Humboldt Revolution

Friday morning’s episode of the soap opera that is Pacific Lumber’s (Maxxam’s) Strategic Law Suit to Stop Public Participation (SLAPP), that is to silence the last efforts at democratic free speech, saw the end of the plaintiff’s questioning of the defendants. It also saw some small increase in latitude offered the defendants to offer a previously aggressivly suppressed “necessity defense” of their actions. Whether this latitude is just part of a make show trial in the notoriously corrupt, corporate owned American judicial system is the subject of some debate but at least the defendants were able to speak a few words in their defense and in defense of all who are affected by the damage being done by this unaccountable criminal corporation. Mainly specific damage being done to the habitate of endangered species such as the Spotted Owl, Marbled Murlett and others and damage to water ways that have a serious negative effect on people down stream and water supplies to communities including specific mention of the Nanning Creek water shed which supplies the town of Scotia with water. The plunder of Pacific Lumber’s assets by Maxxam was also allowed in testimony including not only the greatly increased amount of logging since they bought PL in 1987 but the increasingly destructive methods of logging and the plunder of other company assets such as pension funds and jobs. Lack of accountability of the company gained by converting some assets such as their fleet of logging trucks into “private” contractors were also discussed. In addition testimony of the defendants that legal avenues of remedy had been exhausted even including stays and other court orders against logging specific tracts had been ignored and breaking the court orders had actually been facilitated by law enforcenment. Ms. Starr mentioned that law suits brought against this powerful and well connected company had actually served to allow time for them to plunder and that they increased the rate at which they did so.
Note from the writer;
I am not a legal expert by any stretch of the imagination and will never be qualified to be a court recorder or even a real reporter but have endeavored below and in previous accounts of this on going malicious litigation to present as complete a picture as possible. I have also endeavored to seperate my view points from objective recording of the facts but will apologize for any short commings; no one is truly objective though we should all strive to be so for the sake of simply being able to discern the truth of any given matter. Given the length of these accounts you may wish to take advantage of the audio files accompanying each of them which are produced with a text to speech program and are mp3s. They can be heard by clicking arrow to the right of the speaker icon at the top of this page.

Following is a more detailed account of Friday, September first’s court session;

Friday Morning’s session started with Mr. Gans finishing his questioning of Mr. Vonsabern, inquiring as to his involvement in placing the blue car in the road. The trial then moved quickly to his cross examination with Ms. Starr going first and going immediatly towards the necessity defense by asking him directly what his motivation was. He answered first with a non-environmental answer saying they were beautiful and majestic and destroying them was akin to blowing up the pyramids or other monumental structures. He also sited the fact that this was being done out of sight of the public in remote areas of the forest and without our general knowledge. Ms. Starr then asked if he was aware of late successional forests and he answered about specific tracts of which he knew some. The dialogue moved to PL’s getting the already minimal protection of the endangered species act lifted and sited specific incidents of assault on endangered species such as the cutting of a tree with a Golden Eagle’s nest and chicks in it. He went on to say that the baby was flown out to get veterinarian treatment and that the employee who reported it was fired. Judge Wilson quickly stopped this line of questioning after that last statement.

When Ms. Starr began to refer to the inadequacy of the Headwaters agreement as it relates to this tract of land Mr. Gans immediatly objected and the judge sustained that “the document speaks for itself”. When Ms. Starr began to address the lack of alternate remedies the judge blocked her again siting stream re-routing and other environmental patch ups though it seemed clear to me Ms. Starr was referring to the lack of any real legal remedy. I suspect Judge Wilson really understood this and was so quick to stop her because of this. The judge also seemed to understand what she really meant because he then proceeded to take over Ms. Starr’s cross examination himself by asking Mr. Vonsabern if he had attended public meetings, to which he listed a few specific cases of here and in Sacramento. Ms. Starr seemed a bit demoralized and rested her cross examination at this point. Mr. Gans and judge Wilson both seem very bothered by Ms. Starr who asks very pointed questions based on her obviously extensive knowledge with evident intelligence. Since her questions are based on such extensive research they take turns attacking her on their length with the judge demanding that she phrase them in short single sentences, “boom, boom, boom” as Mr. Gans does. Of course Mr Gans and his law firm and PL are under no strain to perform as the conclusions of their cases in the Humboldt County Superior Court are have foregone positive conclusions.

Ayr is next to take up cross examination of Mr. Vonsabern and asks about his arrest on May st, 2001. “How far were you from the blue car?”, “About 2 miles away.”.  “Did you see the video of this event which was previously introduced into evidence?”, “Yes”. “What was in your hand?”, “A camera.”. “What was the purpose of the camera?”, “To document the protest and violence committed against protestors and to deter it as much as possible since they cannot commit it if evidence exists”.

“Do you have knowledge of the endangered species act?”, “Yes. It doesn’t offer very much protection and was lifted from the Mattole in it’s entirety anyway.” Mr. Vonsabern also sited that Columbia Helicopter was one of the world’s foremost offenders in environmental destruction. “So even though it offers such limited protection violations bother you anyway?”, “Extinction bothers me.”. Ayr then re-confirmed that this was the cause of Mr. Vonsabern’s presence there with Mr. Vonsabern expanding on the permanence of extinction and the many generations needed to re-establish the old growth trees and the echo-system. Ayr finished, the judge offered Mr. Vonsabern an opportunity to add to his testimony, (since he is representing himself). Mr. Vonsabern pointed out that Maxxam owns other large corporations such as Kaiser aluminium and Columbia Helicopter and that they are all major offenders in destruction of the environment. Judge Wilson asked if Maxxam was the target of his protest and Mr. Vonsabern answered “Yes”.

Mr. Gans then asked questions on re-direct starting with establishing Mr. Vonsabern’s knowledge of the THP and then challenging the defense that there was (and is) a lack of alternate avenues for stopping the destruction of the environment by asking if he had done anything along legal lines. Mr. Vonsabern answered that he had participated in meetings and voted against politicians who supported Maxxam and other such entities. Mr. Vonsabern also added that he felt that such protests are valid avenues of redress as well. The judge then asked if Mr. Vonsabern wanted to add anything else to which Mr. Vonsabern responded that it was like watching an old lady getting mugged and being unable to stop it only on a scale that was far more vast.

Jack Nounan took the stand next and questioning began with Mr. Gans asking if Mr. Nounan was present on SCOPAC/PALCO land on February 5th, 2001 to which Mr. Nounan replied emphatically “Yes”. When Mr. Gans asked if he were there on several occasions Mr. Nounan replied with great conviction that he “was sorry he was not there more”. Mr. Gans attempting to seize this opportunity asked if he would do it again but Ayr interrupted with an objection that it called for speculation. The judge over ruled the objection stating that one’s own state of mind did not qualify as speculation. Instructed to answer the question Mr. Nounan answered “that if all other avenues were exhausted, yes”. Questioning continued; “How close to actual timber cutting were you?”, “As close as possible, 20 feet”, “To Columbia helicopter personnel?”, “No.” “What type of distraction of tree fellers?”, “conversation”.

Ms. Starr was first to cross examine Mr. Nounan and asked about his relations with timber cutters. Mr. Nounan answered that relations were good and that they had common cause concerning the immorality of Maxxam. “Are you a frequent letter writer?”, “Yes, “Is it rare that you are actually out on the land?”, “yes, with regret”, “Have you been arrested since the events of this described in this case?”, “no”, “To the best of your knowledge were all the trees in this unit cut?”, “I think so”, “What did you discuss with the loggers?”, “Job stability; that their jobs will be gone when the trees are”, “So the conversations were friendly and there was common ground?”, “Yes”. “Why do you take this action??”, “After 35 years I can’t imagine being anywhere else!”. “Do you consider yourself a member of the public?”, “Yes and aware of the responsibility of the public trust”, “So you believe that PL is violating the public trust?”, “yes”. “Do you feel you were unjustly arrested?”, “Objection!” by Mr. Gans, “calls for legal conclusion”.

Mr. Vonsabern began his cross examination. “You mentioned 35 years, was this in Humboldt County?”, “It was in several communities”, “During this time have you seen corporate devastation increase?”, “Yes, the paradigm is that violence against nature has become more accepted, inflamed, and their is no sense of sustainability.”, “Do you have descendants you want to see benefit from your activities?”, “Yes, I have children and grand children and want to see all children benefit and not just inherit problems”. “Do you feel that the Declaration of Independence, which describes “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness” as inalienable rights is violated by this destruction?”, “Yes. These words are now taken for granted. There is equality with other living entities”.

Mr. Gans; “You were not wearing a hard hat when you approached tree fellers?”, “No” “And have not been arrested since then?”, “Not sure”.

Ms. Starr; “Do you attribute not being arrested to the court order (prohibiting you from participating)?” “No”.

Ayr; “Do you feel your actions endangered anyone?”, “No”, “Did you approach in a safe way?”, “Yes”, “You never threw your body under a tree that was about to fall?”, “No”, “So only approached when safe then?”, “yes”.

Mr. Vonsabern; “If they started logging the state park would you go there?”, “Yes”, “If you could go back to when the Passenger Pigeons were being hunted to extinction would you go there?”, “Yes”.

Judge Wilson then asked why Mr. Nounan hadn’t engaged in these (restrained) activities if not because of the court order and Mr. Nounan answered that he had been in a support roll since then.

Mr. Gans resumed questioning asking if Mr. Nounan had actually placed his body in the path of a falling tree to which Mr. Nounan replied “Yes, though not here.”

Ms. Starr then took up questioning asking “When you got under that tree, where the tree would hit you, why?” “To stop logger when others were endangered directly”.

Ayr took over questioning at this point, “Others were endangered?”, “Yes.”.

Judge Wilson then asked if Mr. Nounan wanted to add anything else. Mr. Nounan said that their was no need to elaborate as he they had been granted the liberty to speak and thanked the judge for that opportunity.

Court was recessed at this time, 9:45, until 10:07.

Ms. Starr was then called to the stand by PL’s attorney, Mr. Gans. Showing her a photo marked exhibit 21 he asks if she recognizes people in it. “I do.”, “Who?”, “Myself, two people next to me, man in blue jacket, which indicates that he is a neutral observer, a sheriff’s deputy.”. “The person locked to the gate in the background?”, “No.”. “Is that you locked to a barrel of nuts, bolts and other items?”. “Yes.”. Mr. Gans then asked where the road which was being blockaded went and she replied that it went to various places including an area where Steve Wills trucking was operating. Mr. Vonsabern’s objection that Steve Wills Trucking had been dismissed from this litigation was over ruled because testimony about them was still relevant to the remaining litigation. Mr. Gans resumed questing after offering a couple more photos for Ms. Starr to view. “Do you recognize people in exhibit 24?”, “Myself on the ground in exhibit 24 and locked to the gate in 25.”, “The Rainbow gate?”, “On what date?”, “September, 19th.”, “And you had a stay in your pocket?”, “Yes.”, “Did you have a stay in your pocket while locked down in the blue car?”, “Did you have a stay in your pocket when locked to the ash truck?” Ms. Starr objects “..Not in evidence.”. Mr. Gans produced more photos for Ms. Starr to view. “Who is in these photos?”, “Myself in 37a, 38b and I guess that is me in 38c chained to the ash truck in the November 28th, 2005 protest.”, “Did you have any court documents at that time?”, “No.”. Ms. Starr points out that one photo offered into evidence has the wrong date which effects matching the events with the dates of the court orders.

Ayr then begins cross examination. “Did you have a stay on September 19th, 2002?”, “Yes”, “What did it say?”, “Logging was prohibited because it violated provisions in the endangered species act and it was issued by Judge Golden”.  “Why were you at this location?”, “Because of Steve Wills Trucking activity in the area. They are a company sub contractor invented by PL to be further removed from accountability than PL both legally and in terms of not having PL name.”. “Why did you choose the Rainbow Ridge area to protest?”, “Because I knew of a large number of logging plans for this area of great natural beauty, that this echo system was home to many endangered species and that the steep slopes being clear cut represented a strong threat of erosion, mud slides and so on, and generally a lot of irreparable damage to the echo-system.”. “Were you aware of law suits filed to attempt to protect land in the Rainbow Ridge area?”, “Yes. Sulfur Creek, concerning downstream residue which had already caused damage had succeeded briefly and two others filed’”. “On behalf of the public trust’”. Mr Gans objected at this point. Ayr continued “If everyone who objected to the many instances filed law suits the courts would be overwhelmed?”, “Yes.”. Mr. Gans object again. Ayr continued his questioning, “Have their been other attempts to protect this land?”. “30 years of salmon and waterway restoration, publicizing research, applying to grant agencies and so on.” Mr. Gans objected again at this point.

Ayr turned now to the question of environmentalists causing some sort of irreparable harm (claimed by PL as it is a necessary component in acquiring an injunction against them). “Have your actions contributed to an urgent situation?”, “No. Irresponsible logging alone has done this.”. “Have your actions stopped harm to the area?” Mr. Gans quickly objected again. “Have your actions stopped such harm?”. Mr. Gans objected again on the grounds that this called for speculation and Judge sustained the objection. Ayr repeated the question with slightly different wording and Ms. Starr answered this time “Logging was stopped behind my blockade.”. The common theme of such being habitat destruction was discussed as judge Wilson sought some clarification at this point.
Questioning continued, turning to PL “scientific” teams. “Were you aware that PL had scientific teams in the area?”. “Objection, Vague”. “Did you meet PL scientific teams in the area?”, “No.”. “Do you know their scientific methodology?”, “Objection, argumentive.”

Mr. Vonsabern took up questioning at this point. “Do you have a commitment to non-violence?”, “I do.”. “And you believe direct action is necessary?”, “Yes”. “Were Gandhi and King justified in their actions?”. “Yes”. “Do you believe King violated the geneva convention?”, “No…”, “…that they were obeying a higher law?”, “Yes”. “Where did the November 5th incident take place?”, “Naning creek area”, “What were they doing?”, “Cutting Marbled Murrlet Habitat which contained 40 foot circumference trees.”. “You saw them coming out of the gate?”, “yes.”. “What was the name of that Timber Harvest Plan?”, “Bonanza- it affected Nanning creek which is Scotia’s water supply.” “What was the size of this THP?”, “I think 192 acres.”, Mr. Gans, “Objection, calls for speculation.”. “Were you aware of a law suit to stop logging there?”, “Yes, very well.”. “How did that situation differ from others?”, “The area has a greater degree of bio-diversity, contains the last creek to have native salmon and has a more involved community.”. “Is it seismically unstable?” Mr. Gans objected on the grounds of lack of technical expertise on this subject. Mr. Vonsabern’s questioning continues, “You are willing to endure the short term consequences of your activities?”, “Yes”. “Do you claim that the PL plan is contingent upon conservation plans?, Sustained Yield Plans and Habitat Protection Plans?”, “Yes.”. “Have you commented to Government agencies?”, “Yes, at meetings.”

Jack Nounan began his questioning at this point. “Is there way other than direct action short of making citizen’s arrests to stop destruction by PL?”, “No, nothing including court orders”. “No law enforcement to enforce the stay (Fox Camp Gate incident)? “No, law enforcement helped PL violate the stay” This last answer struck a nerve with Judge Wilson who swiftly admonished Ms. Starr to give “direct answers!!”. Mr. Nounan continues, “How does the Headwaters agreement relate to the Mattole?”, “It sacrificed the Mattole to logging.” (Judge Wilson appeared to be getting more tired and irritated during this period.) Mr. Nounan asked ow this operation compared in size with others and judge Wilson interjected that this was beyond the scope of this trial and that it was assumed that she did what she did because she felt it was important. Mr. Nounan continued “Was Carl Anderson (head of PL timberland security, previously testified) present?”, “I don’t think I saw him, just deputies”. “Did you see signs at Fox Camp Gate?”, “Just state park ones”. Judge Wilson states that a map of the area might help and Mr. Vonsabern produces one that is so badly deteriorated that the court room fills with laughter. A discussion on the possibility of repairing the map, which is separated along almost all of it’s fold lines, ensues and a search produces another map from already introduced evidence which, though it differs from Mr. Vonsabern’s, is deemed by all to be sufficient to illustrate the points in question. Discussion concerning discrepancies in the maps, doubt about whether the road and gate are actually on PL land, notes in other survey’s, maps and testimony that raise some doubt about that follow. “Were you arrested there since a temporary restraining order was issued?”, “Yes, the charges were dismissed” Mr. Vonsabern then asked if Judge Golden’s order was a restraining order, “No, it was a stay.” “What was included?”, Mr Gans objected to this arguing that it was a document already in evidence and as such spoke for itself. “Have you seen the damage?”, “Yes.”, “Do you believe the Sheriff’s department would support your making citizen’s arrests?” Mr. Gans again objected on the grounds that the question called for speculation and that it had already been asked and answered. Mr. Vonsabern continued, “Are you aware of the District Attorney’s $320 million law suit against Pacific Lumber Co.?” “Objection!!”, “Sustained”.
“So you feel your actions are justified then?”, “Yes. It is the only way to save the future and protect living beings”. “And you feel overwhelmed by the size of the corporation”? “Yes it is a single entity and many people once owned the land all of whom were killed or run off.” “Did you see any spotted owls?” “No. Some other (endangered) birds”. Mr. Vonsabern ended his questioning here.

Judge Wilson then asked Ms. Starr if she would like to add anything, (since she is representing herself). “Maxxam took advantage of other suits against them by using the time to plunder as much as possible and no comments were allowed and no scientific studies concerning the marbled Murrlet were made”

Mr. Gans then sought to introduce some “housekeeping” issues and I was unable to hear his fast, mumbled recitation of the initial ones. Judge Wilson continued his attacks on Ms. Starr in his “plain language” vs. “complex language” dichotomy.

Mr. Gans then talked about a tentative ruling from another SLAPP against Ms. Starr in an attempt to get her out of this case and judge Wilson said he would take judicial notice but was not ready to talk about it.

Mr. Gans then asked to have all the fee waivers of the defendants reviewed as germane to money damages, apparently to PL’s inability to obtain satisfaction with a monetary damage claim thus mandating an injunction. Ayr objected on the basis that (these confidential documents) it is none of their business. Ms. Starr objected on the grounds that purpose of this notice was prejudicial. The large map of Humboldt County with the huge section of it owned by Maxxam/Pacific Lumber which has adorned the front wall of the court room since near the beginning of the trial is admitted into evidence for reference for illustrative purposes.

Judge finished “housekeeping” chores by denying the subpoena for Water Board documents noting that it involved 30 boxes of documents dating back 20 years and said individual documents could be subpoenaed. He also noted that the CDF had objected to subpoenas of employees. He stated that brevity would be appreciated.

Court was recessed until Tuesday September 5th at 8:30.

As I promised yesterday I am catching up on writing about the ongoing SLAPP being played out in the Humboldt County Superior Court. Wednesday in what seemed to me to be one of the most tedious days so far with a bit of a breaking up of the log jam today.

Mr. Gans started out Wednesday by giving judicial notice of a tentative judgement from Judge Kopp in a case involving Kimberly Starr in an apparent effort to get her out of this case. She certainly asks questions that make them uncomfortable and they clearly have difficulty understanding the questions formulated by this intelligently complex young woman. The difference in intelligence between the plaintiffs and defendants is striking and gives some insight into how the plaintiffs can be complicit in such destructive behavior in the first place. It also makes one wonder if one needs to be a genius to comprehend the reality of the environmental destruction being wrought by this corporation and humanity at large.

Mr. Carl Anderson, the head of security for PL’s timber holdings, takes the stand and briefly states his age, 60, length of current employment with PL, 25 years, and employment with the Humboldt County Sheriff’s department prior to that as his initial qualification for his current position.

Ms. Starr began by questioning him on what their primary concern with protests was and he indicated that he was more concerned about the vehicles than the protesters.  She then questioned him concerning his and PL’s relationship with the Sheriff’s department, apparently more than a little cozy, and I would note that there was an agreement in this proceeding not to refer to the sheriff’s department as “PL’s henchmen” or the environmentalists as “eco-terrorists” and so forth.

Mr. Anderson stated that more than 100 “citizen’s arrests” had been made by him and other PL employees. When asked if the sheriff’s department had ever questioned the basis of any of these he said no. He stated when asked that his memory has been reliable over the last 5 years and this was challenged several times in various ways during his time on the stand Wednesday and Thursday with results that indicate his memory to be a bit less than he portrays it to be here… 

When asked when the first protests occurred he said in the late 1980s though sought throughout to dis-associate this with PL’s acquisition by Maxxam. Judge Wilson seemed to have a problem understanding Ms. Starr’s questions though they seemed pretty clear to me and her attempts to add context within which the questions seemed very clear he judged them to be “compound” which rarely seemed to me to be the case. He may have been doing this on behalf of Mr. Anderson who appears to be a little hard of hearing and had difficulty understanding everyone’s questions.

Questions about the posting of no trespassing signs were asked throughout Mr. Anderson’s time on the stand and the answers seemed contradictory to a medium degree leaving doubt as to when and where they were and were not posted. Boundaries, especially around the Main Rainbow gate were discussed more than once also and it seemed clear to me that there was some room for doubt about where the exact boundary was. Boundaries and signs were neither one near the location of the blue car where protesters were locked down though one boundary is apparently a couple hundred yards away from that point.

Mr. Anderson grudgingly admitted throwing food supplies of protesters down the steep hill adjacent to their activities but denied slashing tarps or destroying other possessions such as bicycles, cameras etc. Asked if he ever returned possessions to protesters he replied that it was all handed over to the sheriff, presumably never to be seen again. Judge Wilson then proceeded to say that subpoenas to CDF for several boxes of evidence would not be introduced into evidence in their entirety but only very specific excerpts and that transcripts of previous SLAPPs must be each paid for as no copies are allowed. After that he again admonished Ms. Starr not to waist time and she proceeded to question Mr. Anderson about how often he visited Rainbow Ridge gate and how many times that added up to in the time leading up to arrests in April of 2001. He stated about 15 but later recanted and said quite a bit more. When asked why they were allowed to stay so long before being descended upon and arrested in April he replied that logistics dictated primarily by winter rain was the reason for that. Asked if, in his capacity as security for PL’s timber holdings, he ever stopped contacters from logging areas where court orders prohibiting it were in effect he stated no and further that he was only ever vaguely aware of such orders and that he was not aware of orders that protesters carried copies of in their pockets and showed him (and other employees and contacters).

Ms. Starr returned to questioning him on how he knew where boundaries were, certainly a requirement in dealing with ttrespassing issues. Here the judge stepped in to help Mr. Anderson by stating that PL had compliance officers as learned from Mr. Bettis’ testimony. Witnesses are sequestered in this trial to help deter collusion so Mr. Anderson did not hear Mr. Bettis’ testimony. Mr. Anderson testified that he was not aware that a number of the people protesting at the main Rainbow Ridge gate were local land owners, neighbors of this location. Several questions regarding Mr. Anderson’s memory of events draw ambiguous answers, “remember ropes to pod?”, “Not specifically”, he does remember the destruction of a Tee Pee on the site (with some apparent pleasure) and kicking protesters while they were on the ground. He testified that Andrew Conner was tackled and knocked to the ground “because he ran”. Mr Anderson maintained, somewhat emphatically, when asked that he did not fear protesters. Ms, Starr continued to explore Mr. Anderson’s use of force in this vein with similar answers for a few more minutes and then turned questioning to whether Jack Nounan could have been blocking the gate when all of the photos PL had submitted into evidence showed him to be 75 to a hundred feet away from it. The logic of the impossibility of his blocking a gate he was over 75 feet away from was grudgingly admitted to. Mr. Anderson again maintains that he did nor recognize local’s cars (or locals) and also that he was unaware of a group of neutral observers at the scene.
 Judge Wilson seemed to degenerate into a more dogmatic backup mode and looked tired. He asked a few questions of Mr. Anderson concerning violence and PL’s policy to which Mr. Anderson replied that their policy was to back off and call the sheriff. That seems to directly conflict with his just finished testimony concerning kicking prone protesters and tackling protesters who ran. This brought this episode of the soap opera up to noon and court was recessed until 8:30 Thursday morning.

Thursday morning’s episode began with Mr. Vonsabern question Mr. Anderson about signs being posted at gate and on which side of road…east belongs to State park and west to PL though no clear picture of this area’s boundaries seems to come from Mr. Anderson who acknowledges that hiking, biking and horse riding signs also are posted along the road by the state park management and questioning moves on to exploring Mr. Anderson’s memory concerning Julia Butterfly’s two year tree sit, which Mr Anderson remembers to be one year, and states that he never responded to any lock down there, a protester chased off a cliff and receiving a broken hip in the process needing to be evacuated by helicopter..I didn’t detect a response. Mr. Vonsabern, in his unique haltingly thoughtful manner, then asked if any PL employees have ever been deputized to which Mr. Anderson replied “no” as he also did when asked if he remembered PL employees in 2002 “shooting guns”. Asked if PL instructed employees to arrest protesters I could not discern any answer by Mr. Anderson. Mr. Vonsabern then proceeded to his own arrest which Mr. Anderson said he did not witness as he was on his way back from Puerto Rico at the time. Mr. Anderson then testified when asked that he did remember a subsequent arrest on August 19th, 2001. When Mr. Vonsabern asked if he remembered that nun chucks and pepper spray were used on him or if he, Mr. Vonsabern, was acting in an assaultive way Mr. Anderson claimed he “didn’t recall”. The judge again interrupted here to ask Mr. Vonsabern to clarify his question.

Then Mr. Vonsabern’s questioning moved to the proximity to the blue car of a boundary with property on which an FAA tower stands to which Mr. Anderson replied that it is 600 to 900 yards away and that the only no trespassing signs are on that owners side of the boundary. Judge Wilson again interrupts to expand the issue and then seems to be saying that it is irrelevant. Mr. Vonsabern continues questioning concerning how Mr. Anderson determines boundaries for enforcement purposes and Mr. Anderson says he relies on fences.

Mr. Vonsabern then proceeds on to inquire as to how Mr. Anderson, the chief PL cop,  responds when loggers disturb a member of an endangered species. The judge again steps in to answer for Mr. Anderson by saying that the compliance officers deal with it. (I personally doubt that happens in reality.)

Mr. Anderson testifies that his last visit to a tree sit was two months ago. When asking Mr. Anderson about arresting him in the 1990s the judge cautions that he will hurt his own case by establishing a pattern over a longer period of time rather that isolated incidents. Mr. Vonsabern then asks if the Scotia Fire Department is owned by PL and Mr. Anderson answers yes. Asked if the Scotia Police Department is, Mr. Anderson says there is no Scotia Police Department. Mr. Vonsabern quips that Mr. Anderson is the Scotia Police Department which causes laughter.

After a short mid session break Ayr began questioning of Mr. Anderson at 10:15 by asking if Mr. Anderson remembered 9/11, the attacks on the trade center and pentagon and Mr. Anderson replied in the affirmative. Mr. Anderson claimed there was no change in policy when Maxxam took over and continued to disavow that people were protesters by stating he had no knowledge of the Forest Peace Alliance. When asked what PL’s policy towards protesters is Mr. Anderson described a chain of command going up to and stopping with himself. This time when asked if he is afraid of protesters he replied that he is afraid of protesters attacking his truck. Ayr then asked a short series of questions on Mr. Anderson’s use of force against protesters; “..ever tackled protesters?”, “yes”, “Punched?”, “don’t recall”, “ever threatened bodily harm?”, “don’t recall”, “ever kicked?”, “yes”. Mr. Anderson, in response to questioning, answered that he was on Long Ridge on May 21st, 2001, that he went to a tree in which a protester was sitting, though he was adamant that the person was a trespasser and that he could ID them though was not there the whole time so could not now if the masked person in the tree was the same person seen later. He also testified that he was at Rainbow Main gate on August 10th, 2001. When Ayr asked if he were aware that Jack Nounan and Dominic Vonsabern were acquitted of breaking the restraining order for that incident due to inconsistent maps and the question was stricken due to relevance..(?) Ayr then addressed the legal strategies of PL in their attempt to have penalties for protesters increased and also to do and end run around criminal procedure by using civil procedure to silence protesters. Mr. Anderson claimed he had no knowledge of this. Mr. Anderson said that protests had affected PL’s ability to harvest and that Julia Butterfly’s tree sit had prevented Luna, the tree she sat in, from being felled. Mr. Anderson testified that he was not the one who hired Initial Security Company. Finally asking “how long does it take to grow a 333 year old tree?” This time there was an objection to this question which was sustained…

Mr. Gans questions Mr. Anderson by asking first if Mr. Anderson has ever given permission to any of the four remaining defendants to be on PL property to which he replies in the negative. Asked about his concern for the blue car blocking the road he states that it blocks access for emergence vehicles but makes no mention of blocking access for logging. “Injuries to trespassers in last 10 years?”, “2.” “Who maintains key to Rainbow Main Gate?”, “PL.”

At this point Kimberly Starr again questions Mr. Anderson on redirect starting with “were you personally present at incident?” (Rainbow Main) “no, but I responded to it.”, “Did you ever inquire into the Forest Peace Alliance?”, “No”, “Take steps to prevent injury to protesters?”, “no.”, “Are you commonly called to testify in court in connection with protests?”, “Yes.” At this point Mr. Gans objected to the term “commonly” as being vague but Judge Wilson seemed to think it was the use of “protesters” vs. “trespassers” and over ruled the objecting with a reiteration of his statement that he didn’t consider these terms but just the facts. He refused to allow further discussion on the matter and Ms. Starr continued. Judge Wilson seemed to remain off track while Ms. Starr pursued implied consent argument and interrupted. Mr. Anderson also seized this as an opportunity to elaborate on his answers at this point. When asked, Mr. Anderson replies that SCOPAC maintains only one lock in the vicinity of the blue car and that is about one mile away and not on a road used to get to the location of the blue car. Ms. Starr then asked why SCOPAC has an easement on the road the blue car was on if SCOPAC owns the road? Mr. Anderson answers that he doesn’t know about any easement to which Ms. Starr responds that “Mr. Anderson doesn’t understand his duty to tell the truth pursuant to the code (she quotes the number and I assume it is a reference to codes governing perjury). This is quickly stricken from the record and Ms. Starr rests.

Dominic Vonsabern is next after Jack Nounan declines to question on redirect and asks if Initial Security Co. was paid $200,000 starting in 2001 (maybe he said 2000, I’m not sure) He then asks a couple of questions regarding injuries and death of protesters and inquires as to whether Mr. Anderson is in fear of protesters.

Ayr asks if Mr. Anderson paid $200,000 to Initial Security and he replies that he received the bill but was not the one who paid it.

Mr. Gans calls his next witness, Ayr and asks about some arrest which is objected to as outside scope of trial and sustained. Mr. Gans then asked if Ayr had watched the video depicting the May 21st incident and he replied yes. From there Mr Gans asked if Ayr had worn a mask to which he replied that he had. When asked if he ran to avoid arrest Ayr said he “took the 5th”, Judge Wilson said the statute of limitations on the 5th amendment protection against incriminating oneself is one year. Ayr then responded that he “went for a walk”. Asked how long he had known about the blue car, apparently attempting to connect Ayr with that action, Ayr replied that he had walked past it. Mr. Gans asked if there was another person in the tree and Ayr answered “no”.

Ms. Starr then questioned Ayr on cross examination first asking if Ayr had been arrested since the May 21st incident. “No”. “Did you come out of the tree after the work day ended?” “Yes”. “Were you aware of violence against protesters?” “Yes”. “Why did you wear a mask?” “To avoid violent targeting latter” “Did you intend to scare anyone by wearing a mask?” “No”. “Were you aware that the blue car was present for months?” “Yes”.

Mr. Vonsabern took up questioning next asking Ayr about his motivation for being there and Ayr spoke of Maxxam plundering the county and causing damage to the eco-system. Mr. Vonsabern’s fresh attempt to speak to Native American rights to the land were quickly objected to as being without foundation and sustained. “Aware of maps?” “Somewhat”. “Been to Fox Camp gate?” “Yes”. “Seen signs?” “Yes”.

At this point Mr. Gans asked a few final questions on redirect to which Ayr testified that he had been aware of the blue car starting around the first of April (2001) and that he had learned about it by walking past it. He further testified that he had been on PALCO land one day when he was arrested and didn’t know who’s property he slept on over night. Mr. Gans asked why he had selected that particular tree and Ayr said it was mostly just random. Mr. Gans asked whether Ayr’s “girlfriend” was also arrested at that time and Ayr answered “yes” after some rather amusing discussion as to the actual relationship of this woman and himself. Ayr said he did not remember if he had sen her the day before or not when asked. “Did the blue marking on the tree have any bearing on your decision to occupy it?”, “Sort of”. Mr Gans’ questioning ended with resumed banter over Ayr’s romantic interests or lack thereof in the woman previously refereed to.

Kimberly Starr begins questioning on redirect by asking if the tree Ayr occupied was small. “No.” “Have you studied old growth forests and trees?” “Somewhat”.
“Aware clear cutting causes harm to water?” “Yes”
“Aware clear cutting causes harm to air?” “Yes”
“Aware clear cutting causes harm to land?” (objection, over ruled) “Yes”
“Are you aware of the difference between protests that speak out and those that obstruct a negative?” “Yes”.
“Are you aware of decades of efforts to protect the Mattole?” “Yes”
That ended the day for testimony and Ayr and Ms. Starr advised the judge that witnesses they had called were not forthcoming to which Mr. Gans, in none to good a mood at this point having become increasingly sullen stated that they would fight having those witnesses called.
Court recessed until friday at 8:30.