{"article":{"id":22362,"heading":"ALF Press Officer Court Update","author":"omni","created":"2002-11-16 20:02:20","modified":"2002-11-16 20:02:20","last_modified":"Sun, 17 Nov 2002 03:02:20","article":"<p>Dear friends, <br><br>   It's not often I find myself sitting in court and actually enjoying the <br>  <br>   proceedings, but this is exactly how I felt yesterday morning listening to <br>  <br>   the arguments from both sides on the validity of the RCMP search warrant. <br><br>   The session took the full morning, with my lawyer first making some <br>  <br>   arguments on the disconnect between how an article from 1999 is connected <br>  <br>   to me in BC in 2002. Although the arguments at times were kind of bizarre, <br>  <br>   like \"how does the Barbarash mentioned in the article equal the Barbarash <br>  <br>   in Courtenay, BC?\", they needed to be made to show that the Information to <br>  <br>   Obtain the Search Warrant was fundamentally flawed in these areas. We have <br>  <br>   a system of justice that must follow certain rules in order to be fair and <br>  <br>   to not infringe on our Charter rights, and a major diversion from these <br>  <br>   standards or omittance of critical information is not acceptable to the <br>  <br>   courts. <br><br>   Our main arguments focussed essentially on the reliability of basing a <br>  <br>   search warrant on a newspaper clipping, which amounted to double hearsay <br>  <br>   evidence. The Judge, Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett was noticeably <br>  <br>   shaking her head in the affirmative and agreeing with most everything my <br>  <br>   lawyer said. <br><br>   The government lawyer was, in a word, a joke. He seemed to be reading <br>  <br>   scripted arguments and stumbled over many words in his droning monotone <br>  <br>   voice. It seemed obvious to me that he was not the author, he was simply <br>  <br>   reading what someone in a higher authority gave him to read. I could be <br>  <br>   wrong, but this is how it appeared. <br><br>   He tried in vain to say that there was nothing wrong with the search <br>  <br>   warrant, that it had all the necesary components and validation needed, <br>  <br>   but even the judge was incredulous and basically repeated our own <br>  <br>   questions directly to the prosecution, trying desperately to understand <br>  <br>   how a newspaper article was sufficient evidence. The government lawyer's <br>  <br>   response was bizarre: the U.S. authorities gave us this evidence therefor <br>  <br>   we must accept it as all that is required. And, since the article <br>  <br>   corroborates factual incidents (the ALF attacks) then it could be seen as <br>  <br>   reliable. <br><br>   Justice Bennett asked him where was the press release on which the article <br>  <br>   was based? Why wasn't that included in the Information? She asked him why <br>  <br>   the Information was lacking in so much essential detail, and why we should <br>  <br>   make inferances as to certain points which were not clearly spelled out, <br>  <br>   to which he could not really reply to other than, \"it's from the U.S. and <br>  <br>   we must trust them.\" In the AP article below he asserts that to question <br>  <br>   the U.S. would be tantamount to questioning their trustworthiness! I say <br>  <br>   that if we do not question the U.S. then we might as well give up any <br>  <br>   notion of national sovereignty we might have! <br><br>   At the end of the hearing the government lawyer suggested two things if <br>  <br>   the search warrant is quashed - 1) that they may file a sending <br>  <br>   application in any event to see if they could still send my property to <br>  <br>   the U.S. and, 2) they may seek to issue another, corrected, search <br>  <br>   warrant, in order to retain possession of my belongings. I don't really <br>  <br>   understand how that wouldn't be an incredible abuse of judicial process, <br>  <br>   but we'll wait and see. <br><br>   Justice Bennett reserved her decision until next week. I remain <br>  <br>   *extremely* optimistic, and will let you all know the outcome as soon as I <br>  <br>   hear it. <br><br>   Thanks once again for all your support and words of solidarity, and thank <br>  <br>   you to those who supported me by showing up to court. <br><br>   David Barbarash <br><br>   ----- <br><br>   Associated Press Newswires <br>  <br>   Wednesday, November 13, 2002 <br><br>   Spokesman for group accused of eco-terrorism challenges police raid in <br>  <br>   court <br>  <br>   By JEREMY HAINSWORTH <br>  <br>   Associated Press Writer <br><br>   VANCOUVER, British Columbia (AP) - The spokesman for a radical animal <br>  <br>   rights group asked a judge to throw out a search warrant that allowed <br>  <br>   Canada's anti-terrorism squad to raid his house on behalf of U.S. <br>  <br>   authorities. <br><br>   David Barbarash, spokesman for the Animal Liberation Front, claims <br>  <br>   the July raid on his Vancouver Island home by nine members of the Royal <br>  <br>   Canadian Mounted Police's Integrated National Security Enforcement Team <br>  <br>   amounted to harassment. <br><br>   The anti-terrorism squad seized two computers, computer disks, <br>  <br>   videotapes, photos and files from the home of Barbarash, who issues <br>  <br>   statements on behalf of the ALF. He is seeking the return of his <br>  <br>   property. <br><br>   The ALF and its sister organization - the Earth Liberation Front - <br>  <br>   are accused by the FBI of being eco-terrorist groups that have caused <br>  <br>   US$43 million in damage in more than 600 attacks, ranging from <br>  <br>   spray-painting buildings and breaking windows to firebombing fur farms, <br>  <br>   research centers and a ski resort. <br><br>   The ALF and the ELF deny they are terrorist groups, saying their aim <br>  <br>   is to liberate animals or protect the environment, not to harm anyone. <br><br>   Barbarash's lawyer, Michael Klein, told the court Wednesday that <br>  <br>   there was insufficient evidence for a warrant under Canada's Charter of <br>  <br>   Rights and Freedoms. The raid was based on one newspaper article that <br>  <br>   quoted Barbarash as spokesman for the ALF, along with an interview with <br>  <br>   the reporter who wrote the article, Klein said. <br><br>   Government lawyer Matthew Williams argued the Canadian squad was <br>  <br>   obligated to carry out the raid under a mutual legal assistance treaty <br>  <br>   with the United States. Failing to act on information provided by U.S. <br>  <br>   authorities would amount to an \"attack on the trustworthiness\" of the <br>  <br>   United States, he said. <br><br>   \"Such an attack should not be entered into lightly without evidence <br>  <br>   of misconduct,\" Williams told British Columbia Supreme Court Justice <br>  <br>   Elizabeth Bennett. <br><br>   Bennett said she would rule on the case next week. <br><br>   Barbarash said he gets anonymous information about ALF activities and <br>  <br>   passes it on to the news media. \"I don't know who takes part in these <br>  <br>   activities,\" he said. <br><br>  <br>  <br> <\/p>\n","contact":"","link":"http:\/\/www.angelfire.com\/empire\/meltdown","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/plain","summary":" VANCOUVER, British Columbia (AP) - The spokesman for a radical animal\r\n  rights group asked a judge to throw out a search warrant that allowed\r\n  Canada's anti-terrorism squad to raid his house on behalf of U.S.\r\n  authorities.\r\n\r\n  David Barbarash, spokesman for the Animal Liberation Front, claims\r\n  the July raid on his Vancouver Island home by nine members of the Royal\r\n  Canadian Mounted Police's Integrated National Security Enforcement Team\r\n  amounted to harassment.","numcomment":0,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/","filesize":null,"article_url":"\/news\/2002\/11\/22362.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[]}