Tag Archives: Pennsylvania

Idiot Activists Vandalize Wrong House

Posted on by
Reply

As has been mentioned a few times on this site, animal rights activist Janice Angelillo and Nicholas Cooney were arrested in July after being caught prowling around outside a Hoffman-LaRoche facility at 4 a.m. They both had white paint on their clothes and hands — the same color paint used earlier in the morning to vandalize another site with anti-Hoffman-LaRoche slogans.

The two were also charged with spray painting the home and car of a New Jersey man with \”scum,\” \”puppy killers\” and \”blood money.\” Apparently Angelillo and Cooney believed that the man who owns the car and home was an executive at Huntingdon Life Sciences.

It turns out, however, that the man is simply a real estate agent who has a name very similar to an executive who works at HLS.

This is why activists regularly brag about their high levels of compassion rather than high levels of intelligence.

Source:

Police: Animal Activists Target Wrong Man.

Share

Janice Angelillo Can\’t Imagine Why Police Are Targeting Her

Posted on by
Reply

On July 21 at 4 a.m., animal rights activists Janice Angelillo and Nicholas Cooney were arrested outside a Hoffman-LaRoche facility in New Jersey. When she was arrested, police say the hands and clothing of both activists was stained with the same color spray paint has had been used in an earlier act of anti-Hoffman-LaRoche vandalism that morning.

Police subsequently deployed a 15-officer team to raid Angelillo\’s residence. The officers removed a computer and other items from the residence.

In Angelillo\’s world, however, she\’s not under scrutiny because of the spray paint incident — just the latest in a long series of arrests for Angelillo — but rather she\’s being persecuted for her beliefs. Angelillo told the Home News Tribune,

I feel like I\’m being targeted for my political beliefs because I\’m rather vocal and a public advocate for animal rights. It feels almost like harassment. I really don\’t understand why they sent in a big SWAT team and raided my house all because I was brought up on misdemeanor charges. I think it was kind of outrageous.

Whereas prowling around Hoffman-LaRoche at 4 a.m. in the morning with the intent to commit acts of vandalism is simply a normal morning activity for Angelillo.

Angelillo and Cooney have been charged with giving fake identities to police, criminal mischief, criminal trespassing and conspiracy to commit criminal mischief. They will also be charged with criminal mischief for an act of vandalism that occurred in Long Beach, New Jersey, within 24 hours of the July 21st arrest.

The raid on Angelillo\’s residence is clearly based on suspicions that Angelillo and/or Cooney have been involved with or have information about other animal rights related crimes committed in Pennsylvania, where Cooney lives.

Police also appear to be investigating whether Angelillo\’s husband Ted Nebus might be involved in any acts of vandalism. A police spokesman told the Home News Tribune,

Our first encounter with him [Nebus] was when we executed a search warrant at the house (on Saturday). Prior to that, he\’s not been a suspect, although he may become a suspect based on our examination of the evidence that we recovered from the house.

Source:

Animal activist questions count. Cheryl Sarfaty, Home News Tribune, July 28, 2005.

Share

New Jersey SHAC Activists Arrested

Posted on by
Reply

New Jersey police recently arrested animal rights activists Janice Angelillo and Nicholas Cooney and searched Angelillo\’s residence and automobile in connection with a number of criminal acts.

Angelillo and Cooney were arrested around 4 a.m. July 21st outside a Hoffman-LaRoche facility. They allegedly gave officers fake identification after being stopped on foot outside the facility.

According to Gannett,

Just before the Thursday arrest, police had been alerted to an incident in nearby Bloomfield in which derogatory slogans toward Hoffman-LaRoche were spray-painted on a white fence in the same color paint found on the hands and clothing of Angelillo and Philadelphia resident Nicholas Cooney, said Capt. Steve Serrao, assistant director for operations of the state Office of Counter Terrorism.

After the arrest, police obtained a search warrant for Angelillo\’s black Subaru which was parked nearby. Police said that evidence obtained from the car implicated Angelillo and Cooney in another incident that occurred within 24 hours of their arrests.

Police also raided the residence of Angelillo, who lives with fellow animal rights activist Ted Nebus. They removed a computer and animal rights-related materials from the residence according to the Home News Tribune.

Both Angelillo and Cooney have been arrested numerous times in their protests against very SHAC targets.

Source:

Borough couple caught in probe. Arielle Levin Becker, Home News Tribune, July 25, 2005.

Share

Pennsylvania House Overwhelmingly Passes Eco-Terrorism Legislation

Posted on by
Reply

In March, the Pennsylvania state House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a bill that would crack down on eco-terrorism in that state. The bill passed 168-16.

Sponsored by Rep. Robert Godshall, the bill defines ecoterrorism as an attack on property in which the perpetrators intends to,

(1) Intimidate or coerce an individual lawfully:

(i) participating in an activity involving animals
or an activity involving natural resources; or

(ii) using an animal or natural resource facility.

(2) Prevent or obstruct an individual from lawfully:

(i) participating in an activity involving animals or an activity involving natural resources;or

(ii) using an animal or natural resource facility.

The second provision has proven very controversial given the vagueness of the wording. Just what does it mean to \”prevent or obstruct\” an animal enterprise. Are people who chain themselves to the doors of fur stores really committing an act of terrorism rather than trespass? Even people who support efforts to crack down on people who attempt to intimidate or coerce those working in animal industries might want to ask if it really makes sense to charge activists blocking entrance to a fur store with misdemeanor ecoterrorism. Frankly, it doesn\’t make any sense at all and the entirety of that section should be struck from this bill before it is made into law.

The bill also increases the possible penalties for ecoterrorism, with those convicted of first degree felonies facing a prison term of up to 40 years and a fine of up to $100,000.

The bill now goes to the Pennsylvania state Senate for consideration. The full text of Pennsylvania House Bill 213 can be read here.

Source:

House targets ecology \’terrorists\’. Tom Barnes, Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania), March 17, 2005.

Share

Pennsylvania House Bill 213 – Eco-Terrorism

Posted on by
Reply 
PRIOR PRINTER\'S NOS. 215, 1072                PRINTER\'S NO. 1177


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

        THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA


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

  HOUSE BILL


* No. 213 * * Session of 2005 *


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


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


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


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


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


                                     AN ACT


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

In Pennsylvania, At Least, Turkey Hunting Is Most Dangerous

Posted on by
Reply

The March 2005 issue of The Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection and Critical care included a study in which researchers examined hunting-related accidents in Pennsylvania from 1987 to 1999. The study found that turkey hunting caused the most accidents, but found an incredibly low rate of accident for all hunting.

Pennsylvania has a Fall turkey season, and over the 12 year period studied by researchers, turkey hunters had an accident rate of 7.5 per 100,000 hunters. Grouse hunters had the lowest accident rate, with just 1.9 per 100,000 hunters.

Deer hunting accidents were, however, the most likely to result in fatalities with fully 10.3 percent of hunting accidents resulting in a death.

The research found that poor judgment was, in general, the biggest cause of hunting accidents except for deer hunting where poor skills were the most common cause of accidents.

Since the risk of accidents were higher among those under 20 than older hunters, the study recommended more safety instruction. It also recommended the reintroduction of requirements that hunters wear orange clothing, noting that hunting accidents had been declining after the introduction of such a requirement, but began increasing again following the lifting of that requirement in Pennsylvania.

Sources:

Hunting-Related Shooting Incidents in Pennsylvania, 1987-1999. Joseph L. Smith, MD, et al, Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection and Critical Care, 58(3):582-590, March 2005.

Study finds turkey hunting is most dangerous. Mark Scolforo, Associated Press, March 10, 2005.

Share

Man Convicted of Selling Dogfighting Tapes

Posted on by
Reply

In what is believed to be the first test of the law, a Virginia man was convicted in Pennsylvania in January for selling dogfighting videos.

A jury took just 45 minutes to convict Robert Stevens, 64, of three counts of selling videos that depict animal cruelty. This is believed to be the first prosecution under a 1999 law banning such videos.

Stevens did not attempt to dispute the facts in the case, but instead his lawyer argued that the videos are protected under the First Amendment. The law makes exceptions for videos that have \”serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value,\” and Stevens\’ attorney argued that the dogfighting videos had historical value, though the jury disagreed with him.

Another interesting twist is that some of the videos were filmed in Japan, where dogfighting is apparently not illegal.

There was no indication as to whether or not Stevens plans to appeal his conviction. He\’d probably have a number of avenues for such an appeal, including that when the law was originally passed and signed into law by President Bill Clinton, it was clearly intended to outlaw \”crush\” videos in which animals are trampled to death for the sexual gratification of the viewer. Here, however, even the prosecution conceded there was no sexual intent to the videos distributed by Stevens.

Sources:

Ban on videos of animal cruelty tested. Torsten Ove, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, January 12, 2005.

Virginia man guilty of selling depictions of animal cruelty. Torsten Ove, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, January 14, 2005.

Share

Gary Yourofsky\’s State-of-the-Art in Pro-Vegan Arguments

Posted on by
Reply

When he\’s not busy saying that he would unequivocally support the murder of people working in animal enterprises, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals spokesman Gary Yourofksy travels the country with Kate Timko trying to talk students at universities into switching to veganism.

Don\’t worry, though, the foray into institutes of higher learning won\’t change Yourofsky. The Daily Pennsylvanian, for example, reports that Yourofsky offered the following as an example to buttress his claim that human beings weren\’t meant to eat meat,

Put a 2-year-old in a crib with a bunny rabbit and an apple. If the child eats the bunny rabbit and plays with the apple, I\’ll buy you a new car.

Wow — PETA\’s really getting their money\’s worth out of Yourofsky. Yourofsky told The Daily Pennsylvanian that he converts 2-5 people a day to veganism. With arguments like that, I\’m surprised he isn\’t closer to 4-10 people a day!

Meanwhile, Timko manages to make meat eating sound exciting. The Daily Pennsylvanian quoted Timko as saying,

Eating meat really does mean eating dead animals. It means that your body is transformed into a walking animal graveyard.

Who knew that eating meat meant eating dead animals? You learn something new everyday.

On the other hand, that image of a walking animal graveyard sounds pretty cool. It\’d make a great horror film (Pet Sematary 3 anyone?)

Source:

Animal rights activists hype veganism. Alanna Kaufman, The Daily Pennsylvanian, September 27, 2004.

Share

Activists Accept Fine in Pennsylvania Protest Case

Posted on by
Reply

Nine adult activists arrested in a May 29 protest plead guilty to reduced charges of harassment and disorderly conduct charges and agreed to pay $400 fine stemming from their actions.

Two of the protesters, Nicholas Cooney and Alexandra Deyo, had been charged with a corruption of minors, but that charge was dropped after the minor in question testified that she participated in the protest willingly and that her parents knew she was going to attend an animal rights protest, although they were unaware of the exact location of the protest. Saying that the state had failed to prove intent, Judge Daniel Maisano threw out the charges.

After testimony about the protest, Maisano reduced the charges based in part on his view that the protest was poorly organized. In issuing the $400 fines, Maisano told the activists,

It\’s my understanding that this was the most poorly organized protest I\’ve seen. I can\’t tell you not to go to his street and stand there with signs, because if you do it the right way, it\’s legal. I am going to say, you shouldn\’t do it. You have to balance your rights with others.\’

Along with Cooney and Deyo, other activists fined included Ian Ross, Lawrence Toft, Ethan Wolf, Christopher Price, Janice Angelillo, Kristine Marusic, and David Lambon.

Source:

Animal rights activists to pay fine. Jill Nawrocki, The Daily Local (Pennsylvania), September 22, 2004.

Share

Activists Protest Outside Glaxo CEO\’s Home

Posted on by
Reply

About 30 animal rights activists associated with a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania group called Hugs for Puppies demonstrated outside the home of GlaxoSmithKline chief executive officer Jean-Pierre Garnier. Garnier was out of town at the time.

According to the London Telegraph, about 30 protesters chanted and marched on the street outside Garnier\’s home while police looked on.

Organizer Alexandra Deyo told The Telegraph that the protest was a response to Garnier\’s recent characterization of activists as cowards. Deyo said,

He\’s only been speaking to the British media against animal rights groups and has been speaking like he\’s a victim when he actually lives in the US.

Deyo is apparently referring to a July interview that Garnier gave to the Telegraph in which he said,

I take it [animal rights violence] extremely personally. When your general counsel has to go into hiding in some apartment and has to move out of his house with his young children because he has been threatened, you do take that personally.

Apparently empathy for other people is an alien emotion to activists like Deyo.

Deyo, by the way, is one of the activist who was arrested in June and charged with criminal conspiracy, harassment, disorderly conduct and child endangerment in connection with a protest she organized that targeted an executive with Johnson Matthey Pharmaceutical Materials.

Source:

Animal rights stand-off at Garnier home. Dominic White, The Telegraph (London), August 23, 2004.

Share