Tag Archives: Pipeline Protesters

Indigenous pipeline protesters take over B.C. park, displace campers

An Indigenous group calling itself the Tiny House Warriors has moved into the North Thompson River Provincial Park near Clearwater, B.C., in an effort to block the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

Group spokeswoman Kanahus Manuel says they are reclaiming an ancestral village their people were forced from many years ago, while at the same trying to prevent the expansion of the pipeline through their traditional territory.

Manuel says they have moved into the site and will be building tiny houses on the land in an action that has the approval of the hereditary chiefs of the Secwepemc First Nation.

She says Indigenous land defenders within the group will resist the construction of the pipeline through their territory.

A statement from the provincial Ministry of Environment says B.C. Parks is maintaining the closure of the area while efforts are made to respectfully resolve the situation and it is offering refunds to those who have booked campsites.

The ministry says it recognizes the right to engage in peaceful protest; however, it also recognizes that people, who simply want a camping experience are being inconvenienced.

Manuel responded by saying her people have been inconvenienced by colonialism for over 150 years.

“We were moved off of our lands. There are internationally protected rights which (say) Indigenous people can use and exclusively occupy their lands to maintain our culture, our language and our ways.”

She said no one from the provincial government has come to speak with them since the group cut off access to the main road into the camp.

Many of the locals support their action, she said, because they don’t want the pipeline expansion either.

Although some people have been shouting racist slogans from the vehicles, she added.

“We’ve had a few drive-by shoutings.”

The Canadian Press

[SOURCE]

Appeals Court Allows ‘Necessity Defense’ for Pipeline Protesters in Minnesota

Climate activists Emily Johnston and Annette Klapstein shut down Enbridge’s tar sands pipelines 4 and 67 in Minnesota on Oct. 11, 2016. Climate Direct Action

Enbridge pipeline protesters claim threat of climate change made civil disobedience necessary

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled on Monday that four anti-pipeline activists facing criminal charges have a legit case to argue the “necessity defense” in court.

According to EcoWatch, the so-called “Valve Turners” Emily Johnston and Annette Klapstein were charged after shutting off the emergency valves on a pair of tar sands pipelines owned by Enbridge Energy.

The pipelines targeted were Enbridge line 4 and 67 in Leonard, Minnesota.

Johnston and Klapstein, and the two defendants who filmed them in October 2016, argue their actions to stop the flow of the polluting bitumen from Canadian tar sands fields to the U.S. were justified due to the threat of climate change and had no legal alternatives. They plan to call expert witnesses who will back them up.

Prosecutors had challenged the decision to allow the “necessity defense” arguing its inclusion would confuse a jury and be less likely to result in a conviction, but the Court ruled 2-1 against them. The state can ask the Supreme Court to take up the issue.

While District Judge Robert Tiffany allowed the necessity defense, he also warned in a ruling in October that the four must clear a high legal bar to succeed.

Another hurdle is that the jury will come from a sparsely populated county where Enbridge is a major employer and the largest property taxpayer.

Johnston and Klapstein face felony charges of criminal damage to critical public service facilities and other counts.

Attorneys expect the judge to set trial dates for sometime this summer in Clearwater County.

The necessity defense has worked for climate activists before.

Last month, a Massachusetts judge found 13 activists who were arrested for sitting in holes dug for a pipeline to block construction “not responsible by reason of necessity” because the action was taken to avoid serious climate damage.

Some Upset at Plan to Drop Lawyers in Pipeline Protest Cases


A proposal by North Dakota judges who say out-of-state lawyers are no longer needed to represent Dakota Access pipeline protesters has drawn hundreds of complaints.

Judges from the state’s South Central District, who have been handling the protest cases, say the legal provisions are no longer justified because no new cases have been filed, the Bismarck Tribune reported.

A majority of the more than 500 comments to state court officials are against the move, with many saying there’s still too much unfinished business for appointed attorneys to handle. The waiver has allowed out-of-state attorneys to represent clients as long as they sponsored by a North Dakota lawyer.

“To discontinue the special provisions at this juncture would do a great disservice to justice as it would undoubtedly result in disruption of legal representation in active cases and higher rates of unrepresented individuals,” Spirit Lake Tribal Chairwoman Myra Pearson wrote in her objection.

One comment supporting the judges’ proposal came from North Dakota Commission on Legal Counsel for Indigents, which handled 435 pipeline protest cases.

“The DAPL case assignments added significant work volume and contributed to a record-breaking year,” wrote H. Jean Delaney, the commission’s executive director. “However, the protests appear to have concluded, and there haven’t been any additional assignments since July.”

The comment period on the proposal ended Monday. Supreme Court Clerk Penny Miller says she expects the court to take up the matter within the next couple of weeks.

About 830 criminal cases were filed in connection to the DAPL protests. More than 400 have closed, most of them with dismissed charges.

Associated Press

[SOURCE]

Judge Dismisses Trespass Cases Midway Through Trial

57d9d0d896b25-image

Bismarck Tribune | Feb 17, 2017

A judge dismissed the criminal trespass charges against three pipeline protesters halfway through their jury trial this morning.

According to lawyers in the courtroom, the judge found the prosecutor had not shown the land was posted or that the protesters had been asked by an authorized person to leave — at least one of which is required to prove criminal trespass.

On Friday morning, a jury was picked and the prosecutor put five highway patrolmen on the stand. After that, the three defense attorneys motioned to get the cases dismissed.

Kent Morrow, who represented one of the women charged, said in an interview after court that the patrolmen testified to people being on private property, but not to anyone with authority over the property telling them to leave.

“The judge said the law and statute is pretty clear,” Morrow said.

In his defense, Morton County State’s Attorney Brian Grosinger argued in court that the protesters should have known the land was private.

“What I had argued to the judge was I could prove notice by circumstantial evidence,” Grosinger said in an interview. “By the circumstances surrounding — considering it was a construction site, the people were wearing masks.”

The three Dakota Access Pipeline protesters were among 22 people arrested at a construction site near Almont on Sep. 13. According to an affidavit filed with the charges, a highway patrol captain “advised the protesters they were protesting and subject to arrest.”

Bruce Nestor, a Minnesota-based attorney representing some pipeline protesters, recently got three trespass cases from the same day dismissed on similar grounds after filing a motion.

Watching the trial today, Nestor said: “This was the same thing, except here the state wasted the judge’s time, the jury’s time and brought six highway troopers in from their normal duties to spend half a day at the Morton County Courthouse.”

Grosinger said he would work to prove notice more adequately in future trials.

[SOURCE]

Tensions Rise Between Standing Rock Sioux and Pipeline Protesters