Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Cynthetiq · 04-19-2005, 12:52 PM

From the Critical Art Ensemble Defense Fund website.

Quote:

What happened to Steve Kurtz?

Early morning of May 11, Steve Kurtz awoke to find his wife, Hope, dead of a cardiac arrest. Kurtz called 911. The police arrived and, after stumbling across test tubes and petri dishes Kurtz was using in a current artwork, called in the Joint Terrorism Task Force.

Soon agents from the Task Force and FBI detained Kurtz, cordoned off the entire block around his house, and later impounded Kurtz's computers, manuscripts, books, equipment, and even his wife's body for further analysis. The Buffalo Health Department condemned the house as a health risk.

Only after the Commissioner of Public Health for New York State had tested samples from the home and announced there was no public safety threat was Kurtz able to return home and recover his wife's body. Yet the FBI would not release the impounded materials, which included artwork for an upcoming exhibition at the Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art.

While most observers assumed the Task Force would realize that its initial investigation of Steve Kurtz was a terrible mistake, the feds have instead chosen to press their "case" against Kurtz and possibly others. Despite the Public Health Commissioner's conclusion as to the safety of Kurtz's materials, and despite the fact that the FBI's own field and laboratory tests showed that they were not used for any illegal purpose, the U.S. District Attorney continues to waste vast sums of public money prosecuting this outlandish, politically motivated case.

(back to top)

What is the violation he is suspected of?

In their initial investigation - and now once again - the Justice Department is seeking charges under under Section 175 of the US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, as expanded by the USA PATRIOT Act, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 10 Sec. 175 - Prohibitions with respect to biological weapons. (See below for full text of the Act.)

"Mail fraud" charges still serious - possible sentence of 20 years

On June 29, 2004, a federal Grand Jury appeared to reject these charges and instead handed down indictments of 2 counts each of "mail fraud" and "wire fraud" under Title 18, United States Code, sections 1341 and 1343. Also indicted was Robert Ferrell, head of the Department of Genetics at the University of Pittsburgh's School of Public Health. The charges concern technicalities of how Ferrell helped Kurtz to obtain $256 worth of harmless bacteria for one of Kurtz's art projects. Although they are a far cry from the charges originally sought by the District Attorney, these are still serious federal charges, which carry t he same potential sentence as the original bioterrorism charge would have: up to 20 years.

Attempt to cast contract dispute as criminal offense

Charges of mail fraud, and more recently, wire fraud, are designed to dismantle phony financial schemes that defraud the public out of money through mail, credit card or internet. Because these laws are written very broadly, they are also used to convict figures in organized crime, and in the same way have been used to put away social and political troublemakers such as Marcus Garvey. In Kurtz's case, they are clearly being used to silence an artist whose views are unpopular with the current administration, by making what could at best be a civil contract dispute over $256 worth of harmless, legally obtained materials into a criminal charge.

If the defendants did what is alleged in the indictment, they broke a contract. At most this is a civil offense to be settled between the University of Pittsburgh and ATCC, but neither of these parties have brought any complaint against Ferrell or Kurtz. To our knowledge this is the first time the U.S. Justice Department is intervening in the breach of a Material Transfer Agreement of nonhazardous materials in order to redefine it as a criminal offense. Read more about MTAs and why the Justice Department may be prosecuting this case. [LINK to Claire's CAE whitepaper]

Terrorism charges once again possible

Despite the previous Grand Jury's refusal last summer to indict Kurtz with bioterrorism charges, the prosecution has continued to try to paint him as a bioterrorist in their public statements, and has continued to falsely refer to the seized materials as "dangerous." They have also continued their costly investigation at public expense. O n March 17, Steven Barnes, also a founding member of the Critical Art Ensemble, was served a subpoena to appear before a Federal Grand Jury in Buffalo on April 19. According to the subpoena, the Justice Department is again seeking charges under Section 175 of the US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, as expanded by the USA PATRIOT Act.

The section of the US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act under which the prosecution is once again attempting to charge Steve, reads:

Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 10 Sec. 175

(a) In General. -
Whoever knowingly develops, produces, stockpiles, transfers, acquires, retains, or possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for use as a weapon, or knowingly assists a foreign state or any organization to do so, or attempts, threatens, or conspires to do the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both. There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section committed by or against a national of the United States.

(b) Additional Offense. -
Whoever knowingly possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system of a type or in a quantity that, under the circumstances, is not reasonably justified by a prophylactic, protective, bona fide research, or other peaceful purpose, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. In this subsection, the terms ''biological agent'' and ''toxin'' do not encompass any biological agent or toxin that is in its naturally occurring environment, if the biological agent or toxin has not been cultivated, collected, or otherwise extracted from its natural source.

(c) Definition. -
For purposes of this section, the term ''for use as a weapon'' includes the development, production, transfer, acquisition, retention, or possession of any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for other than prophylactic, protective [1] bona fide research, or other peaceful purposes.

Read the Patriot Act Sec. 817: Expansion of the Biological Weapons Statue

(back to top)

Is the USA Patriot Act at work here?

Possibly. The USA Patriot Act modified the specific section of the US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 that the Justice Department initially sought charges under.

Read the Patriot Act Sec. 817: Expansion of the Biological Weapons Statue

(back to top)

What is a Grand Jury?

From the American Bar Association:

"The primary function of the modern grand jury is to review the evidence presented by the prosecutor and determine whether there is probable cause to return an indictment.

The original purpose of the grand jury was to act as a buffer between the king (and his prosecutors) and the citizens. Critics argue that this safeguarding role has been erased, and the grand jury simply acts as a rubber stamp for the prosecutor.

Since the role of the grand jury is only to determine probable cause, there is no need for the jury to hear all the evidence, or even conflicting evidence. It is left to the good faith of the prosecutor to present conflicting evidence.

In the federal system, the courts have ruled that the grand jury has extraordinary investigative powers that have been developed over the years since the 1950s. This wide, sweeping, almost unrestricted power is the cause of much of the criticism. The power is virtually in complete control of the prosecutor, and is pretty much left to his or her good faith."

http://www.abanet.org/media/faqjury.html

http://www.udayton.edu/~grandjur/faq/faq.ht

(back to top)

How is this case related to other post 9/11 and historical cases?

Read a list with links to other Post 9/11 and historical cases of state repression of cultural workers, activists and other civilians.:

Download the list as a PDF

(back to top)

What is Critical Art Ensemble?

From the CAE website:

Critical Art Ensemble is a collective of five artists of various specializations dedicated to exploring the intersections between art, technology, radical politics, and critical theory.

Excerpt from the CAE book "Molecular Invasion":

"Over the past five years Critical Art Ensemble (CAE) has traveled extensively doing participatory performances that critique the representations, products, and policies related to emerging biotechnologies. When we do projects concerning transgenics, one of the most common questions participants ask is whether CAE is for or against genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The reply from group members is always the same: We have no general position. Each product or process has to be taken on a case-by-case basis. Some appear disastrous (primarily to the environment), while others seem soundly engineered and useful. The real question of GMOs is how to create models of risk assessment that are accessible to those not trained in biology so people can tell the difference between a product that amounts to little more than pollutants for profit and those which have a practical and desirable function, while at the same time have no environmental impact. Making such decisions is further complicated by a general lack of understanding of safety testing procedures. For those without scientific training, the question of what constitutes scientific rigor seems to be a mystery, and reading a study on the safety of transgenic products appears to be a mountain that is too high to climb. The concerned public can be further bamboozled by specialized vocabularies. The result is that individuals are left with the implied obligation that they should just have faith in scientific, government, and corporate authorities that allegedly always act with only the public interest in mind."

It seems to me that the best intentions don't always lead to the best results. This to me is a case just like that. The laws are there to protect, but herein, who is it protecting and what freedoms are being squelched?

this could easily happen to someone else...