<html>
<body>
<font size=3><br>
</font><font size=4><b>FBI visits David Pellow (Scott’s advisor) and
others<br>
</b></font><font size=3>
<a href="http://davenportgrandjury.wordpress.com/updates/" eudora="autourl">
http://davenportgrandjury.wordpress.com/updates/</a><br>
5/12/2010<br><br>
Recently, the FBI visited David Pellow, Scott’s advisor. David has been a
vocal supporter of Scott and of academic freedom. When the FBI got wind
of a freedom-loving individual in town, they just had to come a knockin’.
David decided not to speak to themand that’s good! Remember, never speak
to the FBI or any law enforcement officers. Speak to your lawyer instead.
<br><br>
The FBI has also visited two other people recently and attempted to
question them about Scott. Have we mentioned that it’s never a good idea
to talk to the feds?<br><br>
If you’re visited, remember not to talk to them but to your lawyer. And
let us know too at scottandcarrie [at] riseup [dot] net.<br><br>
Below is a statement from David:<br><br>
“Scott DeMuth is one of my advisees here at the University of Minnesota.
He is a bright, hard working graduate student who has become ensnared in
a federal investigation that has left him with the possibility of facing
several years in jail related to conspiracy and terrorism charges (his
trial begins this fall). The federal government is building a case
against him because they believe he has knowledge of at least two Animal
Liberation Front actions that occurred in Iowa and Minnesota in 2004 and
2006, respectively. The U.S. Attorney prosecuting the case has also made
it clear that he believes Scott is guilty because he is an anarchist and
is believed to be associated with activists who are earth and animal
liberation advocates. Scott has indeed worked to educate the public about
issues concerning eco-prisoners and other political prisoners in the
United States. He has also worked for years advocating for the rights of
Dakota peoples, who have been dispossessed of their homelands by military
force. And he has done impressive sociological research on these social
movements and presented his work at professional conferences. He and I
have recently begun collaborating on a research project that focuses on
many of these issues. So when the government came knocking on my door I
took notice. <br><br>
“Monday, April 6, 2010: This morning when I arrived at my place of
employmentthe University of MinnesotaI went straight to my mailbox.
There was the usual pile of academic junk mailcatalogues from
publishers, invitations to receptions, etc. But there was something else
this time: a business card with a post-it attached to it that read: “re:
student, Pellow, 04/06/10, 9:15am.” The business card was for a Steve
Molesky, Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Minneapolis
Division. He also left a voice message for me in my office that stated
that he wanted to “interview” me in the next day or so. He didn’t say
about what, but the post-it from the receptionist offered an indication
(“re: student”).<br><br>
“I immediately called several trusted lawyer colleagues, read the NLG’s
“Operation Backfire” guide, and spoke with activists here in the Twin
Cities community, all of whom suggested I not talk to the feds. My view
on the matter is that I am Scott’s advisor and as such, I should be
looking out for him and advocating for him, so talking to people who are
trying to build a case against him is probably not in his best interest.
One person also pointed out that given Assistant U.S. Attorney Clifford
Cronk’s characterization of me during Scott DeMuth’s arraignment in
November 2009 as someone who left him a voice mail message protesting
Scott’s detention and criticizing grand juries, it’s likely that they
already have formed a certain opinion of me. One of my lawyer colleagues
told me that by law I have the right not to talk to the FBI, but if I do
then be courteous. My own attorney added that if they persist then I
might ask them to send me their questions in written form and that I
would run them by counsel.<br><br>
“Wednesday, April 8, 2010: Agent Molesky called my home phone today and
left a message that clearly was directed toward asking questions about
Scott’s research and my own research. He stated: “I’d like to ask you a
couple of questions about one of your students you are the advisor for at
the University, Scott DeMuth. I’d like to ask you a couple of questions
about the research that you do and the research that he does for you.” I
then followed up with a request for a detailed list of
questions.<br><br>
“Thursday, April 9, 2010: Agent Molesky replied, ‘I recognize and
understand your request, however, I will probably be unable to satisfy
it; not because I don’t want to but because I can not. I have been asked
to interview you by our office in Cedar Rapids, IA. With their request
they did not include a specific list of questions. When we conduct
interviews, it is more an art than a science, meaning that except for a
few questions, I never have scripted questions for an interview–the
answers, demeanor, and posture of the interviewee normally dictate the
questions I ask and the direction in which the interview moves.’ He
continued, ‘I will be asking you about any human research studies that
you are conducting in which Scott DeMuth may be participating as study
personnel. I will also be querying you on your contacts and relationship
with Peter Young that may be relevant to the DeMuth investigation.’
<br><br>
“After receiving Agent Steven Molesky’s email message today, I spoke with
my attorney and we decided that Molesky was firmly within the realm of
infringing upon academic freedom. Thus I have decided not to grant the
interview request. To speak to Agent Molesky about my research at the
level of detail indicated above would very likely violate the American
Sociological Association’s Code of Ethics, which states: ‘Sociologists
have an obligation to protect confidential information and not allow
information gained in confidence from being used in ways that would
unfairly compromise research participants, students, employees, clients,
or others.’ ‘Confidential information provided by research participants,
students, employees, clients, or others is treated as such by
sociologists even if there is no legal protection or privilege to do so.’
(Section 11.01). The Code of Ethics also states, ‘Sociologists do not
disclose confidential, personally identifiable information concerning
their research participants, other recipients of their service which is
obtained during the course of their work.’ (Section 11.06).<br><br>
“I appreciate Agent Molesky’s polite and cordial approach to this
process, but I cannot and will not violate the trust relationship that I
have with my advisee and colleague Scott DeMuth and with the participants
in my research study.<br><br>
“- David N. Pellow, Professor of Sociology, University of
Minnesota”<br><br>
<br><br>
</font><x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=3 color="#FF0000">Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#008000">415 863-9977<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#0000FF">
<a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.Freedomarchives.org</a></font><font size=3> </font></body>
</html>