Rodney Coronado faces more problems.
For those of you who don't know who he is, Mr. Coronado was once described on ABC News by PeTA's Ingrid Newkirk as a "fine young man and a schoolteacher." That would be the same Rodney Coronado who: served several years hard time for torching a lab at Michigan State University while an Animal Liberation Operative; who sent packages to Newkirk and another to PeTA's Maria Blanton immediately before and after the arson; who evidently was planning more such "direct actions;" who received some $45,000 from PeTA for his defense; and who apparently continues to teach the intricacies involved in constructing incendiary devices.
I could write a book on Mr. Coronado, but suffice it to say, you now know enough about him to grasp this:
If the U.S. Attorney decides to indict animal-rights activist Rod Coronado, he’ll be at home in Tucson, Ariz., waiting. A grand jury investigation of an early-morning Aug. 1, 2003, arson fire that destroyed an unfinished La Jolla apartment complex is focusing, too, on whether Coronado violated federal law when, at a public talk he gave the evening after the fire, he told an audience of roughly 100 that something as basic as a juice container could be used to build a crude incendiary device.
I suspect that he did more than tell the audience that such a container "could" be used . . .
Under a post-Sept. 11 federal law, it’s illegal to “teach or demonstrate the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device or a weapon of mass destruction… with the intent that the teaching, demonstration or information be used for… an activity that constitutes a federal crime of violence.”
Coronado doesn’t deny that near the end of his talk at the LGBT Center in Hillcrest, where he spoke mostly about his history as an animal-rights activist, he picked up a container of apple juice from a nearby food table to “show that weapons [animal-rights activists] use are very simple devices.” It’s something he’s discussed in other public forums, he told CityBeat, to explain to his audience not only the “why” behind actions he’s carried out, but also the “how.”
“It’s always been in the sense that this is the most aggressive and extreme our movement gets,” he said. “It’s for people to understand that as much as the FBI says we’re a highly organized group, we aren’t.”
As to whether he encouraged others in the audience to construct similar devices, Coronado said that wasn’t his intent.
“I know there could be one or two people out there who might be taking this into consideration as something that they might want to do themselves,” he said, “just as much as somebody who watches Law and Order might see the perfect murder and choose to use it against someone. There’s no controlling that; it’s just freedom of information.”
That's the argument — freedom of information, freedom of speech. And the law does state ". . . with the intent . . .". I guess if you can prove intent, that's game, set and match.
Speculation alert. I'm not an attorney, so I can't speak with any authority at all. But it seems to me that the issue may be a bit more complex than Mr. Coronado represents it. If witnesses at his lecture make a persuasive case that Mr. Coronado did more than just breezily toss out a technique, then he may have a difficult time avoiding indictment, and if indicted, convincing a jury that he's not guilty.
Speculation alert continues. I'm wondering if there's a case to be made that Mr. Coronado knew, or should have known, that the information he provided his audience would be taken and used by someone present to act out violently. If so, he may have run afoul of the "True Threat" doctrine, a doctrine that arose mainly to limit information posted on the internet in response to the violent anti-abortion fanatics of the 90's.
The "True Threat" idea is that someone who posts all the information needed to incite anonymous others to illegal action, and who provides information useful for targeting people, vilifies those people, teaches techniques for vandalism and ways to avoid capture during and after a violent action, is himself indictable, even if he doesn't know who the actual perpetrator is or any of the specifics of the attack itself. (There's an excellent and very readable discussion of the True Threat as it applies to AR and Anti-abortion Web sites here.)
So I guess the questions are these: Would the True Threat doctrine apply to situations other than the Web? Did what Mr. Coronado do rise to the level of posing a True Threat? I don't have a clue.
Coronado spent nearly four years in federal prison for his role in a 1992 fire at a Michigan State University lab that he said was conducting research to aid mink farmers. He’s currently under indictment in Arizona for dismantling a mountain lion trap set by state Fish and Game agents.
[ . . . ]
So far at least seven San Diego activists have been subpoenaed by the grand jury. Two of them—David Agranoff and Danae Kelley—refused to testify and were jailed on July 12 for contempt. Last Friday the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the two released on a $1,000 bond until the court has the chance to rule on whether prosecutors’ questions about who attended Coronado’s lecture violated the pair’s First Amendment right to free association.
Jeremy Warren, attorney for Agranoff, said he believes Coronado’s indictment is imminent but worries that the grand jury investigation won’t end there. . . . “They’re on a fishing expedition—they’re just [hoping] they’ll stumble into some information by putting people who are known activists in front of the grand jury and asking them who [they] know and what [they] know.”
Former assistant U.S. attorney John Kirby said prosecutors have “the right to fish” as long as their focus is on suspected criminal activity. He also explained that although Coronado has freely admitted to demonstrating how to make an incendiary device, prosecutors will want to get from witnesses specifics of what Coronado said as opposed to his version, “to determine whether or not it was a crime.
“It sounds like a relatively simple question,” Kirby said, “but given the facts, it might turn on small points.”
Yes indeed. If, in addition to providing instructions on how to make an incendiary device, Coronado included specific targets in his talk who he wouldn't cry over if attacked, and talked about ways in which a purely hypothetical arsonist/vandal could escape detection after having done a purely hypothetical deed, Mr. Coronado might be dangerously close to having made a "True Threat." (Assuming that precedent applies here — it may not.)
In the two years since it happened, there have been no arrests related to the La Jolla fire. Agranoff and Kelley, as well as other subpoenaed activists, have denied any connection to the fire. Nik Hensey, who’s acted as an informal spokesperson for Coronado and other subpoenaed activists, said an indictment of Coronado would be a smokescreen meant to obscure the fact that no progress has been made in the arson case.
Or, that progress has been made. That is one option . . .
Coronado, too, denies any knowledge of the fire and said he wasn’t aware of it until local media showed up at his talk and began asking him questions. The FBI has never contacted him regarding the fire, he said, and even if they did, he has no information.
“If they were to torture me right now, there’s nothing I can tell them,” he said. “If there’s anybody that’s involved in the fire who I was associated with, they’ve done a pretty good job of not letting on. I have no idea who carried out these actions.” [My emphasis . . . ed]
Mr. Coronado is probably being truthful: he almost certainly doesn't know who carried out the actions. But that doesn't necessarily mean he's off the hook.
In fact, part of the extremist strategy is for the "information providers" to insulate themselves with a wall of ignorance from the "anonymous useful idiots" who actually do the deed, the goal of the former being to be able to truthfully say that they know nothing about any illegal activity on the part of the latter.
After all, all the "information providers" will argue that all they did was to exercise their right of free speech, and can't be held responsible for the actions of others.
We'll see. Regardless, Mr. Coronado appears about to face another indictment. If he does, will PeTA again pick up some of his legal expenses?
Thanks to Tom P. for the heads up.
UPDATE: 8/16/05. 9:00 PM PDT. And I now notice that the ever alert Brian Carnell has already posted on this.
Brian
