A Message to the Rising Tide of Seattle
Now this is what I’m talking about! Way to go, Tim De Christopher and his CDC, the Climate Disobedience Center! Finally, you’re listening. This past summer, while I attended the Backbone Campaign’s Action Camp, their was a video crew also there making a documentary. From what I heard, after the fact, these were the same people who did some of the “Taxi Cab Confessions”. Anyway, I road back to the camp with them from the fairy, after we held an action in Seattle that afternoon. I was telling them that the activist community was just wasting everybody’s time; that they needed to take this fight into the courtroom and just explain why they are doing what they are doing. They can’t be afraid to go to jail and either do the action with that in mind or stay at home. Whether or not any of this got back to the people of the Rising Tide Seattle, is anyone’s guess; there is a film crew at the trial making a documentary from what I hear. So... This type of “action” is exactly what I have been talking about.
I don’t know if you are listening to me or what, but this is exactly what I have been preaching. In the past, all you so called “activist” out there, would show up to an action, hold a sign, march and chant. Maybe you just show up with a sign and chant and disturb the business. Maybe you all get arrested. Either case, your defenses have all been full of crap. You would plea out and take the probation, or show up for trial and tell the jury you never herd the police tell you to leave. But now, now you cooking with gas.
Today, yesterday, five members from the group Rising Tide Seattle, are facing a trial as the Delta 5, for their involvement in the September 2014, blockade of a railroad or railway yard. There were there to block a one mile long “oil bomb” train, which they did for 8 hours before being arrested for trespassing and some other charge. Now I have no idea if they hired lairs...I sorry, I mean, lawyers to “represent” them. If they did, and they probably did, this is a major coup. If the jury selection was anything like the first Occupy Orlando trespassing trial, the case is already lost. And the lawyers know that. They just tell you you have a chance because that is what you want to hear and that is how they make their house payments. Did you ever hear the judge or prosecutor say to the potential jurors that if a law is on the books, a person is still guilty of it weather or not it is unCon-stitutional? The trick will be in convincing the jury that they have the power to vote in your favor. All defendants have to get up and testify, bring in witnesses to testify about climate change and the dangers of those oil bombs, especially one, one mile long and all speak the truth of reality. You can’t leave anything out.
Normally, I would be looking at defending from statutory jurisdiction. The fake laws. But what is going on here is not a statutory arrest. There is a victim, the railroad company. And they complain they lost millions from this eight hour action. So, when it comes to trespassing on private property, I say, tell they jury why you did it. That was the advice I gave to Lisa Leggio, of the MICATS (Michigan Coalition Against Tar Sands), at some hearings before her trial. She didn’t take the advice and under the “advice” of her liar...I mean, lawyer, fought it under the premiss that the land they were actually on was not owned by Embridge, the company they were trying to stop. They lost. Lawyers. So what the CDC has found is basically just using the truth and letting the chips fall as they may. It’s about time!
Rising Tide of Seattle, has entered into an historic event; the use of a “necessity defense”. Brilliant! Let me tell you how rare this defense is. It is so rare, it is not even listed in my copy of Black’s Law Dictionary. I found an Insanity Defense, Justifiable Homicide, crap like that, but no Necessity Defense. The word “necessity” is listed, but it is kind-of obscure. ”Necessity”, is defined as a:
Controlling force; irresistible compulsion; a power or impulse so great that it admits no choice of conduct. That which makes the contrary of a thing impossible. The quality or state of being necessary, in its primary sense signifying that which makes an act or event unavoidable. Quality or state of fact of being in difficulties or in need; a condition arising out of circumstances that compels a certain course of action. Bykofsky v. Borough of Middletown, D.C.Pa., 401 F.Supp. 1242, 1250. See Irresistible impulse.
Irresistible impulse: As used as insanity defense, an "irresistible impulse" means an impulse to commit an unlawful or criminal act which cannot be resisted or overcome because mental disease has destroyed the freedom of will, the power of self-control, and the choice of actions. Snider v. Smyth, D.C.Va., 187 F.Supp. 299, 302. The "irresistible impulse" test for insanity is a test which is broader than the M'Naghten test. Under the "irresistible impulse" test a person may avoid criminal responsibility even though he is capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, and is fully aware of the nature and quality of his acts, provided that he establishes that he was unable to refrain from acting. Com. v. Walzack, 468 Pa. 210, 360 A.2d 914, 919. See also Insanity; M'Naghten Rule.
So irresistible impulse doesn’t apply in this case. The definition of “necessity” continues:
A person is excused from criminal liability if he acts under a duress of circumstances to protect life or limb or health in a reasonable manner and with no other acceptable choice. See Justification; Self-defense.
Justification. Just, lawful excuse or reason for act or failing to act. A maintaining or showing a sufficient reason in court why the defendant did what he is called upon to answer, particularly in an action of libel and as a defense to criminal charges of assault or homicide (e.g. self defense).
Not that one, although, one could argue that the past explosion near your home excused you from criminal liability because you were just trying to protect your life, limb and property. All of which the de facto government is not willing to prevent. Not an immediate act of self defense, but one, nonetheless, that made you feel an irresistible need to act upon. You let them know you were willing to stay there and not let these trains pass until a law was passed prohibiting them from entering . Without that, they will say you knew you were going to be arrested. You did not. You were there to stop this train from ever passing. The danger was just too great. The only reason why you were arrested, and the armed activist siege in Oregon is still going on, is because you didn’t have weapons and were not willing to obtain your objective with force, but rather with nonviolent resistance. If you were all armed, you’d be there today or until the train put it in reverse and never returned. And Oregon has taught us all that all you really need are guns and they won’t arrest you. But do it with peace and forget about it.
Justification is a procedure with common-law origins by which a surety must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the court that it has sufficient ability to perform its obligations. Matthews v. IMC Mint Corp., CA.Utah, 542 F.2d 544, 546.
Not that one either...
Justification means explanation with supporting data. American Export-Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc. v. Federal Maritime Commission, 135 U.S.App.D.C. 181, 417 F.2d 749, 752. As defense in criminal and tort law, term means maintaining or showing a sufficient reason in court why the defendant did what he is called upon to answer or, just cause or lawful excuse for act, reasonable excuse. Young Women's Christian Ass'n of Princeton, N. J. v. Kugler, D.C.N.J., 342 F.Supp. 1048, 1062. See Model Penal Code § 3.01 et seq.
Bingo, we have a winner. Here, you have to get the jury to connect the term “justification”, as defined by Black’s Law Dictionary, for what you did to prove your necessity defense as defined in the first two paragraphs.
Term is not widely used in torts where, instead, defenses and privileges are common.
See also Legal excuse; Necessity; Self-defense.
Trust me, it’s not self-defense. The definition of “necessity” continues with one last paragraph:
The word "necessity", within certificate of public convenience and necessity, is not used in the sense of being essential or absolutely indispensable but merely that certificate is reasonably necessary for public good. Alabama Public Service Commission v. Crow, 247 Ala. 120, 22 So.2d 721, 724. To fulfill requirements for easement of right of way of necessity, the necessity must be actual, real, and reasonable, as distinguished from inconvenience, but it need not be absolute and irresistible necessity. When used in relation to power of eminent domain does not mean absolute necessity, but only reasonable necessity. The "necessity" of and appurtenance for the beneficial use of leased premises, which will entitle the lessee thereto, is not an absolute necessity in the sense that it must be completely indispensable, but is a real necessity and not a mere convenience or advantage.
Good luck folks. No, really, you’re going to need it. This is going to be a tuff one to win. You’re only hope is the jury. Jeez, you have to convince them that your actions were necessary due to inaction by OUR government, which we defendants and jurors are all a part of. You have to convince them that the government is the people and that they and you are part of those people, and that these jurors, buy allowing this to continue, while locking up those trying to stop the destruction of the species, are just perpetuating the destruction by going along with it and not taking a stand, as the People, and sending a message to Washington that this will not stand. Like I said, good luck.
Finding the right jury is the key to winning. They have to be smart, but not bachelor’s degree smart. No business people, professionals like teachers, doctors, lawyers, or any occupation that is government or where the potential juror has a bachelor’s degree. All that means is they have been brainwashed into thinking like those in charge of the government want them to think. They followed the rules all their lives, so why shouldn’t you? Get it? And with the same token, you don’t want those with IQ’s under 90 if possible. I truly feel these people may be beyond comprehension of why you broke the law. You broke the law and that’s all they know and all they care about. No. Your perfect juror is the juror that is smart. A business owner of liberal products or services without a bachelor’s degree in business. Unemployed people with above average intelligence, thinkers. The questions you ask them are paramount. You are looking for those that understand that they are the people and the people are those who make up the government and therefore they are the actual government with the power to act as such. Understand? Good. You don’t want Catholics, because their religion teaches its members to be subservient to the “leaders”. They are told to “suck it up” and forgive them (the government) for what they do and all will purr along.
Christian guilt is another thing you might want to try on the jury. If you have a jury of all people who believe that there is a God and this God is coming back to earth to judge us all, then it is up to them to do the right thing. They don’t want to have to tell Saint Pete that they “personally” allowed the destruction of His planet. Right? If they wont do it for all the people on the planet, then they should do it for their God. (They are a Christian country and as such will have to ask themselves, “is this what Jesus would do?”) And opposite of that are the nonbelievers. These people will have two outlooks. One, they understand reality and will be easily lead to believe that what you did you had to do and they are the only thing now standing between survival or destruction. Hell, I’d even throw this web site into evidence if you could find a way. Now the other nonbeliever is the one that thinks like a republican. You know, every man for himself. They think that this is it, they either don’t care or don’t believe that the species will die and have no reason to vote in your favor. This will be the hardest to convince. But if you have this type of juror and can convince them that they really hold the power of survival and destruction in their hands, then you have started the zeitgeist that will change the world for the better. You have to convince the jury that your actions were not only necessary, but a “moral imperative”. Ask them if they remember morals. Let them know this is the best you can do without going “postal” on your adversaries.
That’s the best advice I can give on picking a jury. Court is poker game, played with the strategy of chess. They are going to try to bluff you into a premature guilty plea and you have to out smart them. This is hard to explain. Your lawyer should understand what I mean by all this. Anyone who has had as much experience as I have in the courtroom will understand this.
Part of my writing process is a lot of pacing. I pace and write in my head. I started making this page last night. While pacing for a direction to go, I started writing in my head. In the background, playing on the radio, was David Bowie’s “Pressure”. I started thinking how I would tell this story to the jury. As I made up a sentence and thought “this is a moral imperative that I do this, because the species are surly going”, then I began to cry as I completed with, “to be destroyed.” Those were true feelings coming out. I’m not saying to fake tears in the courtroom, I’m just saying don’t be afraid to be yourselves. And boy, that song is a very powerful song which at the time of my thoughts was very serendipitous and in sync to them. This is our last dance kids, make it count. I know the pressure is getting to us all.
There is one more thing you can do to get the jury to really think of this action. One thing you can say to them is this, “if you are a jury of my peers, then you are my peers, similar in stature, and would agree with me that we human beings can no longer wait for our government to do the right thing when they are making decisions based on corrupt crony capitalism. If you are not my peers, then why would you sit in judgment of me.” That’s just what I would say.
So what do I think is going to happen at trial today? I don’t know. There is no livestream of it and I just learned about all this yesterday, so I’m not privy to the defense and who it is that is handling it. And I don’t know who is on the jury. But I do know this is winnable. Maybe not with the first trial, but give it a few...dozen. No, I hope not. Before long the word will get out that it is the juries that are being held personally accountable for the destruction of our species. Give their names to the press. If you were the lawyer you’d have all that information. If a corrupt government will not stop the insanity, then it is up to an informed public to do the right thing. Remind them, that all evil needs to flourish is for good people to do nothing. Then ask the jury if they are good people. Best of luck...and skill. Oh, yeah, p.s., if you don’t ever hear your lawyer tell this to the jury, fire their ass and tell it to them yourselves. You can then bring up FIJA and the power they have over “the law”. Peace.
Yesterday the trial ended. It turned out like I had described above. And even though the activist community is telling everyone it was a win, that is the furthest from the the truth.
Judge Anthony Howard, in his last move to protect the evils of capitalism, told the jury they were not allowed to consider any of the expert testimony and that the defendants did not properly explain a “necessity defense”, so they couldn’t consider that as well. In essence, the judge told the jury that they could not consider the testimony they just heard over the past week. That left they jury with only one way to decide; were they on the property and was there a law telling them they could not be there? The trial was a complete waste of everyone’s time and the taxpayer’s money. This evil son-of-a-bitch, never had any intentions of allowing the defendants the right to speak the truth and allow the jury to decide on it. Never! Tim stated that he was so surprised that the judge was “allowing” (because the first amendment doesn’t apply in the courtroom) them to tell this to the jury and he couldn’t figure out why? Well, here’s why. He knew the entire time that when it came down to the jury instructions, he would tell them to forget what they just heard and convict on the physical facts; “do you believe the defendant was trespassing and if so you must convict.” That is exactly what Tony told them in the end. That is why I was telling you this case was lost the moment you set up your tripod and got arrested. So what happened?
There are many reasons for this failure, the most of which is the failure to plan. I really don’t think you guys had a real plan when you all entered into this. I could be wrong I always reserve the right to be wrong. You all could have entered into this action with the intent of taking it all the way, but did you consult with legal advice before this undertaking? I doubt it very much. This is what I am speaking about in The Plan.
Any legal advice you may have gotten, if you sought it, told you that there was no way you would win this case. They would have told you this because this is exactly how this court game is played. They would know that no judge would allow you to speak the truth as to why you did what you did and ask the jury to be the judges of the morality of the law, and not the facts, here. What you would be asking for at trial, is the jury to assume the position of the government and rule that they, our government, cares more about the people then they do about the capitalist hell bent on the destruction of our world. They would have to “show the finger” to the judge, because the judge will instruct them that if they believe you were guilty of trespassing they would have to convict, no matter what the reason. There is no “justifiable trespass” defense. None.
I knew this from the start. I’ve seen it at the Occupy trials. No matter how many “expert” witnesses you have, or any truthful testimony you might give, the judges will instruct the juries to disregard anything they heard and to just determine the facts of the matter. They are not allowed to consider any justification that could change laws. Judge Howard talks a good game, but the truth of the matter is that he is just evil folks, that’s it. Evil exists, it is up to us to identify it.
The real reason why the Delta5 lost was because of “capitalism”. Capitalism is diametrically opposed to Christianity. If most people view Christianity as good, then anything working against it would be bad; the evil. Is the government doing the “Christian” thing by allowing the destruction of our species? No. Ergo, their practice of allowing the capitalist to do what they want while locking up those trying to do the Christian thing, is anti Christian, or evil. My guess is that the Delta5 was not passionate enough to convince the jury that they would just be a cog in that agenda by convicting. So get this. Most people in this country believe there is a God and that Jesus Christ is the leader of that God. Rather than having people who are too politically correct to express their true passions, how about using some true believers who really don’t give a fuck about man’s law and will tell those in the court, their true feelings about how they feel about everyone allowing this to happen and why they did what they did. They need defendants who would not be afraid to teach the jury about FIJA. The problem is, someone is going to want a lawyer and once you have a lawyer on the legal team you might as well make plans to be convicted. The lawyers do not understand the real reason why the politicians are allowing the destruction of the species. They just do what they are told, and they are told not to rock the boat.
It’s all about greed folks. unadulterated greed. The facts are the facts. Global Warming is real and there are other technologies out there than we can use other than oil. Car makers put the carriage makers either out of business or retooling to work with them. Same can be with the energy industry. Oil workers will either do like the carriage industry did and retool and join the new technology to produce alternate forms of energy, or go out of business. But when the conspiracy by the oil and coal companies to keep themselves in business is so strong, they either lie to gullible people, or pay them off to look the other way. In either case, they are either stupid or corrupt and this is why we must do what we must do.
No capitalist, especially one who does what the fossil fuel industry does, is a Christian and neither is anyone who would work for those who killed Jesus - the government. This is why these two entities work together to ensure that the companies get to do what they do and you get to sit in jail. So it is not just capitalism, but the ignorance or more precisely the greed of the politicians to allow the greed of the capitalist. It is now up to the true Christians of this country to come to the aid of their planet. It is up to you to tell the truth of how the evil empire, aka the cops all the way up to the president of the United States, is so corrupt that they will not even allow you to speak about the truth of your actions nor allow the jury to hear them as well. You have to tell the jury that they are so evil that they will not even allow you to consider this in your acquittal. Because that is what Judge Howard did when he told the jury that they had to disregard what the experts said and that the defendants didn’t satisfy the criteria for a necessity defense. You have to tell the jury how you fought this evil all the way up to this trial and the only thing you can depend on now is them, the jury. You have to speak freely, under the first amendment, not play the government’s court game as they want you to play...with a lawyer. That means every time the judge tells you you cannot speak in the courtroom you file a writ of mandamus mentioning his violating the first amendment and making him. If that judge tells you to get bent, you file a petition for writ of certiori or a title 42 civil lawsuit against those two or three judges for prohibiting your right to speak. This will all be written up and placed in this section. You tell the jury you had to do this and that the government is so corrupt, including the judge and prosecutor, that you had to tell it to a jury for anyone to help. You must convince them of what it really means to be a Christian and a ward of God’s planet. You have to show the evil to the jury, and convince them that they have the power to initiate change. They have to be convinced that the only change moves through them.
The Tim De Christopher Defense:
I spent most of yesterday watching and listening to Tim De Christopher give lectures and interviews. I then spent the the rest of the day figuring out exactly what he meant by what he said. I will now post two of the appearances here and dissect them.
One of the videos I watched is the one on the right. Here, Tim gives a lecture to a group at a Unitarian Church. Unitarians are pretty cool people.
At the 2:49 mark, Tim tells the story of how the judge would not allow him to speak freely about why he did what he did. At 3:18, he describes how the judge restricted his speech. However, Tim just took it. He never thought to file a petition for a writ of mandamus, suing the judge and making the higher court force him to do his job, which would be to follow the first amendment. Nor did he file a federal title 42, section 1983, civil lawsuit, suing this judge for violating his right, a violation of title 18, USC, sections 241 and 242, among other things. This would have really clogged up the system and began to expose the corruption of all our government employees. But I guess Tim didn’t know about all that. He must have had lawyers and lawyers will never tell you that the judge’s practice of not allowing you to speak in a courtroom is solely due to the tyranny of the government and will tell you there is nothing you can do when I just told you above what you can do when this happens. I didn’t write the law, I just read it and put it into application.
The reason why the first amendment is null and void in any court of law is to give the government an advantage over the people who will appear before it. I’m speaking of statutory laws here, where the only “plaintiff” in this matter is everyone charged with putting you behind bars. By them restricting your free speech to tell a jury the real reason why you did what you did, gives them that leg up. Our founding fathers placed the first amendment in the Bill of Rights so that the government could never do what it is they are doing; terrorizing the People for a little profit, a little kickback. That is why the court makes you take a lair... I mean a lawyer. You think the lawyer knows what he’s doing when in essence he is just covering up the corruption.
Tim goes on to say that he only heard of this Delta5 case within the last few months. This means that he heard about this long after the blockade in Portland, where the Rising Tide had attended. If he had met that Shannon girl, as I did, I doubt he would want to help them out. At least I don’t, unless they get rid of her or she grows up and kisses, licks and wipes my ass with a public apology. But here’s a case, in the $y$tem for a year, and along comes Timmy. What great information did you have for this? What was, “your” plan that you had to go to Washington and help out the five? It is obvious. It was the necessity defense that he was able to get them. Before this, the judge was not allowing it, but now the group “won” their first amendment right. Was he a witness? No. Did he defend any of the defendants? No. So the only reason why I can see Tim showing up for this court case was for this necessity defense. Tim seemed to have gotten an orgasm when this happened, not understanding why the judge would allow it. But the judge knew fully well that he would never allow the testimony to be weighed at deliberations, so what did he care if you “felt” heard?
At 6:25, Tim is describing how excited he became when he learned that for the very first time, a court was going to level the playing field and allow the defendants to give an excuse for what they did. They are guilty in the eyes of the law, so their only way out is by telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But at this point, Tim isn’t understanding that the judge has every intention of instructing the jury not to use it. The judge put on a good show, going back to his chambers and contemplating what he “should” do. It was just a show for the audience. He never had the intention to allow this to be considered. Had he, he would have been disciplined, maybe would have lost all appeals made against him. He knew this and wanted to keep his high paying job because he feels that there is in no way in the world the U.S. government will lose power, so he’s going to choose that side - the side that is feeding him. Let me tell you what one answer should have been when asked “why did you do it?” That answers should be, “just incase.” The next question should be, “just incase what”, to which the defendant’s answer should be, “just incase there really is a God.” That will take care of all the believers on the jury.
Tim continues with describing the testimony he heard over the days of the trial. Only problem with that is that in reality, the jury did not hear any of it. He states that it was unprecedented that they were allowed to give all that testimony, yet again, not one bit of it was allowed to be used. It is hard for me to accept that Tim doesn’t see it that way. You take out all that was allowed and you end up with a trial of just cops and defendants and the person who’s property it was. Total time for trial, one day. But this guy wanted to make it look good - get you on his side, which he did. You actually accepted his “excuse” that he was just following his job. If you were on a jury at Nuremburg, I’m sure the Nazis would have gotten off. No, no, it’s fine. If you agree with him you agree with him. It does not matter that this was the finest case for climate activism, the jury was never going to be allowed to use it. If it were me, I’d get my many lawyers filing a title 42 against Judge Howard. The trial was a dry run, but it didn’t have to be.
“And then things got a little weird (10:25).” No it didn’t, the judge knew how this was going to go down. Four points of the necessity defense criteria that one has to show is this:
- There has to be a reasonable expectation of an imitate harm.
- That harm has to be greater than the harm of breaking the law.
- That they could not have created the harm that their trying to avoid.
- That their has to be no legal alternatives to breaking that law
I’m not sure where that all came from, it is probably placed in the state’s court rules. Number one, there was a reasonable expectation of an imitate harm. There is already harm being placed on at least one of the defendants, Abby, because of the previous derailment. That consent fear of this maybe happening again, only with her daughter getting hurt in the process, has her living under a “tyranny” that has her terrorized. Two, that that harm has to be greater than the harm of breaking the law, is apparent in the first point. Third, it is quite obvious that they could not have created the harm, but that others, such as ISIS, could. But then there is the fourth criteria, there has to be no legal alternatives. Were there? If not, I’d say appeal. I would assume that this is what Tony used to absolve himself from his participation. I was not in the courtroom, so I have no idea what other “legal alternatives” the judge gave for disallowing this defense. He had to have given an example, yet none is given by Tim. Saying there are other legal alternatives is not the same as giving example. These examples, if any, have to be exhausted first. But I’ll bet none were given. Then he goes on to talk about how the judge was trying to save face by telling everyone in the courtroom that the defendants are commendable people. And the crowd claps at 12:15, even though the judge tells the jury they cannot consider any of the testimony. They truly are blind to this game this judge is playing. So much so that you would take down a pic I posted of him?
What the judge is trying to say, in a cryptic manner, is that he knows that the capitalist are winning, but he makes over 125 grand a year, with bennies, and he’s not going to give that up. What he is telling everyone is that he knows that these people need to win, but he has chosen the dark side and will protect the destruction. But I’m also a nice guy and didn’t yell at you during trial, so cut me a break...did you buy it? Good. My face has been saved with my children as they accept the notion that I am just a nobody who cannot effect change in the real world and will be forgiven by the people I lockup for my sins. He chose the government over God.
Then he says the judge refused to allow the “defense team” the right to express themselves to the jury about how they felt about this case. The defense team? Was Mazza part of that? I know the lawyers would just do like a lapdog, but Mazza? Was he in on this “defense team”? He should have brought it up. He should have showed the jury how the judge is trying to stop this defense. And the fact that the judge said the testimony was inadmissible, does that mean that it was stricken from the record?
Now the verdict. He, as well as myself, is surprised when the jury delivers a not guilty verdict for obstructing a train. I have no idea what law they were charged with, but what I found is here, where it pretty much says they are guilty. However, it does say “driver” and there were no drivers involved here. If there was another law, I couldn’t find it.
So some of the jury comes out after the verdict @18:20 and hobnobs with some of the defendants. Again, seen it, told you about it before it happened. Their apologies to you were to save face with you, because they are weak and scared of the government. If they didn’t know they had the power, as Tim tells us, this is because all the defendants were too scared to use their first amendment rights and tell them. You were also petitioning your government for a redress of grievances you are having with the lawmakers. So you sought the help of the court. Where are the checks and balances here? This is good though, we will use it a little later on down the page.
I think that it is awesome that one joined Abby’s thing while two of the jury joined the CDC to help train future defendants. That is great! Perhaps now Tim is seeing the truth in what I write. He’s tried the lawyers and that didn’t work. These people will be instrumental in the progress of your cause. Your cause, because you only care for the planet, whereas my cause is in caring for everything.
At 20:46, Tim gets into what the judge said about the fourth of the criteria not being met. He says how there were other “legal” avenues for them to have done. But that was not the point of the action. The point of the action should not have been to “gain awareness”, but to force the government into passing laws prohibiting oil bomb trains from going through populated cities. But he tells how both the judge and the prosecution have a debate on what the defendants intent was, with out allowing the defendants to tell it themselves to the jury. The prosecution saying the intent was to block a train, the judge saying it was for attention and neither but both being the answer at all. See how they diverted everyone’s attention away from the legislative and executive branches as being the reason? You thought you were going to the judicial branch of government for redress, only to find out they are really under the direction of the executive branches of government. Only the appellate courts are the real judicial branch. So, if you thought you were going to get a little sympathy from a judge, ha, think again. And Tim wants you to believe that this civil disobedience was to “gain popularity for the cause”, whatever that is. What does it mean, “to build a kind of public pressure that is necessary to resist the corporate control of our government.” Is that what this action of civil disobedience is about? Because I wouldn’t sign up for that. What does that mean? Are you talking about a revolution? The climate movement has been building ever since Greenpeace came to be. How is that going for yas? Tim, if this is your focus, you’re leading them down the wrong path. There is only one way to effect change, legally, and that is with the lawmakers. And if the lawmakers don’t want to make laws in harmony with the public good, then it is the duty of the activists who participate in these actions, to make them about pressuring the lawmakers to pass laws to prohibit these trains from passing though populated areas. And that will only come with not guilty verdicts. You’ve asked and they refused to pass the laws, now you take matters into your own hands.
Then there is a question and answer for the remaining hours of the lecture and the first one to speak is a defendant, Abby. At first she is making no sense, talking about civil disobedience is good for shining the spotlight on the “wrong doing” and the “shame”, as if both were real nouns. What? Then she says the judge was “creative” in what he did. Please, Abby, the judge took over a year to allow this defense and he never did. All he did was give the appearance that he was allowing it when the entire time he knew this would never fly. He knew he would confuse everyone with the “intent”. This was just sad to see. Abby likes using shame as a weapon to guilt people into action, whereas Tim believes that sham doesn’t work because the one who is “made” to fell shame will disconnect from every coming around. He is wrong.
Now, Tim is correct when he tells the difference between shame and guilt and how corporations are not people who can feel shame, so basically I guess he’s saying it is a waist to try to shame someone (I’ll bet his sister is a corporate liar...I mean lawyer.) He tells how impressed he was that the Delta5 didn’t do much shaming. That is really one of the reasons why they lost. Then @36:25 he goes into talking about the Lobster Boat Blockade action where the actual elected prosecutor, Sam Sutter dropped the charges. Sam did the right thing, and how did the residents react? They made him mayor of Fall River. Judge Howard got is name and his job for taking on corruption, but how will the voters feel now about him not taking on the corruption of the oil companies? Maybe he too, could have become mayor. He should run, and find out. And Tim was right about his partner’s actions being the battle between his conscience and his action and so too was D.A. Sam Sutter’s. If anyone out there, a real person, is feeling guilt or shame, it is because they are still a little human. Only evil could do that job and not feel shame. The guilt comes when they refuse to leave or alter there involvement in the job. Guilt and shame. They know what they are doing is wrong, yet they make the conscience decision to to help the bad along. Those with a conscience will reflect on their actions, while those without will continue without remorse. I guess what Tim is saying is that we’re not going to get the help of his sister until she is made to feel sham and guilt free for her participation in the legal coverup.
I would like to mention one more place in the video before I move on. This begins happening at the 54 minute mark. Here, the subject of jury nullification is brought up. They speak of this for over 12 minutes and through 2 questioners. However, Tim’s answer never included any fact that anyone on the defense team ever mentioned that to the jury. I know the lawyers are not allowed to say it, but Mazza was on his own. I wonder what happened that he never let the cat out of the bag.
The sacrifices made by the Delta5, along with Tim De Christopher and their legal team (yes I’ll give them some of the credit), is to be commended. It is for sure they were given an opportunity to use the first amendment to state their cases, and that is a major coup, but you really need to take a look at why the judge might have allowed this. In actuality, he didn’t. He told the jury they had to forget everything they heard and told them they never met the criteria for proving a “necessity defense”. I believe this was his plan the whole time. It either was his plan, or someone put the pressure on him to not allow it in deliberations. In either situation, it was allowed and the jury heard it and from that jury came three new volunteers for the planet.
Tim did give an interview yesterday on Your Call Radio.org. In it, he talked about his experiences in prison. No big surprise here. He has as much time behind bars as I do. I could tell that Tim understood what it is that I have been fighting for over 20 years now. Perhaps this knowledge of his, plus these lessons of mine, will help him with his next court case.
One thing that caught my attention in that interview was when at around the 43 minute mark he explains why he was prosecuted. He says that it was because he exorcised his first amendment right and was speaking of the arrest all over the place. It was because of that. It was because he freely spoke that the government boys decided to go after him. Again, can he not see the tyranny here and the need to go after this type of corruption?
Even though I don’t like those in the Rising Tide, due to my experiences this past summer, I do, however, still love them. Here is how I would handle the case of the Delta5 and their next action.
First, you can appeal. The fact that he said you had other “legal” means without having to resort to trespassing, and never gave you any examples of those other legal means, should be enough to have his order overturned. I might even petition for writ of Certiori in the appeals court. I would state that the judge violated your first amendment right to free speech when attempting to state your defense. And/or, you could file a title 42, 1983 civil lawsuit and sue Judge Anthony Howard for violating your first amendment rights, a violation of title 18 United States Code, sections 241 and 242, among others. You want to know which? Contact me. So your case doesn’t have to end now. But let’s say it’s over. What should you do next?
Another action. That is what you should be planing next. Or do you give up, saying that you tried, gave it your best, but your best wasn’t good enough? Hell no, you plan another action. A better action then the last. An action and a plan better then what you thought your best was.
You go back to the scene of the crime. The same place you didn’t block that train, but did trespass on. You go back and do the same action. Only this time you do it with a plan. One thing you could do is see if any of the track is on public land and not private land, if they allow for that kind of thing. If they do, send a group to block the train at that point and take the arrests.
Now before you go and do any of this, you have to have a lot of people. Five will not do. There has to be a large number of people from all walks of life. Then you divide them up and tailor each defense for each. You have to study all my stuff before you can do that, or hire me. When you get arrested you get arrested with all kinds of literature on you. That’s right. You get arrested with FIJA forms, articles on the environment and oil bomb trains because when you get arrested it all becomes evidence in your case. The jury would have no other option but to go over it. Have videos of each future defendant giving a statement. Your action is not to bring awareness to the masses, nor to block a train, well, it is about blocking a train, but that is not your intent. You make sure you let the court know that your intent was for the lawmakers to make laws prohibiting these trains from traveling by populated places. You should know the rest by now. You should know if you want to bring arms, or if you want it to end this part of the action as quickly as the first one ended. Either way, they arrested you not only because they say you were trespassing, but because you had all that “evidence” on you. You catching on yet? Are you C.O.Y.?
This time, this action will have something your last action didn’t have, the jury members. Those jury members who were too scared to do the right thing and not convict you, will now be on your side. Besides them teaching you all how to be better defendants, they will be defendants themselves and will be testifying of their experience on the first jury and how they got into this and yadda, yadda, yadda, you know where to go with this. I have trust in Tim, always have. And one person will have a bench trial with Judge Howard, placing the burden of proof on him. Will he have a moment of true introspect and do the right thing, or will he continue to be the bad guy?
You should all be able to figure this out. I have connected the dots quite comprehensively here. Now you know what you are really up against. Sorry bout that. But now you know and you will be able to fight more prepared. I have way too much work to get involved with these cases other then what I have written so far and that I will be monitoring the Delta5 and the Montrose9 twitter sites. I have many months of work ahead of me if we are to win this revolution, this liberation. That is if I decide to finish. It appears that you are all afraid of the truth and with that it is hard to ever convince anyone of what really needs to be done. You’ve got to do this without the lairs...I mean the lawyers.
I’m very tired and am going to stop now. Would I work with you activist of the north-west? No, but I would work with the CDC planing an action like this...if they asked and depending on their power system - lawyers and what they could do to speed up my work. They can contact me here.