Trial began on August 21, 2006, more than five years after the filing of the lawsuit. Colombia and others dropped out on that day; only PL and their subsidiary Scotia Pacific remained as Plaintiffs, suing four enduring forest protection activists. At the start of trial, PL dropped all monetary damage claims, but persisted with demands for injunctive judgments against the Defendants, which would require PL to prove they would be irreparably harmed unless injunctions were issued. In a victory for the activists, who represented themselves in the 5-week trial, the judge allowed the presentation of a "Necessity Defense," a first in a Humboldt County protest case.
As we wait (up to 90 days for the judge's decision) Trees Foundation spoke with Verbena, one of the four Defendants in the Mattole SLAPP:
| |||
Located between Humboldt Redwoods State Park, King Range, and the ocean, the Mattole region contained the second largest unprotected and intact coastal old-growth Douglas-fir forest in existence. Through the Headwater's Deal of 1999, the Mattole became a sacrifice zone for PL, and the company was essentially sanctioned by the government to slaughter the unique old-growth forest, kill endangered species, clearcut on the most unstable slopes, poison the land with herbicides and diesel, and destroy salmon habitat. Defendants acted in the `Mattole Free State' of 2000 and 2001, an old-growth forest area protected by backwoods and gate blockades.
| |||
PL claimed that everything must have been hunky dory with their Mattole logging plans (7 slated during the Defendants' actions) because the California Department of Forestry (CDF) approved them. However, we know that 99% of PL plans receive CDF rubber-stamp approval, and those few that aren't approved get resubmitted as `different' plans, covering the same area, with mere cosmetic changes. PL's "CDF defense" is ridiculous. One need only look at the pattern and practice of PL and CDF, the extensive history of lawsuits against both entities and, moreover, the current conditions of North Coast fisheries and other public trust holdings, to know that public interests are not being protected. The public trust is being destroyed by PL and CDF. More than 85% of rivers in the North Coast are `impaired' as defined by the Clean Water Act, and all native salmon species are threatened with extinction under the Endangered Species Act. When the EPA and National Marine Fisheries Service listed the streams and fish as impaired and threatened, they primarily blamed logging operations approved by CDF under the Forest Practice Rules. I asked the court, "At what point can members of the public defend `their' water, forests, and wildlife?...AFTER they're decimated?"
It has certainly been empowering to tell the court what we did and why--in no uncertain terms.
Jack, a 76 year-old great-grandfather and Defendant, testified that he cannot bear to describe to young folks what the forests on this coast looked like years ago, as we struggle to save one area, one grove, one tree--the last of the ancient ones. PL tried to vilify Jack for testifying that he has trained about 300 people in non-violence techniques.
Mango, another Defendant, testified about mass extinction and genocide in the Mattole--the real issues for the court. The judge said that the genocide of the indigenous Mattole people was certainly very important to remember, but not "relevant" to the case.
Defendant Ayr expressed regret that we (Defendants) couldn't protect the area even longer than we did. Ayr emotionally countered PL's ludicrous argument that our actions were dangerous and (thus) unjustifiable: evidence and common knowledge show that PL has always chosen to create danger and perpetrate violence against protesters- never the other way around.
PL's attorney claimed that Defendants had extensive alternatives to our direct actions--legal and procedural avenues to protect the Mattole; as if we had any power to stop CDF from approving plans. I remember Cecelia Lanman of the Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC) testifying at the HCP/SYP hearings in 1999 that EPIC and other public trust organizations worked tirelessly in the court and regulatory system: "[From] the handful of lawsuits that we have been able to file, against all odds...holding bake sales...in order to pay for costs going into court--only eight times in 12 years have we actually enjoined (halted) logging on these [PL] lands."
We, the Defendants, have been part of the bake sales, worked benefit events, been part of the community involved in constant efforts to litigate and prevent PL's horrendous destruction of OUR resources. We exhausted all alternatives. We spent years commenting, litigating, hiking...and watched ancient trees fall nevertheless. We spent years crying, calling and emailing government, copying maps, spreading the word, raising money, getting beat up, going to jail...still the clearcuts keep spreading. We've attended CDF reviews, scoping meetings, regulatory hearings; traveled to Sacramento, Santa Rosa, Washington D.C.; written legal briefs and declarations of police and company brutality; we've called all over the nation and the world; made documentaries...still the Mattole River heats up, the salmon struggle, the bears roam thin and unhealthy. We've seen them. We were there day in and day out. Our emergency actions were legally justified by Necessity.
We were the public's last hope to stop irreparable harm by PL to a unique, fragile, and biodiverse ecosystem, and to ensure survival of decades of tireless restoration work. We asserted our rights as Members of the Public, when all else failed, to protect the public trust.
Our work in the Mattole continues. Please join us.
For more information, contact: Humboldt Forest Defense/EF! Hotline (707) 825-6598 and www.saveancientforests.blogspot.com and to email Verbena: vervain@riseup.net