Catalyst Records

Story here: http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/da ... gton/5723/

Maybe now that he's a documented scumbag, people will stop defending him.

If anyone's in the Philly area on Friday, please come by Wooden Shoe Books for a prisoner support / informational event we're doing for our friend Marie Mason, vegan anarchist political prisoner serving 22 years in Federal Prison for some of these same arsons in Indiana around '99.

Marie had the decency and integrity to refuse cooperation with her kidnappers, and deserves our attention much more than pieces of shit like Agranoff.

http://woodenshoebooks.com/home.html

http://supportmariemason.org/

_________________
VHX

ENDLESS DISASTER
NEITHER PATH
DYING

amazing how people denounce the media, now, all of a sudden, whatever is said in that link is taken literally?
nobody knows the full story, just humans doing, as they do best, gossiping and assuming certain things.
humanity fucks me off, yet again.

andreas, would you care to share this "document" you are talking about?

We're not talking about "the media" in any normal sense here. There's no economic gain to be had by smearing Agranoff in the press, Will Potter is not known for being impulsive about these things, he doesn't have any agenda other than reporting on law enforcement repression.

The legal documents are quoted and linked to by the article, or didn't you read it?

"In August, 2011, his attorneys filed a motion to push back his sentencing hearing, because: “The Defendant has not yet completed the cooperation he intends to provide to the government in consideration of a motion pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1.”

etc, etc.

_________________
VHX

ENDLESS DISASTER
NEITHER PATH
DYING

will potter is very good friends with peter young, that should tell you something.
all this is doing, is dividing the ar scene. the authorities are fuckin loving this shit,

This took what,2 days to make it here.
...and here we go...again.

_________________
"let the fires rain down,to end mankind's reign".

humans love to bitch and gossip.

Wow. I haven't posted on a hardcore message board since about 1999, but I just have to ask: what gives you the right to say who you think I am friends with? Do I know you? Have I ever met you?

Kind of ironic that you are posting about how "humans love to bitch and gossip" as you are shit talking someone you've never even met.

If you had a shred of integrity you would raise any concerns you have about me to me directly. I'm easy to find: I'm the top search result for my name in google. But then again, cowards like you thrive on anonymity.

this is fuckin priceless
you publish an article about somebody, suggesting they are guilty of certain things, then, when i make a few comments about you, you get all defensive? ha ha ha fuckin brilliant!

you havent posted on a hardcore message board since 1999, but, you just stumbled upon this? youre a funny guy.
you do not know me, and no, we've never met, tho, not sure what difference this makes.
what gives me the right to suggest you are close friends with young? are you? im really not understanding your problem with me saying this, my "right"??




shit talking?? i said youre friends with young, thats "shit talking" to you? your acting in a very defensive manner.



youre making me laugh, again! i have raised my concerns with you directly, (albeit through this medium) on the green is the new red facebook page

Don't be disingenuous. You said they were friends in order to imply he'd fabricated the article, or something, right?

Shit talking.

_________________
VHX

ENDLESS DISASTER
NEITHER PATH
DYING

no , i was not implying he had fabricated the article. i was saying he obviously has an interest in seeing david pulled through the gutter.

to say that i think you would also have to show that that was his interest in posting similar information about anyone. is it your belief that he just shouldn't post this kind of (public) information at all?

i know a lot of the comments aren't very nice, but i don't see much editorializing on the part of the blog itself.

Is it really pulling david through the gutter to make factual statements about him? Do you just think no one should know that he's informing on other activists?

_________________
VHX

ENDLESS DISASTER
NEITHER PATH
DYING

he removed the article to alter it because of new information that had come to light. journalism is always written in the interest of the writer, it is their "view" on what is happening.
as you say, there has been far too many ridiculous comments, just childish remarks that really dont help, and maybe i shouldnt lump it all in together.

factual statements? HOW do you know these are factual statements? because you read them somewhere?
i do NOT KNOW he's "informing" on other activists and neither do you, you are just speculating that he is, as your court system has hinted that is what is happening.
its entirely up to you what you believe, but ill never have any trust in what governments/authorities tell me.

my opinion is that these are public documents, and that they have been (most probably) attested to and signed by both David's legal representation as well as David himself.

i also think there are some possible grey areas in this circumstance as to the ethics of David's choice, depending on the details (was he informing on Frank Ambrose/ is the information he is providing that involved the other individual only pertaining to a case she was already prosecuted for, or won't be prosecuted for).

at the same time, just because some media is untrustworthy, it does not follow that anything reported in the media, or from a "government" source can never be trusted, though i think thinking critically about such information is a good thing.

What you're suggesting is ridiculous. You're saying that David's own lawyer is falsely telling the public that he's informing? Why would he do that? No one is "hinting" at anything, his attorney has stated EXPLICITLY that he's cooperating.

I don't know how much time any of you have spent in a court room, but having been present at a bunch of the green scare defendants' sentencing hearings, and every single court appearance in Marie Mason's case (the other person that David is informing on) I can tell you that it would be totally inconceivable that he would receive such a short sentence without having given the state some evidence that they could use to prosecute. Marie gets 22 years in maximum security federal prisons as a convicted "terrorist" (currently in a CMU), and Agranoff gets 1 year in a minimum security facility for the same arson(s)? (Here's an good article about CMU's if anyone's interested: http://www.supportdaniel.org/files/CMU_WEB.pdf)

It's upsetting how people try to silence and discredit any discussion of informants in these cases, people are being hurt and lives are ruined by people's decisions to inform. This shit is real, but people act like it's just a bunch of trivial complaining. It's not "making drama" or "dividing the movement" to circulate news about informants. Snitching is what makes drama and divides movements. Marie will never see her mother alive again, and because of the god-awful health care in prison, there's a chance that her 22 year sentence is a death sentence.

I guess I'm just confused what your threshold for suspicion is. Do you need video evidence of David shaking hands with a federal prosecutor before you entertain the idea that he may have cooperated?

what would it take?

_________________
VHX

ENDLESS DISASTER
NEITHER PATH
DYING

i have never just accepted anything ive read or been told. i like to work stuff out for myself, look into it and draw my own conclusions.

Nope, posted here the same day. It's certainly a good place to talk about it given David Agranoff's connections among vegan straightedgers and the hardcore scene. As Andreas observes above, based on the evidence cited in the article, snitch Agronoff got 1 year while non-cooperating Marie Mason is currently locked up for nearly 22 years. It's highly unlikely he would have received such a relatively short sentence unless the information he provided was huge for future prosecutions. Agronoff's snitching should be roundly condemned yet he still has some who still make excuses for him and lament "all the good he's done for animals" like it somehow reverses the fact that he's betrayed Mason and helped the state create fear and paranoia in the movement with his snitching.

I'm not sure if that's entirely accurate, from my understanding (and I could be wrong) he wasn't/ isn't being prosecuted for actually being involved in any arson, but of having information pertaining to it and not reporting it to the authorities. I think the plea (whatever it entailed) cut his sentence from a possible 3 years to 1 year.

I don't think he would have been in a higher security facility if he had refused any cooperation, but again that's my understanding, and I may have it wrong.

Although I understand your sentiments, I also feel like that is an unrealistic level for burden of proof. Using this would mean that no one could be convicted of anything without the victim having a first-hand witness or video tape of the act.

At some point all of use have to make decisions using the best information we have, or at least weigh out information from different sources on their individual merits.

"informing" doesnt automatically mean giving names, everybody assumes that is what it means tho.

as kurt has said, david was NOT involved in the action. this just proves how fucked up things get, as you have said david was involved in arson.

i need far more than a few court papers suggesting certain things. cooperating, informing, it doesnt tell me enough.

You're right about the charge being for failure to report the felony, but I suppose that in itself isn't especially informative. We have no idea what they threatened to charge him with, it's likely he plead to a lesser charge. But, again, we can't know.

As far as the specific facilities where sentences are seved, that all gets negotiated in plea agreements, and has a great deal to do with what kind of charges are plead to. Again, it strongly suggests leniency in light of his cooperation.





We can't know David's involvement, so yes, you are correct that it's improper to discuss him as having been directly involved in any arsons. We don't know one way or the other.

As far as what we do know, I don't care if he gave names, or just information. Why would that be any better? helping the FBI investigate the environmental movement is not ok, whether you give names or not. Simply because we don't know the extent of his cooperation, the fact of his having cooperated is not called into question.

_________________
VHX

ENDLESS DISASTER
NEITHER PATH
DYING

Brandon: I heard about this 2 days before it was posted here.that's why I posted my comment.I also heard about davids year sentence some time ago.
News travels fast!

_________________
"let the fires rain down,to end mankind's reign".