DeChristopher (eco-activist) guilty on both counts

[kpete]

Source: The Salt Lake Tribune

DeChristopher guilty on both counts

By brandon loomis and Aaron Falk

The Salt Lake Tribune
First published Mar 03 2011 08:17AM
Updated 1 hour ago

After nearly five hours of deliberations Thursday, a jury has convicted eco-activist Tim DeChristopher of two felonies for placing bogus bids at an oil and gas lease auction.

After the verdict, DeChristopher, 29, and dozens of supporters emerged in song from Salt Lake City’s federal courthouse, where they where met by other backers, who wept and joined in the songs. Some hugged their hero.

"We now know I’ll have to go to prison," DeChristopher said. "That’s the job I have to do."

He faces up to 10 years behind bars when he is sentenced later.



Read more: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51355256-76/dechristopher-auction-wanted-government.html.csp

[golddigger]

1. And Wall Street walks.

[mike_c]

7. no CEOs were harmed while this travesty of justice transpired....

Disgusting, isn't it?

[Newest Reality]

2. Torturers and war

criminals roam free!

[bbinacan]

3. Good.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

[WhiteTara]

4. do you actually know what he did?

and it looks as though he has accepted the time; but in my book, this man is more than a hero!

[bbinacan]

12. I know what he did.

A felony.

[The Doctor.]

26. The concept of 'unjust application of law' doesn't exist for you, does it?

I see you're all for laws that protect the powerful while screwing do-gooders. You know this is a 'liberal' site, right?

[bbinacan]

29. Can't he appeal?

I know this is a liberal site. I hope it's not an anarchist site.

[The Doctor.]

33. While I agree with you on the distinction between 'liberal' and 'anarchist',

There is nothing anarchistic about suggesting that certain laws are unjust. Anarchists are about no laws. The closest we have to anarchists in this nation, aside from a handful of truly over-the top nuts, are libertarians and CEO's who despise and circumvent the law whenever and wherever possible.

Watch 'Inside Job' if ever you have any doubt about whether powerful people who have broken the law for profit are free to continue their exploits.

[No Elephants]

49. No, it's a Democratic site. It's Democratic Underground, not Liberal Underground.

Republicons who pretend anyone left of Newt Gingrich is a liberal (or a Socialist) are very dishonest or very ignorant, or both. Don't fall for that bull do.

[LanternWaste]

78. Depends if posters drive 65mph on a highway zoned 60...

"I hope it's not an anarchist site..."

Depends if posters drive 65mph on a highway zoned 60... :shrug:

(Unless of course you think that there are some laws which may indeed be broken without a breakdown of the system... in which case, it comes down more to personal bias than personal conviction)

[blackspade]

41. Thanks Captain Law and Order....

Laws apparently only apply to folks that don't have money to buy there way out of jail.

[bbinacan]

45. .

:eyes: :rofl:

[mike_c]

5. he will do the time because he's a real hero....

We need more like him.

[pitohui]

90. prison is a ridiculous sentence for such a "fraud," i say fine him a few bucks and let him go

it is clear that he didn't commit the "fraud" to any financial benefit to himself, that he was only thinking of others & trying to protect the location

i don't get why there should be any prison sentence at all, why destroy a human life & take a man's freedom over this?

admittedly he is not helping himself by calling for others to follow him, but we all know that won't happen, the mere threat of prison is enough to stop most lovers of the outdoors from taking action anyway...the bad guys have won, they always win, so why do they have to crush a life as well? the outdoors will be gone soon enough...

if i bid on an auction and then can't afford to pay, *i* don't go to prison, i go to civil court

this whole thing is a cruel farce from what i can see

[sudopod]

6. Are you really such a hateful bastard? nt

[bbinacan]

11. If a hateful bastard

means believing in the law, guilty as charged.

[here_is_to_hope]

28. Funny that your sig line features a quote

from a lawbreaker...
Don't bother responding, I have no need to expose myself to such a pos(t)er as you.

[bbinacan]

34. Once again, I don't

get an apples to apples comparison. Thanks for your input...NOT.

[The Doctor.]

35. Ben Franklin was a traitor to the crown. Now all of a sudden crime is ok with you?

You're really exposing some inconsistency here.

[bbinacan]

36. see my previous comment

Are we deposing a foreign gov't ruling over colonies?

[Threedifferentones]

87. "Foreign" governemnt ruling over colonies? Just government, thanks.

Is the Federal government "foreign" to Hawaii just because there's some ocean in between? Or to me just because there's thousands of miles between me and D.C? The American revolution was all about breaking unjust laws...was illegal in itself. Your attitude that the law is always right does not mesh with Ben Franklin's actions or perspectives at all...

[Confusious]

39. You ready to start a revolution?

otherwise the point is moot.

[bbinacan]

44. Nope. n/t

[sudopod]

55. lol

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

[KT2000]

8. Are you kidding?

Do you know the background story on this? Oil and gas leasing is done very quietly and the bids are very very low. He was there to show people what really goes on so he bid high to see what the response from the oil and gas reps did. They want their leases for next to nothing and they work together to make sure it works out that way - all the while taking out beautiful forests and other resources. Of course this man did not have anything to back up his bids - this was citizen activism.

He goes to jail and the oil and gas companies go back to their next to nothing bids.

[bbinacan]

10. I'm not kidding.

He broke the law, period.

[tblue37]

21. That's rather a dumb stance. Many laws are unjust, and civil disobedience is one

of the few ways we have of resisting them. He has indicated his willingness to do the time, but your cavalier attitude that as long as some law is on the books, then that is that, "period," is ridiculous. Would you say that the people who hid the Jews from deportation to death camps by Nazis "broke the law,period"?

Christine O'Donnell was widely--and appropriately--mocked for just such a simplistic, black and white attitude about such moral issues. She said all lying is wrong and that she would not even lie if she was hiding Jews and the Nazis came looking for them.

Apparently, since hiding Jews was aginst the law, period, at that time and place, you would have had no sympathy for any lawbreakers who failed to turn over the Jews.

The Republcians in power are trying to pass all sorts of evil "laws." Can we assume that you approve, therefore, only of the law-abiding citizens who meekly bow their heads and do as they are told?

I wonder how you would have reacted if the Fugitive Slave Law called on you to help slave-catchers nab runaway slaves in a free state and return them to their "lawful" owners.

Afetr all, by running away they were breaking the law, period, and those who aided and abetted them were also breaking the law, period.

[bbinacan]

27. This is not an apples to apples comparison.

When one resorts to nazi and slave references, they have not only lost the argument, they have lost my respect as well.

[No Elephants]

56. Actually, claiming certain comparisons should never be made is

the intellectually indefensible--and weak--position.

You made a blanket aassertion about all lawbreaking and were quite appropriately given some examples of when people broke unjust laws and became our heroes as a result, including Franklin.

And no, a situation does not have to be identical in all respects before a valid comparison is made. Disobeying an unjust law is the common thread.

[bbinacan]

57. You seem to make a valid point

and I'll need to think about.

[No Elephants]

59. In fairness, I edited my post while you were posting. You may or may not want to edit your response.

[bbinacan]

64. Thank you for the heads up

:toast:

[LanternWaste]

79. Much like one's dogmatic adherence

"they have not only lost the argument,..."

Much like one's dogmatic adherence to the law for no other reason than it is law reduces them to a lost argument. :shrug:

[pitohui]

91. because the world is not as important as someone who lived back in 1860?

why can't people bring up the nazis or the slaves? why isn't it relevant? if you want to believe that it's OK for powerful men to eat the whole world and destroy thousands of species, while spoiling any kind of chance of a decent life for billions of people in 2011, you have lost MY respect...actually, such a person has never held my respect in the first place

the nazis were real, the jews were real, their place in history was real, and it speaks to us today, whether or not we think they are real or just painted pictures in a history book

those who think them painted pictures from the past and that today's laws are always right, just, and fair, are simply delusional

laws are created by imperfect and often powerful, greedy human beings, it is impossible for such laws to always be right, just and fair

to destroy a human life because he made a bid on a couple of leases that he couldn't pay for...that is just un-fucking ridiculous, frankly

[The Doctor.]

32. Some people cannot see past the laws or into context.

It's safe to assume that for some people 'the law is the law' regardless of reason.

[Confusious]

40. Since you seem to be the arbiter of just and unjust

Let me know which ones I can ignore.

Thx.

[bbinacan]

53. Don't ignore anything. n/t

[bbinacan]

54. Don't ignore anything. n/t

[No Elephants]

63. No one can answer that for you, Ms. Parks. Which laws seem morally heinous to YOU?

Which offend YOUR conscience? For which violations are YOU willing to be jailed, or perhaps even killed?

Jesus, Patrick Henry, Thoreau, Ghandi, MLK,Jr., Muhammed Ali and so many others had their own answers.

If you cannot imagine a law you should ignore, you and I probably don't have much in common.

[U4ikLefty]

70. BRAVO!!!

:applause:

[No Elephants]

75. Why, thank you!

[The Doctor.]

77. Ridiculous.

I never made such a claim. It's a simple historical fact; some laws are demonstrably unjust.

If you are not capable of discerning them yourself, I certainly will not do the work of trying to explain how to do so.

[Confusious]

42. Which laws can I ignore because they are unjust

let me know. I really hate speed limits. Can I ignore those?

Thx.

[bbinacan]

58. Sure. n/t

[tblue37]

76. Speed limits do no harm to you, to the environment, to the

ability of normal people to survive economically or physically, or to the health or well-being of people or other sentient creatures. Laws that clearly violate our basic sense of decency, of not doing harm to others unless we have no other way to survive or to function, are unjust laws. Speed limits are just laws. They do no real harm to anyone, and they prevent very real harm to many.

The fact that soldiers are required to refuse "illegal" commands shows that the world community recognizes that sometimes the official, "legal" authority is in fact operating outside the acceptable range of basic and "universally" recognized human moral principles and that claiming to be obeying such an authority is not a defense against prosecution.

In Civil Disobedience Thoreau says that when we resist a law on moral grounds, we must be prepared to acccept the legal consequences, and in fact this man has said that he does accept those consequences. Socrates also insists that he must bow to the legal consequences of his behavior, even if he believes he has not done anything that should lead to execution. When his friends beg him to let them help him escape, he rejects their offers of rescue and insists on staying put and accepting his punishment.

But there is something offensively cavalier about the statement, "He broke the law, period," because it rejects all nuance and all moral considerations and implicitly assumes that all laws are appropriate.

[Confusious]

80. All laws are not appropriate

You obey the law. You don't like the law, you get it changed. If you can't get it changed, then maybe not everyone agrees with you.

If people agree with you, and it still can't be changed, then it's time for other measures.

Some around here state "obey your conscience." What if one has no conscience?

"In Civil Disobedience Thoreau says that when we resist a law on moral grounds, we must be prepared to accept the legal consequences, and in fact this man has said that he does accept those consequences. Socrates also insists that he must bow to the legal consequences of his behavior, even if he believes he has not done anything that should lead to execution. When his friends beg him to let them help him escape, he rejects their offers of rescue and insists on staying put and accepting his punishment."

A good statement, and one I agree with completely.

It just seems to me, and I may be wrong, that some around here think you should be able to ignore whichever law you don't like, and if that makes you a hero to them, you should get off without consequences. It's a feeling I get.

Which drives me up the wall.

[tblue37]

81. But that was absolutely *not* the stance the guy who broke the law was taking.,

He said that it was his "job" to do the time--indicating that he had taken the action he took for deeply held ethical reasons, but he recognized that in doing so he would probably suffer significant legal repercussions, and it was his duty to accept those consequences as they occurred, just as Thoreau and Socrates insisted one must.

When someone practices civil disobedience under these terms, one's purpose is to call attention to the legal situation one considers wrong and by doing so to galvanize public opinion against the immoral law to get it changed.

That is also what the Civil Rights protesters were doing during sit-ins at the lunch counters or during their marches. They had no illusions. They knew they would almost certainly be arrested, and they knew that they would probably also be physically assaulted, and not in a small way, either. But they deliberately disobeyed the laws that supported segregation, creating enough publicity and provoking such extreme, violent reactions on the "law-abiding" side that eyes were opened and it became harder for whites to remain complacent about the supposed benign nature of "separate but equal" facilities or of race relations.

But the phrasing "He broke the law, period" implies that the law is perfect and immutable and that there are no circumstances in which it is appropriate to challenge laws through civil disobedience. As long as the protester recognizes that civil disobedience is not a free pass--i.e., he/she must understand that under the law as it currently exists, there will probably be legal punishment of some sort for anyone who undertakes to practice civil disobedience--then civil disobedience is an honorable and courageous way to attempt to change laws that are unjust or immoral. That is how Thoreau practiced civil disobedience, and he did time in jail for it. That is how Ghandi led Indians to resist British rule, and many suffered for their "law-breaking." And that is how the Civil Rights marchers, the people who sat in at segregated lunch counters, and the Freedom Summer riders practiced civil disobedience.

Many of protesters of the Vietnam War also followed these principles, though some (usually middle-class white kids, often college students) were undooubtedly shocked if they not get away without punishment of some sort for their sit-ins or other law-breaking activities. Even among the anti-war protesters, though, most were prepared to suffer at least some consequences for their anti-war activities.

All of those protesters in all of those different times, places, and situations broke the law, but they did so in a good cause, and most of us--certainly most of us here on DU--are very, very glad they had the commitment and the courage to do so!

[bbinacan]

19. I need to add that I know something about this.

Though I don't purchase O&G leases, the company I work for does buy easements for infrastucture projects like roads, power lines, reservoirs, parks, and O&G pipelines. My specialty is pipelines. The felon assumed, as well as many here, that the property owners are dumb, uninformed rubes. That is completely wrong. These are some of the most savvy people I've met.

[blackspade]

47. Ah, I see now.

Your one of those right-of-way guys.
Putting people out of the homes they have had for generations, highwalling family cemeteries, and frakking the ground water under folks with the surface rights to the land.

Might makes right eh?

[bbinacan]

50. I guess you didn't

fully read my comment. Since I specialize in pipelines, I don't "put people out of the homes...", don't know what "highwalling family cemeteries" means and my pipelines are interstate lines and not gathering lines from wells.

[blackspade]

65. Oh, I did.

Whatever makes you feel better about condemnation proceedings to force landowners to grant access rights for pipelines.

Highwalled cemeteries are a tragic fact in mining areas around the country. Basically since it takes so much money to move bodies, they just mine up to the cemetery boundaries, often leaving a pillar of rock and earth up to 50 ft high. This provides no access for families and eventually leads to bodies eroding out. It is pretty horrific.

[bbinacan]

66. Think about what you just said

"condemnation proceedings to force landowners to grant access rights for pipelines."

What about roads, parks, reservoirs? With out condemnation ability, nothing would get done in this country. How does your water, power, gas, etc. get to your home? BTW, condemnation rates on my projects run about 1-2%.

[blackspade]

68. I think about it plenty.

Like I said, whatever makes you sleep better at night.

[No Elephants]

71. What basis do you have for stating....

"The felon assumed, as well as many here, that the property owners are dumb, uninformed rubes."

In at least two places, the OP article says he always expected to go to jail for doing this. How does that suggest he assumed anyone was dumb? How does anything suggest that?

[Arctic Dave]

13. Are helping to bring BP to justice for the gross violations that

caused the Gulf Disaster?

I'm going to say probably not. That takes some work and talent.

[bbinacan]

15. I think that BP

is under both criminal and civil investigations.

[Arctic Dave]

18. Yes they are. They are also on probation for past violations.

Why are none of them in jail?

[bbinacan]

20. Have there been any indictments?

Take it up with US DOJ.

[Arctic Dave]

22. Which time?

You seem so adement about doing the time for the crime, why arent't you protesting?

[bbinacan]

25. If indicted and a trial

where they are found guilty, then there should be some penalty.

[mattvermont]

37. Thanks DU for the

Ignore button.

[Ignis]

14. "Will no one rid me of these troublesome law-breakers?"

[Confusious]

38. I'd like to know which laws are unjust and unfair in the US code

so I know which ones I can ignore.

If you're not the right person, please point me in the right direction. Thx.

[Ignis]

43. Legality is not morality. What about apartheid in SA?

Not to be overly dismissive, but ... C'mon this is Philosophy 101 here.

[Confusious]

46. That wasn't the question

The question was "Which laws can I ignore because they are unjust or unfair?"

If you can't answer the question, I will have to assume you don't know, and therefore "Any I say are" goes.

[Ignis]

48. Aww, too much philosophy? OK, here's the short form:

Follow whichever laws your conscience dictates. :shrug: I'm not your mum. Think for yourself.

If you think you're going to paint me in a corner (Hi, Agent Mike!) advocating that you break US laws, however, you've got another thing coming.

(Edit: which -> whichever)

[Confusious]

52. hhmmm. thought so.

BTW, with the advent of postmodernism, philosophy has gone down the shithole.

[tblue37]

82. That's for sure. Now it is just semantics. nt

[Ignis]

84. Please, please, please pay a visit to your local library.

Many important philosophical works have been published within the past 50 years.

Some of them have even been written by non-Europeans and WOMEN, of all the crazy things!

:wow:

[Ignis]

83. Yeah, because authoritarianism and absolutism are SUCH liberal values.

:eyes:

Since post-modernism has done such damage to philosophy, please point me to the proper, indisputable source for ethics.

Is it the Pope?
...the Bible?
...the Koran?
...Uncle Touchy's Book of Magical Unicorn Stories?

:shrug:

Once you've made your selection, please let me know the population and time period to which this "Law Trumps Ethics; One Rule Fits All" approach applies.

Was it unethical for protesters to to break US laws during the Vietnam era?
...the Civil Rights era?
...the Suffragette era?
Was it unethical for Nelson Mandela to break South African laws during the apartheid era?

[No Elephants]

72. I posted Reply 63 before reading this. Apparently, we have some

thoughts in common.

[EFerrari]

30. LOL

[joshcryer]

60. What? I thought you strongly supported the rule of law.

[No Elephants]

74. "Rule of Law' does not mean every law is just or every application of every law is just.

Besides, he has always been prepared to do time in jail, so no violence has been done the Rule of Law.

[flvegan]

97. I'd point and laugh at you

but it appears that's already been done here.

[Gregorian]

9. That's insane.

First, why did it take years for this to come to fruition? And second, if I recall, what he did was actually noble.

I'm sick of this crap justice. Rove runs free while guys like this end up behind bars. Puke.

[plumbob]

16. If placing false bids at an auction is worth 10 years, then 30,000 bank

executives deserve the death penalty for losing/stealing trillions of dollars of taxpayer money - REAL money, and dozens of oil executives deserve the death penalty for damage done to the environment and people of the US.

Hundreds of enabling politicians deserve the same death penalty as accomplices.

I hope everyone who had a hand in this gets exactly what they deserve - early painful death from environmental insults to their bodies.


No, I did not stutter.

[bbinacan]

17. I don't believe in the death penalty. n/t

[plumbob]

69. I do.

Just as I take an antibiotic to kill germs before they kill me, I would certainly kill the cancer on society before it kills it. And me.

Believe what you like. Apparently, you have no desire to chase down major criminals who have damaged 100% of the population of this country, contenting yourself with jailing people of conscience who exposed the major giveaway of our natural resources to corporations for pennies.

That's fine. Have a nice life.

I hope the other bastards I mentioned earlier choke and die. Doesn't have to be painful death, but I won't cry if it is.

[alarimer]

73. It is outrageous.

The death penalty for corporations that commit illegal acts. BP and many banks should be out and out abolished and their CEOs jailed for at least as long as this guy.

[SecularMotion]

23. Federal Jury in Utah Convicts Environmentalist

Source: NY Times

SALT LAKE CITY — A Utah man who infiltrated a sale of federal energy leases in December 2008 to protest United States policies about climate change was found guilty by a jury on Thursday of disrupting a government auction and faces up to 10 years in prison.

The defendant, Tim DeChristopher, 29, became a folk hero and a martyr in some corners of the environmentalist movement for taking action against the leases, which provoked protests and demonstrations in the closing days of the administration of President George W. Bush because of the perceived risk to sensitive lands in southern Utah.

In his four-day trial here in Federal District Court, his lawyers argued that Mr. DeChristopher was passionate but impulsive, and had no thought-out “plan” or “scheme” — words central to the language of the charges — to ruin the auction by buying nearly $1.8 million worth of oil and gas leases with no intent to pay.

“He really didn’t know what he was doing,” one of his lawyers, Ronald J. Yengich, told the jury in closing arguments on Thursday morning.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/us/04leases.html?_r=1&hp

[mike_c]

24. one man stands up to prevent greed from doing more environmental damage....

:patriot:

[24601]

98. I doubt his lawyer was truthful. Likely he know exactly what he

was doing although he may not have understood the fine & jail time that could result. It's normally a good idea to check out consequences. the penalties and decide if it's worth it. On the other hand, rejecting a plea bargain might mean he ain't he sharpest knife in the drawer.

A good judge wouldn't give him the max but should ensure he gets more than he would with the plea bargain so that it's a teachable moment. A devious judge would test his conscience and give him the choice of the 10 years/$75K five or two years community service working for oil & gas companies.

[EFerrari]

31. And BP walked. I hope he appeals

and will do everything I can do to support him.

[Downwinder]

51. Did they imprison the Frequency Spectrum bidders who didn't

pick up their bids?

[bbinacan]

61. Gotta link? n/t

[pitohui]

92. got a brain?

if you bid on a lease and then don't pay, you don't go to prison, you go to civil court

you claim to have some investment in this industry, but have you ever participated in a federal oil & gas auction? because i have

it was never suggested that if we failed to pick up a lease, we'd go to prison, that would be utterly ridiculous

failure to pay for something you've bid on is a civil matter

you come perilously close here to advocating prison for those who disagree with you, that my friend, is simply evil, i would ask you to look into your soul instead of into your wallet

maybe you think your company would have won the lease if not for this guy and it's all sour grapes here but the cruelty of prison, of exposing a young man to rape, abuse, HIV and more for not picking up a lease...that is the act of someone completely without a soul

[Raine]

62. TOTALLY unfair and ridiculous

especially when corporate America and banksters get off.

[Tumbulu]

67. so unfair!!!!! (nt)

[buckrogers1965]

85. 10 years?

Seriously? They must really have no actual criminals to lock up. So they waste their time and tax payer money for _this._

[Travelman]

95. That's the maximum possible sentence under the law

That doesn't mean he's going to get it. Sentencing has not happened yet, only the conviction. He likely will get far less time, if any at all. There's a fair chance that he will only get probation.

[reformist2]

86. The people who ran that auction were morons.

Even at foreclosures of run-down houses they don't let you bid unless you come with a certified check. Did anyone tell this guy he couldn't bid?

[pitohui]

93. not necessarily morons, just didn't think of it, however, i don't think he should go to prison

it has been a LONG time since i was present at an oil & gas auction but i don't remember being required to have certified checks at the ready (admittedly many of our bids were in the tens or even over a hundred million dollars, these were offshore oil leases, kinda hard to know what checks would be needed and which leases we would actually win in advance)

it was just assumed that if you bid on a lease, you could/would cover it, since it was almost all large oil & gas companies and their representatives

when you're dealing with real estate, foreclosed homes and autos, it's different, it's known that people in that business are often scumbags like slum landlords who never pay a bill if they can get around it, you've got to have certified checks upfront there

that said, i would rather see them pre-qualify buyers at auction, rather than make up some reason why a guy who doesn't pick up the lease and doesn't have the money should be put in jail

they are making this a political matter, because there is no sane reason why this is a prison offense

in my humble opinion

now the leases are not being drilled anyway, so why can't the gov't be the bigger person here?

[Steerpike]

88. Geez!

Isn't this sentance just a little harsh? I could see a little time...but 10 years? That is just draconian! Good luck to him and his loved ones...

[Travelman]

96. He hasn't been sentenced yet

That's just the maximum possible sentence under the law. It's highly unlikely he'll get anything remotely like that for a sentence.

[xchrom]

89. recommend

[Lorien]

94. And Daley says that the judicial system should not be politicized?

IT ALREADY IS!! Big money walks, anyone who stands against big money gets jail time.