<html>
<body>
<font size=3><br>
More on the Ninth Circuit’s Contempt Reversal for Winstead<br><br>
Nadia Winstead was notified on December 22 that the Ninth Circuit Court
of<br>
Appeals had reversed U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston’s
contempt<br>
order. The contempt order, which was imposed on Winstead for her
refusal<br>
to testify before a federal grand jury investigating Bay Area
Activists,<br>
was overturned when the Ninth Circuit found that the government had
not<br>
made an adequate response to Winstead’s claim of being the subject
of<br>
unlawful electronic surveillance.<br><br>
In their decision, the Ninth Circuit found that there was indeed
just<br>
cause for Winstead not to answer questions posed to her by the grand
jury.<br><br>
The government has filed an opposition to the Ninth Circuit’s
decision,<br>
and the case will likely go back before U.S. District Court Judge
Susan<br>
Illston.<br><br>
More information will be released as it becomes available. Please
stay<br>
tuned for more updates!<br><br>
Background:<br>
In late May ‘05 Winstead and at least 10 other Bay Area activists
were<br>
subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury claiming to be investigating
the<br>
2004 disappearance of Daniel Andreas Sandiego.<br><br>
In August ‘05 Winstead and several other of those subpoenaed to
testify<br>
filed a motion to quash the subpoenas, arguing that the subpoenas
were<br>
unconstitutional. The motion was denied by Judge Illston. Several
weeks<br>
later Winstead and others filed a motion for disclosure of illegal<br>
electronic surveillance. The motion was deemed premature and too broad
and<br>
thus denied as well by Illston.<br><br>
Winstead originally appeared before the grand jury in January ‘06
and<br>
again in August ‘06, each time asserting her Fifth Amendment right
to<br>
remain silent.<br><br>
In September 2006, Winstead’s attorney, Mark Goldrosen, filed a
second<br>
electronic surveillance motion in an attempt force the U.S. government
to<br>
disclose any illegal electronic surveillance that may have
influenced<br>
their decision to subpoena Winstead to the grand jury. The
government<br>
argued that they did not have to reveal their reasons for
subpoenaing<br>
Winstead, garnered illegally or not, and Judge Illston again denied
the<br>
motion.<br><br>
Three weeks later, Winstead was found in contempt by Judge Illston
for<br>
asserting her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, and ordered to
jail.<br>
Winstead’s attorney then appealed the decision with the Ninth
Circuit<br>
Court of appeals. Winstead was notified that the contempt had
been<br>
reversed on December 22, 2006.<br><br>
This grand jury is one of many, targeting activists, convened around
the<br>
country. It has been identified as one part of the U.S. government’s<br>
stepped-up efforts to silence dissent among eco and animal
liberationists,<br>
now widely referred to as “The Green Scare”.<br><br>
for more information visit
<a href="http://www.fbiwitchhunt.com/" eudora="autourl">
www.FBIwitchHunt.com<br>
</a></font><x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=3 color="#FF0000">The Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br>
(415) 863-9977<br>
</font><font size=3>
<a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.freedomarchives.org</a></font></body>
</html>