{"id":112738,"date":"2018-06-11T12:00:31","date_gmt":"2018-06-11T11:00:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=112738"},"modified":"2018-06-10T12:35:25","modified_gmt":"2018-06-10T11:35:25","slug":"animal-rights-activists-face-multiple-felony-charges-brought-by-prosecutors-with-ties-to-smithfield-foods","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2018\/06\/animal-rights-activists-face-multiple-felony-charges-brought-by-prosecutors-with-ties-to-smithfield-foods\/","title":{"rendered":"Animal Rights Activists Face Multiple Felony Charges, Brought by Prosecutors with Ties to Smithfield Foods"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>

Piglets huddled up against their mothers when they were sick or starving at Smithfield-owned Circle Four Farms in Utah. Photo: Wayne Hsiung\/DxE<\/p><\/div>\n

7 Jun 2018 – <\/em>Six animal rights activists in California have been charged with\u00a0multiple felony counts in two separate criminal cases brought by Utah prosecutors last month. If convicted, they could face many years\u00a0in prison.<\/p>\n

These\u00a0charges raise serious questions about whether\u00a0prosecutors are attempting to unconstitutionally\u00a0punish the activists\u00a0for filming, documenting, and exposing abuses by the agricultural industry that dominates the state, and particularly whether the prosecutors have acted\u00a0with improper motives\u00a0because of their own extensive ties to that industry.<\/p>\n

httpv:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=widL7WL0uQ0<\/p>\n

The first criminal case, reported by<\/a>\u00a0The Intercept last month, was brought by Sanpete County Attorney Kevin Daniels. It charges six activists with\u00a0two felony charges that, at least as provided by the cited statutes, carry possible prison terms of\u00a0five years\u00a0each.<\/p>\n

That case\u00a0arises out of the filming of horrific\u00a0conditions at an industrial farm that supplies turkeys to Norbest,\u00a0a large company that aggressively\u00a0markets itself<\/a>\u00a0to the public as selling \u201cmountain grown\u201d turkeys who are treated with\u00a0particularly humane care. Norbest is now owned by a supplier of Whole Foods.<\/p>\n

Last year, the activists entered the facility and filmed the horrifying conditions<\/a> in which the turkeys were encaged. The activists also rescued three severely sick and injured turkeys who were on the\u00a0brink of death, brought them to a veterinarian for medical care, and then to a sanctuary to live.<\/p>\n

Even\u00a0Norbest\u2019s\u00a0corporate executives acknowledged<\/a> that the factory farm conditions these activists exposed were unacceptable.\u00a0After\u00a0the activists\u2019 expos\u00e9, Norbest terminated its contract with that facility. The contrast between the company\u2019s bucolic branding and the reality that the activists exposed was stark.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The second criminal case, reported by<\/a> the Washington Post last month, was brought by the Utah Attorney General\u2019s Office, led by state Attorney General\u00a0Sean Reyes.\u00a0It charges five of the same activists with five separate felony charges, including \u201crioting,\u201d racketeering, and felony theft. These charges<\/a>, accumulated together, could conceivably\u00a0entail sentences of decades in prison.<\/p>\n

The charges in this second prosecution are based on the activists\u2019 filming of the conditions for pigs at Smithfield-Foods-owned Circle Four Farms. That investigation generated\u00a0significant media attention about the conditions there, which were at odds with the\u00a0claims<\/a>\u00a0Smithfield had made publicly.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

After that Smithfield investigation, the New York Times published a\u00a0large story<\/a> heralding the activists\u2019 use of virtual reality technology to powerfully document abusive conditions inside Smithfield\u2019s factory farms. Vox also featured a\u00a0lengthy article<\/a>, based\u00a0on the work of these same activists, that described the hideous abuses at Smithfield facilities. The Intercept\u2019s\u00a0report<\/a> on the\u00a0treatment of pigs by\u00a0Smithfield and the subsequent FBI investigation into these activists was one of this site\u2019s most-read articles in its history.<\/p>\n

While filming at\u00a0the Smithfield-owned\u00a0farm, the activists, following the same \u201copen rescue\u201d model that they used for the recuse of the three Norbest turkeys, took two extremely sick piglets who were near death. They filmed themselves doing so, and then published videos of the rescue and the piglets\u2019 slow recovery into playful, happy, healthy animals after they received veterinarian care and placement at a sanctuary.<\/p>\n

The six defendants now facing felony charges\u00a0from these two cases include retiree Diane Gandee\u00a0Sorbi, 62, who spends most of her time volunteering at animal shelters; Andrew Sharo, a 24-year-old Ph.D. student in the biophysics program at the University of California, Berkeley; and\u00a0Wayne Hsiung, a lawyer and lead investigator. All are activists with the animal rights group Direct Action Everywhere, or DxE, which uses only nonviolent means of protest to publicize the usually hidden conditions inside factory farms.<\/p>\n

In neither of the two cases did the activists take anything of commercial value. All\u00a0five of the animals they rescued were virtually certain to die within days, if not hours \u2014 well before they could get to the slaughterhouse and be turned into commercially marketable food.<\/p>\n

Even if those sickly animals were somehow able to\u00a0survive until\u00a0the slaughterhouse, their commercial value\u00a0would be trivial: the equivalent of\u00a0taking a few packs of gum. But, given how gravely ill and injured these animals were, the activists\u2019\u00a0actions almost certainly saved<\/em> (rather than cost) these companies money,\u00a0by alleviating them of the need to pay for corpse disposal.<\/p>\n

So why are<\/u> animal rights activists who took nothing of commercial value, and who injured nobody, facing multiple felony charges and many years in prison? How can that conduct possibly be defined under the law\u00a0as constituting felony theft, rioting, and racketeering? And how is it possible to criminalize activism that \u2014 as its only goal and only outcome \u2014 reports on, reveals, and documents the secret, abusive practices of powerful corporations?<\/p>\n

The answers to all of those question lie in the same grim reality that has corrupted so much of American democracy: Namely, lawmakers, the legislative process, and the justice system are controlled by the most powerful corporate actors, which abuse and exploit\u00a0democratic and\u00a0legal processes for their own\u00a0interests. That includes abusing the power of the criminal law to punish those who criticize these industries, report on them, and dissent from their practices.<\/p>\n

To begin with, the relevant laws in Utah reflect just how brazenly agricultural interests dominate the state\u2019s political system for its own interests. The felony theft statute under which the activists are charged specifies that theft only becomes a felony if the property taken has a value of $1,500 or more.<\/p>\n

How, then, can these\u00a0activists be charged\u00a0with felony theft given that the commercial value of the five dying animals they rescued\u00a0is nowhere near that amount? This is possible because Utah legislators, at the behest of the animal agricultural industry, inserted a caveat into this law<\/a> providing that it is always<\/em> a felony to take animals raised for commercial purposes, even if the commercial value is trivial or nonexistent:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Note that stealing an animal\u00a0is automatically a third-degree felony only if\u00a0the animal is \u201craised for commercial purposes.\u201d That means that someone who steals a neighbor\u2019s dog or cat would not be committing felony theft under this statute, because the stolen animal is \u201cmerely\u201d a beloved pet with less than $1,500 in value.<\/p>\n

Taking an animal only catapults into a felony if the animal is being bred or raised by\u00a0a commercial animal enterprise. In other words, this law has no purpose other than to include a special-favor carve out in the criminal law as a gift to the animal agricultural industry: one that makes it a felony to take\u00a0an animal being raised for food, no matter what commercial value it has (even if zero).<\/p>\n

More revealing still, the law provides for enhanced\u00a0punishments \u2014 including longer prison terms \u2014 if the \u201cintent\u201d of the theft is to remove animals from an animal enterprise facility. Thus, for each felony count in the indictment brought against these activists by the Utah Attorney General\u2019s Office, there is a\u00a0warning of\u00a0enhanced prison terms<\/em> beyond what the law already provides:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Just as animal rights activists have been prosecuted on the federal level\u00a0as terrorists<\/em><\/a> for acts such as releasing minks from cages \u2014 under\u00a0the extremist 2006\u00a0Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act enacted with bipartisan support \u2014 they are now being prosecuted as\u00a0racketeers<\/em> for removing a tiny handful of near-death animals and providing them with veterinarian\u00a0care.<\/p>\n

Then there are<\/u> the prosecutors themselves. Kevin Daniels, the county attorney in Utah\u2019s Sanpete County who brought the first felony charges against the activists, is a founding partner of a small law<\/a> firm bearing his name: \u201cStyler Daniels, P.C.\u201d He works simultaneously as county attorney and a partner in private practice at this firm. That firm\u00a0has represented Smithfield Foods in numerous cases, and\u00a0Daniels himself \u2014 as he boasts\u00a0on his own current\u00a0LinkedIn page<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 has also represented Smithfield.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Indeed, in 2017, Smithfield was the subject of a well-publicized, heated political and legal dispute<\/a> when local Utah residents opposed Smithfield\u2019s attempts to open a new pig facility near them, on the ground that it would contaminate the water supply and harm the environment.<\/p>\n

Residents organized a petition drive against Smithfield and agitated at the planning commission for a denial of the zoning permit. In that fight, Smithfield \u2014 as recently as November 2017, just seven months ago \u2014 was represented by the small law firm Daniels founded, and in which he still, as he prosecutes these animal rights activists, is a partner.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

So this local prosecutor just brought extreme felony charges in the Norbest case against the very same activists who did more to expose the hidden\u00a0conditions at Smithfield than anyone has in\u00a0years. At the same time, Smithfied, at least as recently as late last year, is an important, large corporate client at his small law firm.<\/p>\n

Though the charges\u00a0Daniels brought pertain to the Norbest case rather than the Smithfield one, the massive local and national media attention devoted to\u00a0the Smithfield\u00a0investigation should create the presumption\u00a0that Daniels is well aware that the activists he decided to prosecute as felons are the same ones who carried out the\u00a0investigation of\u00a0his private law firm\u2019s large corporate client.<\/p>\n

Indeed,\u00a0the FOIA-equivalent request filed by The Intercept with\u00a0Daniels\u2019s office reveals that, prior to charging these activists with felonies, he was communicating with the Utah attorney general (which filed the felony charges in the Smithfield case):<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The Beaver County Sheriff\u2019s Office, which investigated the Smithfield facility, denied a similar records request filed by The Intercept, on the ground that the requested emails relate to an ongoing investigation. The denial letter, however, confirms that local law enforcement corresponded with the Utah Attorney General\u2019s Office as well as the FBI (which, as The Intercept previously reported<\/a>,\u00a0actually executed search warrants to\u00a0collect DNA samples in order to find the two piglets taken from Smithfield just weeks after publication of the New York Times report on the Smithfield investigation):<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Then there\u2019s the Utah attorney general, Reyes, whose office filed the criminal case against these activists for the Smithfield investigation. In 2016, when Reyes, as the Republican nominee, sought election as attorney general, Smithfield supported<\/a> both the Republican Attorneys General Association, or RAGA, as well as the Republican Governors Association.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Reyes\u2019s 2016 campaign was funded, in part, by $310,000 in soft money contributions<\/a>\u00a0from the Smithfield-supported RAGA. In fact, in July 2017, the government watchdog group Center for Media and Democracy sued the Utah Attorney General\u2019s Office<\/a> for refusing to disclose Reyes\u2019s relationship with RAGA and a related group, arguing that \u201cthe two \u2018cash-for-influence\u2019 organizations promote and coordinate corporate events with GOP attorneys general for its corporate members in the energy, telecom, financial, pharmaceutical and other fields.\u201d (Requests to Reyes\u2019s office for comment were not answered as of the publication of this article.)<\/p>\n

Moreover, Reyes \u2014 before\u00a0becoming Utah attorney general \u2014 had spent 14 years at one of Utah\u2019s largest law firms, Parsons Behle & Latimer,\u00a0where he rose to partner. One of that firm\u2019s principal client groups<\/a> is its representation of\u00a0the animal agricultural industry, as the firm\u2019s website proudly touts:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

In an interview with The Intercept, Daniels, the county attorney, insisted that his law firm\u2019s work for Smithfield poses no conflict of interest in his prosecution of these activists, because of how limited and old he claimed this work is. \u201cNo, nope. Not at all actually,\u201d he replied when asked about this conflict. \u201cMy work for Smithfield was really limited and awhile ago in time. I did an employment law issue for them. So it had nothing to do actually with their operation at all, other than they had a question as to how \u2014 this is that long ago when Obama was still president.\u201d<\/p>\n

But the above records prove that the work performed by Daniels\u2019s firm for Smithfield\u00a0involved a significant public conflict involving contested zoning permits to open a new Smithfield pig facility,\u00a0and extended to at least the end of 2017.<\/p>\n

Daniels\u00a0also vehemently denied that he was influenced in any way by his ties to this industry: \u201cIt would piss me off if they tried to influence me. I\u2019m an independent guy, independent prosecutor. I do what\u2019s right.\u201d<\/p>\n

The real reason<\/u> for these self-evidently excessive prosecutions is obvious. If these prosecutors really believed that the activists committed crimes, then they could charge them with simple trespassing and misdemeanor petty theft. At most, that is what they could be reasonably accused of, given what they did.<\/p>\n

But that is not what they are being charged with. Instead, they face multiple felony counts in two separate criminal cases that accuse them of being racketeers, rioters, and felony thieves, and under the relevant statutes, they face years, if not decades, in prison.<\/p>\n

Why would multiple prosecutors all coordinate on the federal, state, and local levels to threaten them this way in such blatantly minor cases? Why would the FBI\u00a0<\/em>expend substantial resources<\/a>\u00a0investigating and searching for two\u00a0removed Smithfield piglets, out of the tens of millions<\/a> that are extinguished each year in the U.S. alone?<\/p>\n

By far, the most consequential aspect of what these activists are doing is not the symbolic removal of\u00a0a handful of dying (and thus valueless) animals, but rather, the light they are shining on the abusive conditions within this powerful industry. In other words, they are engaged in classic journalism, activism, and criticism of this industry. That<\/em>, and that alone, is what makes them so threatening.<\/p>\n

Previously, Utah prosecutors and other industry-loyal officials around the country were able to turn animal rights activists who exposed these practices into felons by using so-called ag-gag laws. But now, those laws are\u00a0increasingly being declared unconstitutional as a violation of free speech rights \u2014\u00a0Utah\u2019s \u201cag-gag\u201d law is now dead<\/a> for that reason \u2014 and the industry and its servants in law enforcement and government are desperately searching for alternative means of exploiting and abusing the criminal law to silence, bully, intimidate, and deter them.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Charging activists instead with felony theft, racketeering and rioting \u2014 essentially the state court version of a RICO case used on the federal level against mobsters \u2014 is the perfect way to circumvent the unconstitutional \u201cag-gag\u201d laws and once again turn activists into felons. Daniels, the country prosecutor, vehemently denies this motive: \u201cThis certainly wasn\u2019t a runaround on the \u2018ag-gag\u2019 laws. I\u2019m a big proponent of free speech rights, and I wasn\u2019t a big proponent of the \u2018ag-gag\u2019 laws to begin with. \u2026 I\u2019m a big marketplace of ideas kind of guy.\u201d<\/p>\n

But in a state that is dominated by agribusiness, with all sorts of judges, prosecutors, and officials tied to or dependent upon this industry, it is virtually impossible to envision these activists getting anything remotely resembling a fair trial. Indeed, Daniels acknowledged to The Intercept: \u201cI live in a rural area that is very much dependent on the agricultural industry.\u201d<\/p>\n

Other than punishing them for exposing the barbarism of this industry, it is very difficult to see any other motive for overcharging these activists so blatantly. Indeed, an agricultural industry association group<\/a>, Animal Agriculture Alliance, that advocates for meat consumption and defends the industry from claims of abuse, just issued a statement specifically denouncing<\/a> DxE as a particular menace.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

This industry is obsessed with punishing DxE precisely because\u00a0the group\u2019s investigations and protests have been so effective in generating media attention\u00a0regarding the horrors and\u00a0barbarism of factory farms. The attempt to criminalize their activism is clearly little more than the now-familiar tactic of abusing and exploiting law enforcement powers to stifle dissent against the country\u2019s most powerful factions.<\/p>\n

Even if they are not ultimately convicted, the threat of real imprisonment can make even the most devoted activist think twice about engaging in similar actions. And, even if they are acquitted, the legal fees alone can destroy underfunded groups such as DxE and their often impoverished activists. (DxE has created a legal defense fund for its attorneys fees to defend its activists against these criminal cases; those inclined to donate can do so here<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

Constitutional guarantees of free association, free speech, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievance \u2014 all core rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution \u2014 are meaningless, empty gestures if the world\u2019s richest and most powerful corporations can use their control over the lawmaking process and law enforcement officials to criminalize the exercise of those rights. That is, plainly, what is taking place with these two criminal prosecutions that seek to imprison peaceful activists as felons for years.<\/p>\n

_________________________________________<\/p>\n

Glenn Greenwald<\/a> – glenn.greenwald@\u200btheintercept.com<\/a> <\/em><\/p>\n

Lee Fang –\u00a0<\/a><\/em>lee.fang@\u200btheintercept.com<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Leighton Akio Woodhouse<\/a> – leighton@\u200bleightonwoodhouse.com<\/a> <\/em><\/p>\n

Go to Original \u2013 theintercept.com<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

7 Jun 2018 – Six animal rights activists have been charged with multiple felony counts in two separate criminal cases. Why are they, who took nothing of commercial value, facing prison terms? Because the law is being abused to intimidate and silence them.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":112739,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[170],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-112738","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-animal-rights-vegetarianism"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/112738","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=112738"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/112738\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/112739"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=112738"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=112738"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=112738"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}