portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting united states

green scare | prisons & prisoners

Savoie and Paul released on bail - TRIAL DATE SET

bail conditions set for JP and Suzanne
$50,000 for Suzanne (her propoerty and 5k from mom)
$700,000 for JP (his IRA)
other conditions as well...

a little more detail... 26.Jan.2006 17:14

Gumby Cascadia

Magistrate Judge Coffin ruled today that Savoie and Paul be released pending trial. He also stated, "I will release defendants in this case with adequate security and conditions, since trial is almost a year out." This leaves Chelsea Gerlach and Darren Thurston as the only non-cooperating defendants yet to be released. No word yet on a new detention hearing for Chelsea. Darren is scheduled for a detention hearing on Monday, Dec. 30 at 1:30. (Tubbs and Meyerhoff will be arraigned on new charges at the same time, ~presumably~ in the same courtroom.)

In addition to detention hearings, Chelsea Gerlach and Jonathan Paul were arraigned, Paul on three charges (conspiracy to commit arson, Criminal conspiracy, and arson of the Cattle West Meat Packing Plant, adding up to 15 yrs minimum and 60 yrs max if convicted, plus $750,000 in fines) and Gerlach on 20 charges:
-Arson at Childers Meat Co. (20 yr max/5 yr min)
-Arson at Boise Cascade (20/5)
-Destruction of an energy facility at Bonneville Power tower (20/5)
-Arson of Eugene Police Dapartment West University Substation (20/5)
-Attempted Arson at Jefferson Poplar (20/5)
-Enhancement for use of an Incendiary Device (30 yr minumum)
-Arson of jefferson Poplar Vehicle Shop (20/5)
-Arson of Jefferson Poplar Shop Office (20/5)
-TEN separate counts of arson for EACH VEHICLE, EACH carries 20yr max and 5yr min

Also today, attorneys for all the defendants currently being held agreed on a trial date for the complex trial. It is set for October 31st, 2006, and is expected to take up to five weeks.

Hopefully, Craig Weinerman, Chelsea's attroney, will file for a new detention hearing for Chelsea, and security in the form of real estate or other assets will be put up as security for her release pending trial. It is vitally important for us to help her family find a way to have her released on bail! No defendant should be left to wait nearly a year for trial because of inability to post large security. The law states that bail is to be set according to a defendant's ability to pay. If you are able to assist in any way, please email  freechelseagerlach@hotmail.com

oops... wrong email 26.Jan.2006 17:20

Gumby Cascadia

Sorry... the updated email for Chelsea's support is  supportchelsea@mutualaid.org

I don't think that date is right... 26.Jan.2006 18:54

Watching Closely

I think the date of the hearing is January 30th, not December 30th.

Additionally, it should be noted that Chelsea's trail is set to start on February 14th. I hope she gets out on bail too, but at least she doesn't have to wait a year for her trail. I'm not sure why Paul's and the Savoie's was set for that far out.

New Trial Date 26.Jan.2006 19:25

Gumby Cascadia

Under the new indictments, all 8 defendants will be tried together on October 31st. (Unless, of course, some lawyers are successful in motions to separate...) All prior trial dates are cancelled. Pretrial motions or other delays could cause the October date to be changed, yet again, so pencil the dates in.

I am awaiting a call from an attorney to clarify about Darren's hearing. What I understood was that he'd be brought down to Eugene on January 30th, which would be a change from posts stating his hearings would be held in Portland. As soon as I know for sure... so will you!

I apologize for not being more clear about the effect of the superceding indictments, which effectively "cancel out" the original indictments and roll all into one complex case, making all the arrestees "co-defendants".

question 26.Jan.2006 21:12


Gumby -

I don't want to engage in too much speculation here, but could you roughly outline how different defendants - some with public defenders and some with their own representation, get tried together? And do those pleading guilty get tried with those pleading not guilty?

Clarification - Darren Thurston 27.Jan.2006 02:50


Darren Thurston will appear on Monday, January 30th in Portland to be arraigned on the charges as outlined in the affidavit. He has elected not to contest detention at this hearing as there is still an existing immigration hold on him should he even get bail. He has been formally released from appearing at the grand jury in February. We will be sending out a support update to this effect over the weekend.

how many have PDs 27.Jan.2006 06:20


Does anyone know how many of these defendants that got out on bail (4 now I believe) had private attorneys and how many had public defenders? I would like to see if there is a difference in treatment between those held with PDs and those with private attorneys...my past experience is that those with private attorneys get out on bail (partly cuz they can afford to hire a private attorney but also because their families or they had money or land to pay off the bail but also because by hiring private attorneys and paying money, the courts see what social class these people are in and it is true that if you prove you are in a class with money, the judge's WILL treat you as one of theirs, not an outsider...) but those without money/private attorneys stay in jail. Is this each man for himself so each individual's assets are being used just for that defendant so some are left out in the cold now? Is there some kind of jail solidarity going on to make sure that the money spent on defense legal is not all going just to a few while the others cannot get a private attorney? I wonder does jail solidarity END as soon as bail hearings come up? It seems some had money, some did not. Are those without money getting the same treatment as those whose parents paid for private attorneys? Does it matter if this all goes down along class faultines? Is someone making sure that ALL of the defendants have equal access to legal funds and private attorneys? I worry that HUGE amounts of money are being spent on some while others seem to have little to no money spent on them, it seems those in the elite who had property/family with money had an out, and it makes me think I need to only do actions with poor people as they will not just sail off with private counsel and family money if we are ever busted for something, leaving me to rot alone with a pd and no money or assets for bail unlike my "comrade..." How is the activist community dealing with the class inequity amongst these arrestees?

Support Darren! 27.Jan.2006 10:15

Gumby Cascadia

yes, sorry...

Darren's hearing is in Portland on Monday, and it is an arraignement, not a detention hearing. Just got off the phone with atty Lauren Regan who says that Darren would not be released pending trial because of his INS hold. You Portland folks get out there to support him! I have a feeling that Darren's hearing may have a lot of "Aha!" moments because it is in Portland, and the prosecutors know Eugene folks won't likely be there. More clarification of who's cooperating is very likely, so take good notes!

Tired of the CRAP 27.Jan.2006 10:32

Gumby Cascadia

As far as I know, Suzanne Savoie and Kevin Tubbs have PD's. I was concerned about Kevin's counsel from the very start. Not sure about Darren. Chelsea is still working with Craig Weinerman who was her PD, but now has another independent counsel working in concert with Weinerman. Suzanne's support crew did an excellent job of pulling together funds for her security, when the US Atty was originally seeking $20,000 NON-REFUNDABLE. They settled on $5000 (plus Suzanne and her partner's 19 acres). Magistrate Coffin seems to be aware of the law that states each person pay according to their ability.

It appears that Daniel's "Big Gun" lawyer laid the groundwork for everyone to be able to get released on bail. Everyone in this case benefits by someone's ability to shell out some bucks for a good lawyer.
Daniel's sister has put everything she owns on the line for her brother. We should all be very grateful to her.

I'm pretty sick of Kirsten's divisive babble. There's fully ENOUGH of good guys/bad guys here without tossing more crap into the mix. I've tried really hard to keep my mouth shut, but I just cannot anymore. I don't see anything like support coming from her corner, only soapboxing for her own ego, and casting doubt on all the support our community has mustered for everyone who's in danger.

Right now, we need to work on helping Chelsea's family get her released.  suuportchelsea@mutualaid.org

some thoughts 27.Jan.2006 10:57

freedarren.org freedarren@resist.ca

Hey Gumby Cascadia - you can always ask Darren's support ctte for updates at  freedarren@resist.ca since we are usually in the know and have near-daily contact with his lawyer. Please feel free to ensure that information about his case is correct. It is very important to us that misinformation not be spread about hearings etc.

And I agree, Chelsea is the next best hope for release and whatever we can do, should be done at this point.

As far as the lawyers issue goes - Darren has a lawyer who is private counsel paid by the federal defense fund. The reality is, we could never afford a private lawyer even if we wanted one, and we feel that Dan Feiner who is the representative is doing an excellent job so far. Darren certainly does not begrudge those who have got bail in the past few days, whether they had a private or public lawyer, we are just happy that folks are reunited with their families at the moment. I really would like to see the aspersions on the publically-paid defenders stop,as it's not in the interest of those who are in prison to have their lawyers trashed by the "community".

How the trial happens, and how legal teams work together is something that remains to be seen. If at any time, we feel that Darren isn't being treated fairly by other legal teams on the same side, then we will be the first to tell the community. As for now, Darren is glad to hear people are getting bail (even if he can't) and cautiously optimistic that Chelsea may also have a possibility of getting bail in light of the recent decisions by Judge Coffin. We will see. What's important is that we all support each other during these difficult times.

? 27.Jan.2006 11:30


Does this mean that Suzanne and her partner lose their land since they included it as part of the bail?

No... 27.Jan.2006 12:04

Gumby Cascadia

It means that the land is put up as security (like collateral) and will remain theirs as long as she shows up for all her court proceedings. It is forfeit in failure-to-appear.

. 27.Jan.2006 17:40


Maybe I missed something, but has Chelsea's bail been set? If so, what is it?

To AC 27.Jan.2006 17:59

Gumby Cascadia

Sorry... your question got lost in the mix up there.

It will be very interesting to see how this trial goes. My guess is that some lawyers may be filing "motions to separate", starting almost immediately. However, there are some good strategic reasons NOT to separate these trials. The Fed's strategy seems to be scaring the living shite out of people to get them to cooperate (telling them there are embedded agents who already "know everything" ... according to Jake) and that if they don't start naming names, whether true or not, they will be left holding the bag. This is CLASSIC federal strategy, to pit defendants against one another in a race to see who can cough up as much info, false or not, until Auntie Em has been indicted and the entire county is in custody. In a case where so many people are being tried for the same crimes, there are strategies involved around the timing of trials (how would the outcomes be different for the first to be tried versus the last? Especially when there are still new indictments forthcoming.) I think there is wisdom in not going to trial too quickly, when their defendant could be re-arrested and charged with new indictments during a trial, looking really bad to a jury, although it seems more obvious to want to be ahead of the game, and not have your client end up as the "scapegoat". There is also strategic wisdom in lawyers wanting to cross-examine informants their first time on the stand as opposed to after they've honed their stories and aren't so nervous. I am merely guessing at what will happen, but believe me... I've been thinking about it a lot. By the way, somone who pleads "not guilty" doesn't go to trial (except as a witness...)

I mean "guilty" 28.Jan.2006 10:33


Someone who pleads "guilty" does not go to trial. My fingers were awake, but my brain was not....