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.