College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students

Climate trial resumes

DeChristopher presents memo, DVD to court

By Rita Totten

Print this article

Published: Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Updated: Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Tim DeChristopher’s freedom rests on a memo and a DVD.

In support of his necessary-evil defense, environmental activist and U senior in economics DeChristopher and his legal team submitted a memo and a DVD on Monday to Judge Dee Benson that included testimony from experts on climate change.

DeChristopher and his lawyers are trying to prove that his actions were justified at the Bureau of Land Management auction last December, where he placed bids and won 14 land parcels without having the capital to pay for them, a violation of federal law. DeChristopher, a senior in economics at the U, argues that he acted to prevent climate change by protecting the land from oil and gas companies.

At a hearing Sept. 27 to determine the validity of DeChristopher’s defense, Benson said he was reluctant to put climate change on trial and granted DeChristopher 30 days to develop a memo with written and taped testimony from experts supporting the defense’s claim that DeChristopher acted for the greater good.

In the memo, his defense attorneys, Ron Yengich and Pat Shea, outline the witnesses and experts they would call on to give testimony in court to support the necessary-evil defense by saying the crime doesn’t outweigh the consequences of not acting. A DVD of charts and video clips that demonstrate the existing environmental destruction of climate change was also submitted to the court.

The memo states that “the court is asked to rule that a reasonable juror could find that global warming and climate change, and the other environmental and cultural results of the lease sale at issue, were greater evils than the offenses with which DeChristopher stands charged.”

What the defense is trying to establish is that people can achieve what the defense want in a nonviolent fashion, Shea said.

The government will ask for 20 to 30 days to respond to the memorandum, Shea said. They will probably get 10 days to respond, Shea said.

Jon Warnow, Internet director, organizer of Pacific & Polar Regions and business liaison at 350.org, an organization that supports legislation that reduces carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, is featured in a clip warning against carbon emissions. Warnow said climate change is affected by the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The current rate is an annual increase of two parts per million.

“Three hundred and fifty symbolizes safety,” Warnow said of the maximum amount of carbon dioxide in parts per million scientists have deemed safe to exist in the atmosphere.

The prosecution filed a motion several months ago to ban DeChristopher from using a necessity defense, because it fears a jury would be swayed by his climate change plight and not rule solely on the facts surrounding the case.

The defense’s chances in Benson’s court aren’t optimistic. Last month, Benson said he is reluctant to open up his courtroom to a debate on climate change in a simple matter of determining whether DeChristopher broke the law.

Yengich said he didn’t want to handicap their chances by speculating whether the memo and DVD will work.

“We think it should be accepted, and we hope that it is,” Yengich said.

DeChristopher said at a climate change awareness rally Saturday that he might go to prison in January, when the court proceedings are expected to end. But even if he does, he said he will go down fighting a system that needs to change to save Earth from the consequences of climate change.

“I think the odds are on the government’s side,” Shea said of the defense’s chance to get its “choice of evils defense” accepted.

ea said Benson will probably make his decision around Thanksgiving.
“And I hope it’s not a (no),” Shea said.

DeChristopher did not respond for comment. The U.S. Attorney’s Office declined to comment.

r.totten@chronicle.utah.edu


 

Comments

13 comments
Jeff
Tue Nov 3 2009 00:24
to your name
I stand up for what I believe in everyday. I'm a free market capitalist and an oil lover. I buy gas regularly and proudly. As a matter of fact, new diesel engines are actually cleaner than gasoline engines, do your homework. Drill, baby, drill.
Your name
Fri Oct 30 2009 22:25
I am saddened to know that college students think it is wrong to stand up for what you believe in. Of course when you've learned to not see and hear the truth and just repeat what you've been told by people who don't really know what these companies do to the land, and who cleans up the mess afterward, I guess it's not so surprising. Short term gains for a few companies with long term losses for the residents and tourists who won't get to experience the beauty of our state. Why not just put oil wells everywhere, that's the solution to everything, don't give a thought to what the world you leave to your grandkids will be like as long as you get to drive your stinky, dirty, noisy diesel everywhere.
DK
Fri Oct 30 2009 12:04
Part of the problem that I see with the reasoning that he was protecting the land against oil and gas companies was that the only reason the oil and gas companies would want that land is if they contain a natural resource valuable to them. It wasn't just oil and gas companies bidding. While he may have been keeping the land from sale to the oil and gas companies, but he kept it from selling to anyone, including companies that may have used it to develop renewable resources, such as geothermal energy. I don't know which companies were involved, but there were certainly more than just the oil and gas companies.
Jeff
Fri Oct 30 2009 01:36
there was no "illegal" last minute sale, the question of selling federal land is not a question of legality as much as it is a policy decision by an administration. You should just as soon say that the entire Lousiana purchase was illegal because the president had no authority to do so. The law on fraud, however, is clear. Do the crime, do the time, good luck in the pen, timmy.
Your name
Thu Oct 29 2009 21:01
How is disrupting an illegal last minute Bush-administration fire-sale of some of Utah's most beautiful lands (for paltry pennies on the dollar no less) "scamming the public"? some of you would do well to inform yourself about this issue from it's outset. Civil Disobedience has changed this Country and this world for the better time and time again throughout our history. I applaud Tim for doing what he COULD to keep Utah's wilderness out of the ravening, scandalous hands of BP and Halliburton (both of whom had agents at said auction). I love this country, my state even more, and as a lifelong outdoorsmen, I am exceedingly grateful Mr. Dechristopher "bought" areas surrounding Arches National Park and especially around Desolation and Gray canyons, and further; to do so peacefully, civilly, and with forthright intention to Protect Wild Utah, Bravo Tim.
Jeff
Thu Oct 29 2009 00:21
do the crime, do the time. And by the way, climate change is not on trial. Timmy's illegal conduct is on trial.
Mesaman
Wed Oct 28 2009 17:59
Yes! Of course you would have to comprehend the idea of punishment for his deeds and accept that his deeds were, in fact, egregious. Beyond that, I would share little sympathy for his adolescent grandstanding.
To: mesaman
Wed Oct 28 2009 17:01
The average cost to incarcerate someone in this country is around $23,000 per year. Here in Utah that figure may be more or less. But if we stick to that figure, you are saying that the people of Utah should pay not only the $230,000 to incarcerate, but also the untold amount of money being spent to prosecute him? In the midst of an economic downturn, I'm pretty sure that throwing the book at a college student who disrupted an illegal federal lease sale is a poor way to use our limited financial resources. You are right. He is an alleged criminal. However, he is not a danger to society and in the end, the damage that was caused by him was corrected when these illegal leases were thrown out! He deserves a punishment, no doubt. To say he deserves the maximum sentance is completely irrational and shows that your judgement on the matter is distorted by some sort of personal vendeta (perhaps you are jealous of all the attention he is getting???) Tell me, is there any continuity to your logic? If so, you must be enraged that the old woman and her daughter who were recently convicted of stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars of native american artifacts from public land were released without a day of jail time. I expect you were calling for the maximum sentance for them as well?
mesaman
Wed Oct 28 2009 16:29
TO YOUR NAME; Not very many people in this country give a rat's a** whether or not you reject the "threat to our democracy" bit, Bub. Fact is he is an alleged criminal and if convicted his life will change significantly. Why not focus on his lack of wisdom, as mentioned elsewhere, there are other more efficient ways to remedy his complaint. He chose to be the martyr, the saint, the hero. What he did was egregious and based on poor judgment, and yes, I want my tax dollars to assist in his incarceration for ten years.
Your name
Wed Oct 28 2009 15:22
Really, what was he thinking? He can't do it on his own, and what he did was stupid We can do a lot to improve our climate in different ways.
To: Your name
Wed Oct 28 2009 13:28
Tim's actions were hardly the threat to democracy that you claim. In fact, they were quite the opposite. The Bush administration bypassed all legal avenues and offered up this "land grab" with no evaluation of environmental impacts, and no consideration of the general proximity of the offered leases to our states national parks! Hmmm, a government that doesn't follow the established laws of our land and simply acts on it's own accord...Sounds to me that Tim acted to protect us all from the actions of a dictator. As for the suggested "stage a peaceful protest march"... maybe you remember that there was such a march taking place outside the auction. The problem with that suggestion is, no manner of catchy chanting or creative sign waving would have stopped the oil and gas companies for lining up for this unethical, perhaps even illegal, govenment handout. Maximum penalty? You really want your taxpayer dollars paying to lock up Tim DeChristopher for ten years? Seems to me that Tim DeChristopher is threatening to you in some way, and as I stated before, I'm not buying the whole "threat to our democracy" bit.
carlaj
Wed Oct 28 2009 11:02
Cool kid, his parents must be very proud...
Your name
Wed Oct 28 2009 10:28
I think "if you do the crime, you should do the time", he (Tim DeChristopher) broke the law. I think the "necessary evil" defense is a bunch of garbage. If this kind of defense is sustained and successful, then anybody can get off the hook for practically anything. It is kind of like shooting a drunk driver that was no where near any people, but have the officer say they "might" eventually hurt someone. I think since there is so much in the way of good arguments pro and con on the subject of climate change, his actions shouldn't be classified as "necessary evil". If Tim DeChristopher really wanted to protest the actions of government, he should have done so in a legal manner. We are in the United States of America, and he could have started a peaceful protest march, or a website, or gone on TV, etc. He didn't need to attempt to buy property in an illegal, deceptive manner to enforce his will on everyone. He is not a public leader, if we accept his methods of action, then we might as well have a dictator, communism, anarchy, etc. I hope they throw out his "necessary evil" defence, and give Tim DeChristopher the maximum penalty. I hope this situation costs Tim DeChristopher a lot personnally, so that others won't try the same scam on the public.






log out