Activist Tim DeChristopher Found Guilty, Faces 10 Years in Prison After Trying to Save Public Lands From Oil and Gas Companies
Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.
Editor's Note: Here is an update from the author on DeChristopher's trial. An interview with DeChristopher follows.
On Thursday, environmental activist Tim DeChristopher was declared guilty on two felony accounts: when he disrupted an auction by bidding on federal land in Utah slated for oil and gas drilling without having the funds to pay for it.
In his trial, DeChristopher was barred from using the "necessity defense," that is, from explaining the political motivations behind his action. Kirk Johnson, covering the trial for the New York Times wondered " Do Motives Matter?"
Prosecutor US Attorney Carlie Christensen is preparing a pre-sentence report. Tim De Christopher is being charged with making a false statement to the federal government and with violating the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act, which establishes a competitive bidding process for oil and gas leases.
All week, supporters organized by Peaceful Uprising rallied outside the courthouse, singing songs as the trial began.
Pieces have been published in support of Tim DeChristopher's non-violent intervention by numerous environmental journalists and activists.
When Tim was originally arrested, climate scientist James Hansen, Naomi Klein, Bill McKibben, Robert Redford and Terry T. Williams published a widely circulated l etter in support of Tim DeChristopher's action. And just yesterday Jeff Biggers argues that Tim DeChristopher "Deserves the Medal of Freedom Not a Prison Sentence."
Bill McKibbens, co-founder of 350.org, wonders who the federal example is making an example of and whether it is not those who are committing "climate crimes" who should go to jail instead of those who are standing up to protect the climate.
To be sure, Tim DeChristopher's action and trial raises vital questions about the personal risks involved with taking action on moral and political principles.
He will be sentenced on June 23, 2011 and faces up to 10 years in prison.
On Friday, December 19, 2008, Tim DeChristopher participated in a public auction. As the Bush administration moved to auction off 77 parcels of federal land totaling 150,000 acres for oil and gas drilling, DeChristopher, a student at the University of Utah at the time, bid $1.7 million for 14 parcels totaling 22,000 acres of land, although he did not have the funds to pay for it.
A federal grand jury indicted him at the behest of the Bureau of Land Management, which was selling the land. He was arrested that day and charged in April 2009 with two counts of felony: 1) making a false statement to the federal government; and 2) violating the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act, which establishes a competitive bidding process for oil and gas leases.
Recently, I had the chance to sit down with Tim DeChristopher and ask him about his upcoming trial.
Tina Gerhardt: What's the current status of your trial?
Tim DeChristopher: My trial is scheduled for Monday, Friday 28, 2011. They have limited my defense, not allowing the necessity defense, also known colloquially as the "choice of evil" defense. Basically, I am not allowed to argue out of necessity, which makes it harder to discuss the illegitimacy of the auction to begin with.
TG: Do you think the recent decisionin the trial of activists who sought to shut down a coal-fired power plan, where the judge spared them from jail sentences stating they were acting "with the highest possible motives," marks a sign of shifting opinion vis-à-vis direct action to avert climate change?
TD: Certainly not with my judge. He actually holds the opposite belief.
We were making the case for selective prosecution before the indictment because we had substantial evidence that the oil industry had played a strong role. One of my attorneys got a call from an AP reporter before I was informed what the charges against me were. The journalist told my attorney, these are going to be the charges. The reporter got that information from an oil industry lobbyist. So before I knew or my attorneys knew, the oil industry knew. Why did they know before my attorneys knew?