

Modern Civil Disobedience - Tim DeChristopher - justinmares
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/07/26-13

======
brianleb
This is an excellent read, although not initially recognizing his name I was
expecting it to be about Anonymous/LulzSec, DDOS, digital sit-ins, etc. It is
long, but extremely well constructed. It should also be taken as a lesson in
how to respond to governmental oppression. Non-violent, not inflammatory, well
reasoned, passionate, and maybe most important of all, not disrespectful of
the law itself. By respecting to your opponent, it speaks volumes about your
character.

DeChristopher is obviously a well-spoken man and he sounds like an absolute
stand-up guy. In his speech he seems to address every pertinent matter of the
case, use the evidence available to question their validity, and to any
sensible person defend himself completely and utterly. Unfortunately, court
does not appear to have been sensible on this day.

If we can see a silver lining, it's that this story will get more press
because he's going to jail, and the more people that read this, the more
people will be inspired. I think this essay will do exactly what DeChristopher
wanted it to.

------
bugsy
How often does someone get sent to prison for 2 years because they bid at an
auction more than they could afford to pay at the moment they made the bid? Is
it very common to prosecute this in a criminal trial, or is this completely
unheard of?

~~~
ryanpers
not so, he was able and willing to pay for the land, but the BLM doesnt allow
people to buy land w/o drilling for oil. So he was charged with "disrupting a
lawful government activity" - even though in fact those BLM auctions are NOT
lawful.

~~~
wisty
Using illegal methods to disrupt illegal activities is not legal. You can't
shoot a guy to stop him running a red light. There are rules about Citizen's
arrests, but they are pretty specific.

On the other hand, making a nuisance bid at an auction (especially when you
are forthright about your actions, which he claims he was) doesn't seem like a
serious criminal act.

~~~
cube13
He didn't just make himself a nuisance, though.

He did two illegal acts: 1\. He misrepresented himself by saying that he was a
legitimate buyer for the drilling rights. 2\. He was unable to pay for the
bids he won.

Both of which are pretty cut and dry fraud charges. Those are what he was
found guilty for.

If he had just broken into the meeting and annoyed the people present, I would
have a different opinion about his punishment, but what he did here was
clearly illegal. If he's serious about this being a case of civil
disobedience, he should accept the consequences of his actions. Trying to
avoid the consequences just defeats the entire purpose.

~~~
brianleb
Tsk tsk, you didn't read the article.

> 1\. He misrepresented himself by saying that he was a legitimate buyer for
> the drilling rights.

"The entire basis for the false statements charge that I was convicted of was
the fact that I wrote my real name and address on a form that included the
words “bona fide bidder.” When I sat there on the witness stand, Mr Romney
asked me if I ever had any intention of being a bona fide bidder. I responded
by asking Mr Romney to clarify what “bona fide bidder” meant in this context.
Mr Romney then withdrew the question and moved on to the next subject. On that
right there is the entire basis for the government’s repeated attacks on my
integrity."

> 2\. He was unable to pay for the bids he won.

"The other number suggested in the government’s memorandum is the $166,000
that was the total price of the three parcels I won which were not
invalidated. Strangely, the government wants me to pay for these parcels, but
has never offered to actually give them to me. When I offered the BLM the
money a couple weeks after the auction, they refused to take it."

> If he's serious about this being a case of civil disobedience, he should
> accept the consequences of his actions. Trying to avoid the consequences
> just defeats the entire purpose.

"Despite my strong disagreements with the court about the Constitutional basis
for the limits on my defense, while I was in this courtroom I respected the
authority of the court. [...] disagreement with the law should not be confused
with disrespect for the law."

It's really a very good speech, you should read it in its entirety.

------
orbitingpluto
This just smacks of corruption. Sweet legal corruption.

He was in a position to be able to purchase the _rights_ to drill. He does not
have to necessarily have to exercise those rights that he purchased.

Moreover, he is leasing those rights! It is in the governments best interests
to have someone pay for the right to take a non-renewable resource and then
not decide to use it!!!

Since there is a lot of talk about patents and copyright here, let's do a
simple example. If I purchase the rights to 'Happy Birthday', can't I just not
enforce the copyright? Will I be prosecuted if I don't sue every child getting
sung 'Happy Birthday'?

If I purchase Lodsys' supposed patents and decide to not sue every indy
developer out there, will I be persecuted for it?

Sexual orientation? You've got the right either way! If you go princess or
bear is the government going to break down your door?

If you lease land for logging and your company decides it's not fiscally
feasible to log this year, are you going to be thrown in jail.

No. No. No. No.

It's too bad his defense was hampered by the judge.

His only crime was trying to get in the way of the revolving door system of
public property being given away to private interests. That's a big no-no.

------
justinmares
This is a sad, sad commentary on the current state of government affairs. This
is the kind of stuff that makes me think groups like Anonymous are more for
the people than our own government

------
dublinclontarf
He was essentially being punished, made an example of for political reasons.
I'm not an environmentalist, but thats not right.

~~~
redthrowaway
Why aren't you an environmentalist? I'm not suggesting it's the only
philosophy one can legitimately hold, but I'm wondering where your
disagreement with the core tenets of environmentalism (sustainable growth and
concern for human health and ecological balance) comes from.

~~~
bugsy
I can't speak for him either, but I'll speak for those of us who are against
destroying the environment but won't use the word environmentalist as it, like
the word organic and the word christian, have been co-opted by evil bastards
with corporate control agendas. Screw all that. It is impossible to take
"environmentalism" seriously as a movement when you have people like Al Gore
respected, and the Goldman Sachs controlled Carbon exchanges the purpose of
which is obvious and it's not to reduce needless consumption.

~~~
redthrowaway
Is libertarianism defined by Ayn Rand? Is capitalism defined by Donald Trump?
Let's put Gore aside for a minute, and focus on the core issues. An
environmentalist is someone who, fundamentally, sees the protection of the
environment (for practical and/or idealogical reasons) as one of our most
serious responsibilities. To say that certain people who identify with the
movement are wrong, therefore the movement is wrong, is to say you can't
believe in animal rights without being a PETA supporter. It's just a terribly
flawed argument. Flipping it on it's head, I could say that environmentalism
is beyond reproach because it has people like David Suzuki [1] as its
champions. Those arguments simply don't hold water.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Suzuki>

~~~
bugsy
The deal with this is that _I_ am an environmentalist in the traditional
sense. I have an extremely low "carbon footprint" but not because I believe in
the Goldman Sachs propaganda of doom. However, far less that 5% of
"Environmentalists" I have ever met practice what they preach. It is a
religion of mass hypocrisy, just like "Christianity", which likewise has
almost nothing at all to do with its defined core teachings. Therefore, it is
foolish to apply these labels anymore to the cause or belief or movement or
whatever you want to call it.

One can be or be not. Talk is bullcrap. "Environmentalism" is about talk and
politics and taking control away from people and their lives, and it's about
making money. It's not about reducing consumption and waste. Not at all.

You also bring up PeTA. Let's instead talk about the label "Animal Rights
Activist". I am opposed to factory farms and slaughterhouses where animals are
abused and tortured for profit. I'd like to see all of these either reformed
or shut down. The abuse of animals is so severe that I consider it completely
unethical to eat products from these places. As a result, since I am a
omnivore and veganism made me sick, I have to raise and hunt my own meat
because that I have control over and can do so in as ethical and humane a
manner as possible. Yes it involves killing but I do so with respect for the
animal and its life. Those I raise have a good life before slaughter. I would
much rather just buy humanely raised meat, that would be less trouble, but
it's not possible in the US. Few others do this, that is their own business.
But am I an "Animal Rights Activist"? Absolutely not. That is a label of
cranks who do things like set fire to cars and destroy perfectly good fur
coats. PeTA kills 85% of the animals it rescues.
([http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/04/27/peta-and-
eu...](http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/04/27/peta-and-
euthanasia.html))

Likewise with consumption. Wow it would be nice to drive around and fly and
use air conditioning. Does your place of work have air conditioning? Mine does
not because I choose not do do so because it is wasteful compared to a fan. Do
you drive to work every day? I don't because it is outrageous to think that
personal gas combustion vehicles is sustainable, and electric hybrids with
their batteries are even worse. Do you raise most of your own food? I do.
Screw the environmentalists, driving from meeting to meeting in their gas
guzzling leaded gasoline running VW busses, and their private jets, and their
olympic sized heated swimming pools, their destruction of the soil with their
ethanol gas, their wasteful solar panels, and their refusal to get control
over their own waste while they dare to dictate to others. The world would be
better off without any of those outrageous hypocrites. The term
"Environmentalist" has become an insult thanks to their efforts.

Among these is Suzuki, a major leader of outrageous hypocrites. Rather than
address his own wasteful consumption, he buys religious indulgences in the
form of carbon credits to "offset" his waste. This is complete nonsense and
those who participate in these scams are either deluded followers, or cult
leaders trying to confuse their followers by example.

~~~
eazolan
I stopped caring about the environment, when I saw that being an
environmentalist meant stopping any and all human development.

When environmentalists get together and start building power plants and oil
wells, then I'll know they're serious about saving the environment.

~~~
traldan
Wait, what? Why would environmentalists build oil wells? That's precisely the
opposite of caring about the environment. Unchecked human development is
recklessly irresponsible. But growth and development aren't necessarily evil -
far from it. Understanding the ENTIRE impact of ones actions, rather than just
the portion that affect you, is (imo) the most important tenet of protecting
the world we live in. From that perspective, you can make intelligent
decisions and grow, but not at the expense of everyone around you.

------
vonSeckendorff
I don't agree with everything DeChristopher has to say, but that was a good
read.

I find it really scary that lobbyists have the ability to destroy an
individual's life if instigated. At least that's the impression I got.

~~~
sixtofour
Money greases the wheels of justice. Oil money is particularly greasy.

EDIT: spelling

------
Kroem3r
The decision, the process and the background are an embarrassment.

It's interesting to me that there isn't even the slightest bit of damage
control.

What was it Lou Reed said ... Stick a fork in 'em. Turn 'em over. They're
done.

------
davidryal
I'm so glad this made HN.

------
eazolan
I cared, up to paragraph 682 in his article.

