Pepper Spray - No Big Deal...

Zane z_thomas at
Sat Nov 8 00:09:47 EST 1997

On Fri, 07 Nov 1997 17:50:53 -0800, Patrick <patrickl at> wrote:

>> You said that trees had been spiked specifically to damage chain saws
>> and that it has led to injury and death of loggers.  I defy you to
>> produce evidence to that effect.
>Zane, just how do you propose that I produce proof here that would
>satisfy you? I have friends and relatives who live in that area, and it
>is common knowledge, through experience, that loggers have been killed
>and injured when a spike broke the chain from the bar of the chain saw
>and the chain struck the user. 

Well I would have hoped that you could do better than "common
knowledge".  I don't recall having seen a single newspaper or tv story
that refered to an actual incident of a logger being injured or killed
due to spiking.  In fact, every time I press someone for details and
they come up with something it's the same old discredited story about
the mill worker in Scotia.

If you had even a single reference to news coverage of even a single
incident then I could try to research it and see whether your claim
has any merit or not.  Until that happens I can only assume that the
Scotia mill story is the only one there is.

>Spiking is not intended to break the equipment at a mill because by then
>it's too late, the tree is already down. The aims of Earth First! are to
>stop the harvesting of any further trees.

No, spiking is not intended to break _any_ equipment.  It is intended
to make milling the trees so difficult and impractical that cutting
them down wouldn't make any sense.  I don't know if that strategy ever
succeeded (hmmm, although I do recall hearing claims that it worked on
Vancouver Island a couple years ago), but I do know that that is the

Also, I remember reading that cordless electric drills and ceramic
spikes were an option that could be used to defeat metal detectors.  I
have no idea whether that approach was used, but you can see how it
would certainly make the job of milling the trees that much more
difficult.  Now if LP, for instance, was notified that trees had been
spiked with ceramic spikes and they went ahead and ran them through
the mill anyway, that would be a serious problem.

>I would however
>suggest that you contact Earth First! and asked them directly if they
>ever advocated and engaged in spiking. According to the SF Examiner they
>admit that they did, but now claim that they do not.

Why should I contact them, and why should they tell me anything?
Fwiw, my understanding of the situation is just what the SF Examiner
says it is.

>> >The device was not motion sensitive. It was a timed device. If it had
>> >been motion sensitive I might believe her story.
>> You _might_ believe it?  And if it was a timed device (I don't see
>> that it's a terribly relevant point or I'd go look it up) then how
>> does that make her "story" unbelievable?  Would be rather silly to set
>> a timer so that it just happened to go off shortly after you got in
>> your car eh?
>Sorry, by the way you were speaking I was under the impression that you
>knew something about ordinance.

Nope, nothing beyond bottle rockets.

I did post somewhere nearby in this thread Barri's statement that the
lawsuit had uncovered the fact that it was a motion sensitive device.

>> Btw, if Barri had _any_ history of bomb-making then we surely would
>> have heard about it by now.  And, of course, I don't recall that any
>> of the direct action folks in No. Cal. were ever found to be involved
>> in bomb-making.
>How long did the Unibomber operate without any history?

That's an absurd comparison.  The Unabomber was holed up in a cabin
somewhere like a hermit.  He wasn't rabble-rousing all up and down
Northern California, talking to the press, drawing the attention of
the police and the FBI, picketing, and so on.  Barri was almost
certainly under continual observation by the police and/or FBI and I
have no doubt that if she was engaged in bomb-making that there's a
good chance they would have caught her at it.

>> Oddly enough, however, the FBI was giving out lessons about how to
>> make the very sort of bomb that blew up Barri not long before it
>> happened.  Of course they were showing how to defuse or handle the
>> things, but in the process they showed building too.
>Yes I am aware of this, so what you are saying is that the FBI and
>Oakland PD decided to conspire against Barri. That's why I want the
>lawsuit to go through. It's either the truth or a damn lie.

With regard to framing Barri as the one responsible for her bombing it
seems pretty clear that the FBI and the OPD did conspire.  Read the
judge's recent ruling and see what you think.

Visit and read the
judge's decision your self.  The following appears at the bottom of
page 60 and top of page 61:

"Plaintiffs have also submitted evidence to suggest that Defendants
Reikes and Doyle supplied false or misleading information to the
Oakland Police that contributed to Plaintiffs' arrest and the searches
of Ms. Bari's home. Plaintiffs have also submitted evidence that SAs
Buck, Hemje and Conway continued to investigate Plaintiffs based on
false information after the Alameda County District Attorney's Office
declined to file charges against Plaintiffs. A jury could infer from
this evidence that Defendants Reikes, Doyle, Sena, Buck, Hemje and
Conway acted out of an animus towards Plaintiffs' advocacy."

>> Here's a new word for you: bullshit.  If the FBI and the Oakland PD
>> show up in federal court just after a recent car bombing and tell the
>> judge they want to search someone's house because of [insert any weak
>> rationale here] then they'll get the warrant.  They might as well have
>> a damned rubber stamp for the occasion.
>That's your opinion. Under the law an agency must show the judge that
>there is probable cause to believe that ->evidence<- of a crime is in
>the place to be searched.

On this point you might like to do some reading in the area of pages
50-52 of the judge's decision where you will find things like this
with regard to the first search warrant:

"In short, Plaintiffs have raised material questions of fact as to
whether Defendants Sims, Chenault, Sitterud, Doyle and Reikes
deliberately or recklessly misrepresented facts in the first search
warrant affidavit. ... In contrast, Defendants here did not conduct an
extensive investigation of Plaintiffs or Earth First! before issuing
search warrants or arresting Plaintiffs. Therefore, the Court finds
that the existence of disputed material facts prevents a determination
of qualified immunity as a matter of law."


"C. Second Warrant 

"1. False information Contained in Affidavit 

"Sgt. Sitterud's affidavit for the second warrant included the
information from SA Williams regarding his comparison of nails from
the bomb with nails found at Ms. Bari's house during the first search.
Sgt. Sitterud's statement about SA Williams' ability to determine the
batch size is false. SA Williams denies telling Sgt. Sitterud that he
could determine the batch size. Plaintiffs have therefore made a
substantial showing and raised a material question of fact whether
Sgt. Sitterud recklessly or intentionally misrepresented the size of
the batch of nails. 

"Sgt. Sitterud's affidavit also incorporated, without any corrections,
the first warrant and affidavit. Therefore, any questions of fact as
to whether Defendants recklessly or intentionally misrepresented
information in the first affidavit also apply to the second
warrant.(Note 10) Furthermore, Sgt. Sitterud apparently saw for
himself the location of the hole in Ms. Bari's car and the layout of
the comparison car, yet he failed to correct the statements in the
first affidavit about the size of the hole and the likely location of
the bomb in Ms. Bari's car. Plaintiffs have therefore raised a
material question of fact as to whether Sgt. Sitterud recklessly or
intentionally incorporated the first affidavit without correction. 

In other words the warrants may have been based on "recklessly or
intentionally" incorrect information.  I don't have any first-hand
knowledge of how things work when warrants are issued but I think it's
reasonable to assume that a judge simply relies on statements made by
those seeking a warrant and does no investigation on his own to
ascertain their truth.


More information about the Ag-forst mailing list