants were used. An ATF report regarding the arson states:
"Ignition is more probably than not by hand held flame." Fire
investigators at the scene collected melted white plastic and wire bucket
handles which were consistent with the CW's statement that they used white
plastic buckets. The ATF laboratory also identified the "remains of a
wood/wax based fire starter". This is consistent with the information
provided by the CW that Rodgers used Duraflame Firestart Barbeque lighters
to light some of the buckets of fuel.

Superior Lumber Company arson

12. In a debriefing of the CW during the period September 21 through 23,
2004, the CW provided the following information regarding the arson at the
Superior Lumber Company office in Glendale, Oregon on January 2, 2001: The
CW, Tubbs, Stanislas Meyerhoff, Daniel McGowan, and McGowan's
ex-girlfriend, Suzanne M. Savoie, also known as " India, " drove to
Glendale, Oregon to commit the arson of the Superior Lumber Company
office. McGowan and Savoie were the lookouts or watchdogs. Tubbs was the
driver of the van the CW called "Betty." The CW and Meyerhoff scouted the
office area of Superior Lumber Company. Tubbs drove the van around to the
back parking area to deliver the incendiary devices. The CW and Meyerhoff
set the incendiary devices outside of the Superior Lumber Company office
building, and left the area in the van.


13. Investigation revealed that on January 2, 2001, the arson at the
office of Superior Lumber Company occurred, and was claimed by the ELF.
The CW provided details of the arsons to include the incendiary devices
used, the placement of the devices, and the description of the targeted
area, nearly all of which matched the fire cause investigation conducted
by ATF.

14. On April 2, 2005, I placed a body recorder on the CW who engaged in a
conversation with McGowan. McGowan talked about the "Glendale thing" and
that "You were losing gas in Betty (the van) and you had to like rub soap
or something, or a panty hose or something on the fuckin' O ring. Do you
remember that? Every like couple miles or something ridiculous. You know
what I'm saying?"

15. On July 18, 2005, 1 placed a body recorder on the CW who engaged in a
conversation with Meyerhoff. Meyerhoff stated, regarding Glendale, "It was
super smooth. It wa-, it operated well. It all went super smooth except
for the fuckin' van starting to break down in the middle of the fucking
drive down."

Jefferson Poplar Farm arson
16. In a debriefing of the CW during the period September 21 through 23,
2004, the CW provided the following information regarding the arson at
Jefferson Poplar Farm in Clatskanie, Oregon on May 21, 2001: Approximately
six months prior to the arson, the CW, who was living in Portland, Oregon
with Overaker,


was visited by Tubbs, Meyerhoff, Chelsea Gerlach and McGowan. They asked
the CW to accompany them for a dry run of an unknown location. They drove
across the State of Washington border and later crossed back over into
Oregon. The CW recalled driving over railroad tracks and to a farm.

17. On December 10, 2004, the CW was driven out to Jefferson Poplar Farms
with me. Before we came to any railroad tracks, the CW stated to me that
there were railroad tracks shortly ahead. A short distance later, we were
able to observe and drove over the railroad tracks. The CW recalled the
farm area.

18. On June 28, 2005, 1 placed a body recording device on the CW. The CW
met Meyerhoff and they talked about the arson at the Jefferson Poplar
Farm. Meyerhoff stated "Towards the end, you know, I'd make the burgers
(timing devices) and it kept happening. You remember that double, well you
were there...Double whammy? We did two the same time. Washington and
Oregon at the same time." Meyerhoff continues by saying "This is what
ended up happening is half of it, half of it went... like trucks all went,
you know?...half of it went in the shed and the office and relevant stuff,
like there were two on there."

19. Investigation revealed that there were two arsons on May 21, 2001 that
were claimed by ELF: one was at the Jefferson Poplar Farm in Clatskanie,
Oregon, and the other at the

University of Washington in Seattle, Washington. Investigation also
confirmed the details provided by Meyerhoff regarding the setting of the
incendiary devices at Jefferson Poplar Farms.

20. On April 2, 2005, I placed a body recording device on the CW who
engaged in a conversation with McGowan. McGowan said "Well, yeah, Poplar,
they basically, they got an intact one. This uh, didn't work. It (timing
device) was submerged though, urn... Yeah (in a bucket). It didn't work,
actually they probably have two, two, two of them, from the same spot."

21. Investigation confirmed what McGowan was talking about regarding the
setting of the incendiary devices at Jefferson Poplar Farms and that
timing devices did not ignite. Found at the scene was a "fanny pack,"
submerged in a bucket of fuel. The CW had earlier advised me that timing
devices were typically brought to the scene of the arsons in backpacks or
similar gear. Intact incendiary devices were also recovered at Jefferson
Poplar Farms.

Association and Communication Among Co-conspirators

22. On April 1, 2005, I placed a body recording device on the person of
the CW, who engaged in a conversation with McGowan. McGowan advised the CW
that he keeps in touch with "India" (Savoie), and that they write letters
to each other. McGowan also talked about meeting Lacy Phillabaum,
girlfriend of Meyerhoff, in the near future.


23. On April 2, 2005, I placed a body recording device on the person of
the CW, who engaged in a conversation with McGowan. McGowan advised the CW
that he tries to keep in touch with people (cell members) to make sure
everything is alright, and that they did not find religion and/or money,
which are the only ways people will talk to law enforcement. McGowan also
mentioned tracking down the "punk kids" (a couple who helped with the
arson at Jefferson Poplar).

24. On August 15, 2005, I provided a body recording device to the CW, who
engaged in a conversation with McGowan. McGowan advised the CW that he
talks to India (Savoie) every couple of months.

25. On August 15, 2005, I placed a body recording device on the person of
the CW, who engaged in a conversation with McGowan. McGowan advised the CW
that he researches on the internet for updates on ALF/ELF arson
investigations and information about grand juries.

26. On November 18, 2005, I placed a body recording device on the person
of the CW, who engaged in a conversation with Tubbs. Tubbs advised the CW
that he is expecting an email from "Kara" (Rebecca Rubin), who is a cell
member and who participated in at least one ALF/ELF claimed arson with
Tubbs and Meyerhoff. Tubbs also mentioned that he is expecting a telephone
call or email from Meyerhoff.

Association with ALF/ELF
27. On January 8, 2005, I placed a body recording device on the CW who
engaged in a conversation with Tubbs regarding I discovering an ALF/ELF
pamphlet in his house. Tubbs advised the CW that the pamphlet was in his
belongings for the past ten years, and when he found it, he got rid of it.

28. On August 15, 2005, I provided a body recording device to the CW who
engaged in a conversation with McGowan. McGowan talked about discovering a
copy of the Rodgers' manual "Setting Fires with Electronic Timers," at an
unknown storage unit for an environmental office in New York City. McGowan
stated to the CW that he made copies of the manual and was going to
distribute the m to continue to educate extremists in how to build
destructive devices.

29. On November 25, 2005, I placed a body recording device on the person
of the CW who engaged in a conversation with Rodgers. Rodgers advised the
CW that he stopped working on his manual ("Setting Fires with Electronic
Timers") about a year and a half ago and has not done anything with it
since then. He continued by stating that if he had completed the manual in
2001, young people, who were committed to the destruction of property on
behalf of the ALF/ELF, would have avoided being arrested. Rodgers also
mentioned that he has all the "zines" (magazines and other publications of
the ALF/ELF) under his control.


30. Investigation identified Rodgers as operating an Infoshop and
Bookstore (anarchist bookstore) at 109 N-A McCormack Street, Prescott,
Arizona, where he resides in the back part of the store.

Use and Possession of False Identification by Co-conspirators
31. On June 16, 2005, I placed a body recording device on the CW who
engaged in a conversation with Tubbs about Tubbs' alias of Ronald
Calloway. Tubbs advised the CW that in approximately May 2005, he received
a notification from the local courts regarding jury duty under the name of
Ronald Calloway.

32. Investigation confirmed that Tubbs utilized the false name of Ronald
Calloway, a former friend from Nebraska. A copy of an Oregon Department of
Motor vehicles driver's license photograph of Calloway was obtained and
the photograph is identical to Tubbs.

33. On April 1, 2005, f placed a body recording device on the person of
the CW, who engaged in a conversation with McGowan regarding the use of
Jamie Moran as a false identity.

3 4. Investigation h as revealed that for the past seven years, McGowan h
as used the false names of Djenni McGowan, Dylan Kay, and Jamie Moran.
McGowan has also used the street names or forest names of Sorrell and

35. For the past year, I have recorded several conversations between the
CW, Meyerhoff, Tubbs, and McGowan.
During these conversations, they used aliases such as Jack or Country Boy
for Meyerhoff; Sorrel or Jamie Moran for McGowan; and Bobby Pants or Bob,
for Tubbs.

Financial and Telephone Records
36. Based upon my training and experience, including participation in
other domestic terrorism investigations, and extensive discussions with
other experienced FBI agents and state and local officers, I have probable
cause to believe and do believe that persons generally, including
individuals involved in domestic terrorism groups, and specifically
Meyerhoff, Tubbs, McGowan and Rodgers, typically maintain financial and
telephone records including credit card statements, receipts, checks, bank
statements and telephone bills as part of their personal records for
purposes of preparing personal tax returns, reconciling checkbooks, and
verification of purchases and/or payments. These documents may be relevant
to this investigation because they may establish relationships, payments
among co-conspirators, locations and timing of where co-conspirators were
in relation to the destruction of property and/or arsons, and purchases of
components of incendiary devices and other necessary clothing and tools
used in the commission of the destruction of property and/or arsons.

Two Way Radios and Scanners
37. On July 18, 2005, I placed a body recording device on


the CW who engaged in a conversation with Meyerhoff. Meyerhoff stated to
the CW that he was in the process of getting rid of some of his
belongings, including "those radios." CW suggested that Meyerhoff ask
Tubbs if he wanted the radios. In a subsequent communication, Meyerhoff
informed the CW that he was keeping one (scanner).

Blue/Silver Toyota Pickup

38. I was informed by the CW that Rodgers used an older blue/silver Toyota
pickup to transport the incendiary devices and the CW and Tubbs to the
APHIS Facility arson. Investigation identified a 1989 blue/silver Toyota
pickup registered to William C. Rodgers, Idaho license plate 2TF8170. The
CW further informed @ me that Rodgers was using the same pickup during the
meeting in Western Colorado where they discussed the planned arson at the
Vail Ski Resort in October 1998. On November 26, 2005, I observed Rodgers'
pickup-parked in the back parking lot of 109 N- A McCormack Street,
Prescott, Arizona.

Confirmation of Residences

39. 1 was informed by Special Agent (SA) Joseph Kincaid, New York FBI,
that McGowan is currently receiving mail under the name of Daniel McGowan,
at 510 East 13th Street, Apartment 14, New York, New York. On December 1,
2005, 1 was informed by Eugene Police Detective Greg Harvey that he had
observed McGowan enter the building located at 510 East 13th Street, New
York, New

York. On November 30, 2005, SA Victor A. Arocho, New York, FBI, advised me
that 510 East 13th Street, Apartment 14, New York, New York, is a six
floor multi-apartment dwelling with a red brick face and a front locking
door with approximately 25 apartments. Apartment 14 is located on the
fourth floor with number "14" on the door.

40. I was informed by SA Steve Duenas, Charlottesville, Virginia FBI, that
Meyerhoff resides at 4 1 4 Four Seasons Drive, Charlottesville, Virginia,
SA Duenas conducted a surveillance of the residence and located
Meyerhoff's vehicle parked near the apartment. SA Duenas also checked with
Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles which revealed Meyerhoff obtained a
driver's license on which he listed his address as 414 Four Seasons Drive,
Charlottesville, Virginia. On December 1, 2005, I spoke with SA Denise
Rhoades, Charlottesville FBI, who informed me that 414 Four Seasons Drive,
Charlottesville, Virginia, is one of approximately three units of a
grayish two story building, and 414 is the corner unit on the first floor.
She also told me that all units of the building have white trim around the
doors and windows and a dark green front door, and that the numbers "414"
on the corner unit appear in black just left of the front door.

41. On November 25, 2005, Detective Gregory Harvey, Eugene Police
Department, entered Catalyst Infoshop and Bookstore, 109 N-A McCormick
Street, Prescott, Arizona, and observed Rodgers in


the kitchen area in the back of the Infoshop and Bookstore building.
Detective Harvey informed me that it appears Rodgers is living in the back
part of the building. On November 25, 2005, the CW agreed to record a
conversation with Rodgers, who advised that he resides in the Infoshop and
Bookstore building. SA Doug Litner, Flagstaff FBI, advised me that the
Catalyst Infoshop and Bookstore is a two story wood framed building,
orange and yellow in color with purple trim, and there is a sign located
by the entrance of the building, which states Catalyst Infoshop and
Bookstore, 109 N-A McCormack Street, Prescott, Arizona.

42. During numerous surveillances, Tubbs or Tubbs' vehicle were observed
at his residence, 520 South 71st Street, Springfield, Oregon. The CW met
Tubbs at his residence on several occasions, as recently as August 15,
2005. A check with Lane County Property records revealed that Tubbs owns
the residence located at 520 South 71st Street, Springfield, Oregon, with
Michelle Page. On November 30, 2005, Detective David Burroughs, Eugene
Police Department, advised me that 520 South 71st Street, Springfield,
Oregon, is a two story cinder block dwelling, white in color with a
carport on the north side, and the number "520" in brown wooden numbers on
the carport. Detective Burroughs also advised me that there is an
unattached white wooden shed on the northeast corner of the backyard of


South 71st Street, Springfield, Oregon.

Forensic Analysis of Computers

43. SA Paul Mueller has advised that based upon his knowledge, training
and experience, and that of the Computer Analysis and Response Team
("CART") unit at the Portland Regional Computer Forensic Laboratory (RCFL)
and the Portland Division of the FBI, computer files or remnants of such
files can be recovered months or even years after they have been
downloaded onto a hard drive, deleted or viewed via the Internet.
Electronic files downloaded to a hard drive can be stored for years at
little or no cost. Even when such files have been deleted, they can be
recovered months or years later using readily-available forensics tools.
When a person deletes a file on a home computer, the data contained in the
file does not actually disappear; rather, that data remains on the hard
drive until it is over written by new data. Therefore, deleted files, or
remnants of deleted files, may reside in free space or slack space - that
is, in space on the hard drive that is not allocated to an active file or
that is unused after a file has been allocated to a set block of storage
space - for long periods of time before they are overwritten. In addition,
a computer's operating system may also keep a record of deleted data in a
"swap" or "recovery" file. Similarly, files that have been viewed via the
Internet are automatically downloaded into a


temporary Internet directory or "cache." The browser typically maintains a
fixed amount of hard drive space devoted to these files, and the files are
only overwritten as they are replaced with more recently viewed Internet
pages. Thus, the ability to retrieve residue of an electronic file from a
hard drive depends less on when the file was downloaded or viewed than on
the particular user's operating system, storage capacity, and computer

44. SA Mueller has advised that based upon his knowledge, training and
experience, and that of the CART unit at Portland Regional Computer
Forensics Laboratory, searching and seizing information from computers
often requires agents to seize most or all electronic storage devices
(along with related peripherals) to be searched later by a qualified
computer expert in a laboratory or other controlled environment. This is
true because of the following:

a. The volume of evidence. Computer storage devices (like hard disks,
diskettes, tapes, laser disks) can store the equivalent of millions of
pages of information. Additionally, a suspect may try to conceal criminal
evidence; he or she might store it in random order with deceptive file
names. This may require searching authorities to examine all the stored
data to determine which particular files are evidence or


instrumentalities of crime. This sorting process can take weeks or months,
depending on the volume of data stored, and it would be impractical and
invasive to attempt this kind of data search on-site.

b. Technical requirements. Searching computer systems for criminal
evidence is a highly technical process requiring expert skill and a
properly controlled environment. The vast array of computer hardware and
software available requires even computer experts to specialize in some
systems and applications, so it is difficult to know before a search which
expert is qualified to analyze the system and its data. In any event,
however, data search protocols are exacting scientific procedures designed
to protect the integrity of the evidence and to recover even "hidden,"
erased, compressed, password-protected, or encrypted files. Because
computer evidence is vulnerable t o inadvertent or intention a
modification or destruction (both from external sources or from
destructive code imbedded in the system as a "booby trap"), a controlled
environment may be necessary to complete an accurate analysis. Further,
such searches often require the seizure of most or all of the computer
system's input/output peripheral devices, related software, documentation,


and data security devices (including passwords) so that a qualified
computer expert can accurately retrieve the system's data in a laboratory
or other controlled environment.

45. Based upon the above information, as well as my training, experience,
participation in other domestic terrorism investigations, and extensive
discussions with other experienced FBI agents, and state and local
officers, I have probable cause to believe and do believe that there will
be found in the premises of Stanislas Meyerhoff, 414 Four Seasons Drive,
Charlottesville, Virginia, Kevin Tubbs, 520 South 71st Street,
Springfield, Oregon, Daniel McGowan, 510 East 13th Street, Apartment 14,
New York, New York, and William C. Rodgers, 109 N-A McCormick Street,
Prescott, Arizona, certain evidence of association among co-conspirators,
including address and/or telephone books, personal diaries and
photographs; evidence of communication among co-conspirators, including
correspondence, voice mail, computer e-mail and web-site messages;
evidence of false identification among co-conspirators, including
identifications of Ronald Calloway, Dylan Kay, and Jamie Moran; evidence
of association of co-conspirators with ALF/ELF, including publications ox
communiques by or related to ALF/ELF, list s of potential victims, and
manuals on how to construct incendiary devices, both written and on
computers; evidence of


financial and telephone records, including credit card statements,
receipts, checks, bank statements and telephone bills; and two way radios,
including hand-held radios or walkie talkies, person to person
communicators, scanners and documents or lists of scanner codes,
Additionally, I have probable cause to believe and do believe that a 1989
blue/silver Toyota pickup bearing Idaho license plate # 2TF8170, and
registered to Rodgers will be found in close proximity to Rodgers'
residence. These items constitute evidence of, or are relevant to, the
continuing investigation of the three Northwest arsons specifically
described in paragraph 4 above and committed in violation of Title 18,
United States Code, Section 844(i), Titles 18, United States Code, Section
844(n), Title 18, United States Code Section 924(c), and Title 18, United
States Code, Section 371. I therefore respectfully request that four
search warrants and a seizure warrant be authorized allowing law
enforcement officers acting under my direction to search for the
aforementioned items a t the above locations, and authorizing the seizure
of same, if any are found.

46. Additionally, your Affiant requests the Court's permission to seize
the computer hardware (and associated peripherals) that are believed to
contain some or all of the evidence described in the warrant, and to
conduct an off-site search of the hardware for the evidence described.


47. Due to the extremely sensitive nature of the investigative techniques
contained herein and because the investigation of this matter is
continuing and is expected to continue for some time, I request that this
affidavit be sealed.

48. Based upon my consultation with David B. Deitch, Domestic Terrorism
Coordinator, Counterterrorism Section, Criminal Division, Department of
Justice, and John C. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, I believe the
Court has the authority to issue the search warrants sought for locations
outside of the District of Oregon pursuant to rule 41(b) (3) of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. That Rule provides as follows:

At the request of a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the
government . . . a magistrate judge -- in an investigation of domestic
terrorism or international terrorism (as defined in 18 U.S.C. section
2331) -- having authority in any district in which activities related to
the terrorism may have occurred, may issue a warrant for a person or
property within or outside that district.

Title 18, United States Code section 2331(5) states that "domestic
terrorism" means:

Activities that -

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are


a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to, be intended -

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction,
assassination, or kidnaping; and

(C) occur primarily with in the territorial jurisdiction of the United

It is my belief, based upon the facts set forth in this affidavit, that
this is an investigation involving domestic terrorism, as defined in the
referenced statute, and that there are activities related to the terrorism
which have occurred with in the District of Oregon.

49. This affidavit has been reviewed and approved for presentation to
United States Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin by the aforementioned
Department of Justice Attorneys.

John L. Ferreira
Special Agent
Federal Bureau of Investigation

Subscribed and worn to before me and in my presence this


____________ day of December, 2005.

Thomas M. Coffin
United States Magistrate
District of Oregon


More articles by Kirsten translated into German:

Erziehung versus Protest? (Germany IMC, Feb 2004)
Neue fragwürdige Praktik am UN-Tribunal (Germany IMC, Nov 2003)


theopenunderground udog ulinuz nurse war kapital sekten

@readme   guestbook forum impressum/disclaimer