Have this article read out loud.
- I returned Friday afternoon from the conclusion of the most recent trial of Kimberly Starr. The conclusion of the courtroom activity anyway; the judgement remains to be officially made and is in deliberation as of this writing. Kimberly Starr has been the object, more accurately the obsession, of Pacific Lumber Co. (AKA Palco, Maxam, Scotia Pacific, Scotia Pacific Holding, Scotia Pacific Company LLC, and Salmon Creek LLC etc.). Kimberly protests their logging practices which have been consistently predatory and often overtly illegal. She has done this in various ways and follows the teachings of such righteous predecessors as Mohan Das Gandhi and Henry David Thoreau who taught non violent resistance by strong and successful example.
Personally I would think that the legal trouble they have given Ms. Starr in the past would be an excessive punishment for any actual infractions committed especially when non judicial punishment delivered by local law enforcement are factored into the equation. Many protestors would have simply gone away, (in fact did), when it was made apparent that they would not ever have any legal recourse against a wealthy and very well connected company like Maxam who’s connections include Charles Hurwitz and Jack Abramoff among others on the national scene and the owners of the local judicial system. It is well understood that a judge or police agent who goes against Maxam is seriously jeopardizing his career. While the defense often took long periods to confer during the process the contorted faces, sidelong glances and rolled eyes of the bailiffs, court reporter and other court personnel seemed ample evidence of the fact that they need to ingratiate themselves to these powerful entities who prey upon the resources of this small rural region, both it’s lumber and it’s human population. The dramatics and open animosity towards Ms. Starr and other environmental protestors in this and other cases which I have observed recently have shocked me as has the simplistic nature of arguments brought against them not just on the street but in the court room. The simplistic nature of their arguments may be due to their blind loyalty to authority. Authority which Pacific Lumber Company seized by force and guile in the mid 19th century and has maintained through changes of time and ownership since.
The only bright spot in all of this is a rather dim one and that is the fact that Quentin Kopp was the judge. He is a long time political figure playing on the California scene since the early 70s mainly in Bay Area politics where he was a contemporary of Dianne Feinstein and would have run for mayor of San Francisco in a deal worked out with her since he was considered more elect able. When Mayor Moscone was assassinated in 1979 (I think) she ascended to this position automatically and Kopp went on to become a state senator, talk show host and all around public figure before retiring to the bench to hear this case (among others). He hardly seems like a liberal character either in his politics or his presence and at one point spoke with contempt of protestors in a case cited involving protest against Lockheed Martin (I think it was) who he characterized as “out to save the world”. He was openly irritated with delays made by the defense team, (Tracy Herrin and Kimberly Starr herself). Some of his irritation seemed reasonable but most of it seemed simply to stem from his already having reached a decision in his mind. Mr. Gans, attorney from Mitchell, Brisso, Delaney and Vrieze who do a lot of work for Humboldt County and Pacific Lumber and are otherwise closely connected to the court here pandered to this irritation by exaggerated brevity in his presentation. The same could never be said of Ms. Herrin, attorney for Ms. Starr (and the forest). She did what she needed to do, which involved a lot of consultation with her client and was the source of both the real and imaginary irritation of the plaintiffs and judge Kopp. She also showed remarkable intelligence and, in the midst of an array of confusing facts, false allegations and malicious glances darting back and forth across the room, startling clarity in her articulate arguments when she did present them.
As for the false allegations, the lumber company attempted to portray Ms. Starr, as they have with other protestors, as a hazard, dangerous terrorist who is threatening them and so on. We have seen this, of course, before. It is an American tradition which has been a necessity for fascists since the creation of the façade of democracy in 1776. Fortunately I don’t think Judge Kopp would be one likely to buy into that fairy tail and in fact the attempt may even help him to judge the rest of the testimony in a more enlightened manner. I think he is, on the whole, pro-democracy.
Regardless of the final judgment or even the facts of this case this endless litigation, which is intended in large part as a punishment in itself for daring to stand up to corporate malfeasance in the face of the rapidly deteriorating quality of life they are in very large part responsible for, is a threat to us all and it is no accident that the Bush administration, corporate puppets that they are, have installed corporate attorneys in the Supreme Court. There is literally no recourse in the court and, ironically, this is by far the greatest justification for acts of civil disobedience (of which I, personally, have not generally been a fan of).
To those of us who might think that we will be safe from such repercussion by sticking to legally permitted peace marches, letters to the editor and so on I would point out that malicious litigants such as Maxam and their goon squads, in the guise of “peace officers”, make no such distinction when it comes to dissent directed towards their masters to whom they have blindly sworn allegiance.