Treesitter Lawsuit Heading to Court

Remedy

Remedy

Location
Humboldt County
Eureka, CA - After four months of legal limbo, and with a new judge at the helm, a Pacific Lumber (PL) lawsuit targeting Northern California activists for trespass and conspiracy will go back to court. The case stems from protests that occurred in disparate parts of Humboldt County in 2002-2003, and includes treesitters who were forcibly removed from ancient redwoods above the logging-impaired Freshwater Creek.

Seven counter suits filed by treesitters will be the subject of a hearing in Eureka on Friday, May 27. The activists’ are suing the notorious timber company for allegations including assault, battery, negligence, infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment and civil rights violations that allege the PL-hired treesit extractors were acting under the color of law when they wrongly apprehended activists more than 100 feet above the ground.

Retired San Mateo County Judge Quentin Kopp has taken the case after Humboldt County Superior Court Judge W. Bruce Watson was disqualified by treesit extractor attorney Brian Carter who claimed Judge Watson was biased against extractor Jesse Bawcum. The disqualification came days after Judge Watson refused to stop activists from filing cross-complaints.

In all, the counter suits name PL parent company Maxxam, Pacific Lumber and Scotia Pacific, Schatz Tree Service and six treesit extractors, Bawcum, Eric Schatz, Gerald Beranek, Michael Oxman, Greg Liu, and Jerry Berghagen. PL security chief Carl Anderson is also named.

Attorneys for PL and the Extractors will argue that treesitters, whom they call “trespassing, high-climbing, Court-order-flaunting activists,” have no legal basis for bringing the lawsuits. Criminal charges of trespass and violating a court order were dropped against some of the activists two years ago.

The controversial extractions began on March 17, 2003, when thirty Humboldt County Sheriffs and CHP illegally shut down a public road that ran near the treesits to aid Maxxam/PL in the removal of two marathon treesitters Jeny Card (aka “Remedy”) and Amy Gershman (aka “Wren”). More than a dozen treetop activists were forced down in the weeks that followed and several ancient redwoods were cut.

The lawsuit, called Pacific Lumber Company Inc. and Scotia Pacific Company, LLC vs. Doe 1 “Remedy’; Doe 2 “Wren”; Doe 3 “Shining Light” and Does 4-200 was filed in September 2002, and alleges trespass and conspiracy.

The seven cross-complaints were brought by Card, Gershman, Lindsey Holm, Kristi Sanchez, Scott Petersen, Anna Farnam, and Jamie Kohler. Sanchez and Petersen are represented by attorney Daniel Kosmal. The other five are representing themselves.

Pacific Lumber and Maxxam are represented by Russell Gans of the lawfirm Mitchell, Brisso, Delaney, & Vrieze, which unsuccessfully represented Humboldt County in the recent “pepper spray trial” brought by activists who had the burning chemical swabbed directly into their eyes during peaceful protests of PL logging ancient redwoods in Headwaters forest.

Schatz Tree Service and the six extractors are represented by Brian Carter of the Ukiah lawfirm Carter, Behnke, Oglesby & Bacik.

The hearing will begin at 9:00am on May 27 in courtroom 8 in the Eureka Courthouse.

###

www.contrast.org/treesit
 
Hi Jeny.

I appreciate the heads-up. You could save a little time cut-and-pasting if you merely provided links to stable instances of the previously-published material instead of re-posting it verbatim all over the place.

Your photograph caption (presently) at http://www.contrast.org/treesit/ says "investigator", but "activist" might be a better term (not to say activists can't investigate).

I've seen (and just now watched my copy again) this extraction video (36,379,542 bytes, dated Sat, 24 Jan 2004 01:53:29 GMT on the server). Although I couldn't pinpoint any place where the sitter actually tried to undo the extractor's safety gear, it's plain to any reasonable person that the undesirable situations the sitter found himself in were entirely the result of his own actions. For instance, he would not have been suspended upside down by his leg if he had not dived head first through the opening in the platform, and he would not had a rope around his neck (if in fact he did, except perhaps for an instant) if he had not tried to pass the rope over his head as they were attempting to tie it to his chest. The bit with him screaming at the top of his lungs that he's being choked does not endear me to him in any way, either. In fact, it rather makes me think he's a big baby.

He'd made an attempt to "save the tree" but it was not his to save, and the attempt was obviously a failure and over. He would have done much better by calmly coming down at that point than to clearly endanger both himself and the lives of those who had to fetch him.

It's truly sad that (excessive?) damage is being done to the old forests, and I sympathize with your [plural; collective] efforts. I don't have a solution in mind to the problem. I do, however, feel that absent superior firepower, it would probably be more effective to try to stop an Abrams tank by choking off its supply lines than to merely stand in front of it as it advances.

I'm sorry to hear that so much court time is being wasted on the wrong side of the battle. Just think how much sooner a court could get to hear a preventive-measure case if it weren't encumbered with prosecuting lawbreakers who use questionable methods.

Good luck.

Glen
 
Hi Glen,

Thanks (I think) for your good wishes.

Just to be clear, the video you referenced is not at issue in the upcoming court hearing. I am the investigator for the defense in that case, in which treesitter Ramsey Gifford will go to trial for a charge of misdemeanor assault. As you correctly point out, an assault by Gifford does not appear on the video. It is clear from the footage that he asked several times to be untied so he could leave the tree, but was refused. It is not clear if he was trespassing, or if Schatz and Ox had any right to touch him. Whether or not he is a “big baby” is a matter of opinion, I guess. Maybe real men are supposed to let other men tie them up without any opposition, but I doubt you would get many guys to agree to that.

A trial two years ago hung the jury on whether activists were trespassing in that area.

The upcoming case is a civil lawsuit originally filed by Pacific Lumber, and countered by seven of the remaining thirty defendants.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry to hear that so much court time is being wasted on the wrong side of the battle. Just think how much sooner a court could get to hear a preventive-measure case if it weren't encumbered with prosecuting lawbreakers who use questionable methods.

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm not sure which lawbreakers you are referring to. Pacific Lumber violated over 300 conservation laws between March 1, 1999 and May 2004. Over 70% of those violations broke water quality laws. (See http://www.wildcalifornia.org/cgi-files/0/pdfs/1085604039_PL_Violation_Report_2004.pdf). Between 1994-1997 PL broke another 300. The District Attorney of our county filed a $250 million Fraud lawsuit against PL the month before the Freshwater extractions started, and that case is still in the early stages of the process. The snails pace can't be blamed on treesitters - PL's lawyers are very good at delaying and confusing while the cut goes on. The lawsuit charges that every tree PL cut since March 1, 1999 has been illegal. Downstream residents of these areas are suffering damages to their wells, property and health & safety from increased flooding that came with a five-fold increase of logging in their watersheds after Texas Corporation Maxxam took over PL. Nearly 60 residents of Freshwater and Elk River are suing PL as well. Recently, the state water board put a stay on logging in the two embattled areas because of the damage. It's a shame and a crime that it took so long.

I agree that the court's time is being wasted with frivolous lawsuits. Maxxam/PL uses the courts as a tool of intimidation and repression against anyone who would dare stand up to their illegal and destructive logging. One woman was sued by PL a few years ago for speaking out on the radio against the liquidation logging. Maxxam has ripped off about $600 million from PL’s control of Humboldt County forestlands, so they have plenty of money to keep their lawsuits going. See http://extras.times-standard.com/temp/water_board_white_paper.pdf
 
I was intentionally a little ambiguous (like "Pat" from SNL?). The matter at hand is itself somewhat ambiguous to me as I can see and identify with both sides fairly clearly.

It sounds like a little of the "cut the supply lines" activity is at least being attempted on your end. And no, I don't think you'd get many men to agree with silently being bound.

Sitting in the trees doesn't really seem to accomplish anything in the long run so I wonder why the practice continues. If it's not their property, I don't see how the tree sitter can possibly not be guilty of trespass. What's a person do do when the time comes for the tree to be felled? If they remain in the tree and fight to do so when extraction becomes necessary, they commit further actionable (criminal?) activity and incur liability for expense of the extraction, at a minimum. (Can one effectively claim self-defense while undertaking an illegal act?) If they merely acquiesce and come down, then why the hell go up in the first place? It seems so pointless to me. In your current case, the defendant's request to be untied so he could descend is moot, in my opinion. If it were genuine, why didn't he come down in the first place instead of making Schatz and Ox go get him?

Like I said earlier, I don't have an alternative form of workable action in mind.

In a sense this fight reminds me of one my sister has encountered in her township. Several people several years ago each purchased a couple of acres from farmers and built themselves homes with wonderful views of the countryside. Now they want to bring about an ordinance which requires a minimum land sell-off be something on the order of 25 acres, which cannot be further subdivided. Their stated reason is their view is being ruined by the many homes being built. Of course, the only real and fair answer for someone who wants to preserve their idyllic view is to purchase it all. What these folks want to do is hypocritical to a certain extent, and in my opinion, it's wrong to tell others what they can and cannot do with their property (though everyone should certainly be considerate of their neighbors in their decisions). As I said, that somehow seems a parallel to some of these fights with which you're involved out where you live.

On the one hand it would be easy to claim complicity between the evil big Texas corporation and the current national administration, but much of this fight predates Bush, doesn't it? Perhaps a better way to get to the bottom of all this type of shenanigans would be to remove the "personhood" of corporations, as well as their influence in government.

There are just so many necessary fights from which to choose that it's difficult (see http://www.taxableincome.net/ for a good example which makes a few little trees seem like an extremely minor thing).

Glen
 
Keep up the good work Remedy.

I hope the extracting tree guys that worked for the logging company get a belly full. It's good to see their names in print.

Dan
 
[ QUOTE ]


In a sense this fight reminds me of one my sister has encountered in her township. Several people several years ago each purchased a couple of acres from farmers and built themselves homes with wonderful views of the countryside. Now they want to bring about an ordinance which requires a minimum land sell-off be something on the order of 25 acres, which cannot be further subdivided. Their stated reason is their view is being ruined by the many homes being built. Glen

[/ QUOTE ]

So your sister and others bought a few a "couple of acres" each, and now want to forbid anyone else from doing the same?
Sorta like "I got mine now no one else can have the same" thinking?
Frans
 
No, my sister and some few others each bought a couple of acres and she is in the minority in the township council fighting against the proposed large minimum.

Glen
 
Glen, Congratulations on your reasoned discourse with misnamed "remedy". Personally, I have no patience for terrorists of any kind. Those tree extractions were horrible and should never be repeated. The trees should simply be felled with the lawbreaking tree sitters in them. After a few deaths perhaps the enviroterrorists will demonstrate a modicum of intelligence and quit sitting in trees that are scheduled for felling. If not, the planet will reap the benefits of recycling a few green wienies early. /forum/images/graemlins/applaudit.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
No, my sister and some few others each bought a couple of acres and she is in the minority in the township council fighting against the proposed large minimum.Glen

[/ QUOTE ]

I know I sounded a little rough there. Here in my area that kind of thing happens all the time. Large areas of our county are now like enclaves.
Who knows? I might be singing a different tune if I happened to be one of the elite...
Now in order to "stay up with the jones" the elite have two fencing systems around their properties with full on automatic gates/camaras. One around the outer boundery, (at a cost of roughly $50,000 for each fence) and another one closer in so 'feefee' the dog cannot roam too far and maybe get mauled by a deer or something./forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
Frans
 
[ QUOTE ]
Glen, Congratulations on your reasoned discourse from misnamed "remedy".

[/ QUOTE ]
I always felt their was something inherently dishonest about the names/monickers/alieses etc used by the tree sitters. This feeling is only enhanced by the quick use of the extractors full legal names by the tree sitters.
Frans
 
[ QUOTE ]
it's wrong to tell others what they can and cannot do with their property (though everyone should certainly be considerate of their neighbors in their decisions).

[/ QUOTE ]

Glen, you are right here, and also about the problem of corporate personhood and corporate influence and control over government. This is exactly the reason Maxxam gets away with repeatedly damaging property of downstream residents. No one who lives here can violate the law hundreds of times, but an outside corporation can.

It's also true that the Maxxam problem in Northern California pre-dates the current administration (Maxxam took over Pacific Lumber in 1986). Every one involved in the take-over has been convicted of related crimes and gone to prison except for Maxxam CEO Charles Hurwitz. The guy is apparently above the law. Why?

[ QUOTE ]
I always felt their was something inherently dishonest about the names/monickers/alieses etc used by the tree sitters. This feeling is only enhanced by the quick use of the extractors full legal names by the tree sitters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Frans, I believe my original posting in this thread is the first time I have printed the full legal names of the six extractors. Most of the extractions took place over two years ago, so there has been nothing "quick" about using their full names. All of our names are a matter of public record, so there is no hiding going on. If extractors or treesitters wanted to remain anonymous, none of us would have been involved in the high profile incidences that lead to the current lawsuit.

As for the hearing yesterday morning, the cross-complaints against PL and the extractors will be allowed to go forward after we amend and file them with the court. Here's the link to today's story in the Eureka Times-Standard. http://www.times-standard.com/Stories/0,1413,127~2896~2893213,00.html
 
It looks like the site software stops parsing the URL at a comma when auto-generating links.

"cut and paste" under unixy systems pretty much involves highlighting the text with the left mouse button pressed, then clicking the middle button one time at the locate the text is to be pasted (don't get no easier!), so here's the link for those for whom it's more of a chore: http://www.times-standard.com/Stories/0,1413,127~2896~2893213,00.html

Good, bad, or indifferent, Jeny, keep the updates coming! It seems many have strong opinions one way or the other about this. As for me, I rather wish the fence had a friendlier top rail.

Glen
 
We're putting pressure on Hurwitz here in Texas, where he's hiding the earning's release on Kaiser Aluminum, a global company he personally bankrupted. Both his racetracks in the state have filed under Chapter 11, criminal investigations continue there for his role in drugging animals and erasing betting data, his real holdings in land developments in Dallas and the Hill country are under seizure by the IRS for false claims in zoning and a prostitution ring has come forward with interesting connections to his campaign contributions made to the Bush re-election statewide committee.

All in all, this guy is vermin.
 
[ QUOTE ]
All in all, this guy is vermin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too true. Hurwitz undoubtedly has friends in high places to get away with his crimes against nature and the thousands of workers whose lives he has turned upside down.

As for the treesitter lawsuit, seven amended cross-complaints were filed and served on attorneys for Maxxam/PL and the extractors on Tuesday. You can get the full update here.
 
[ QUOTE ]
The trees should simply be felled with the lawbreaking tree sitters in them. After a few deaths perhaps the enviroterrorists will demonstrate a modicum of intelligence and quit sitting in trees that are scheduled for felling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stumper, I've always wondered what the treesitter would do if the feller simply fired up his saw and began cutting a notch. Gives new meaning to the term widowmaker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom