A federal grand jury indicted the UofU economics student on two felonies that could land him in jail for 10 years. U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar made it clear that not even the Obama administration "will not tolerate future conduct which undermines the integrity of the bid process."
DeChristopher bid on 13 drilling parcels near Arches and Canyonlands with no intention of paying for them and derailed the bidding process. His many speeches to enthusiastic crowds on the necessity of his disruption of gas and oil drilling in the face of global warming didn't help his case, says U.S. Attorney for Utah Brett Tolman. Rather than follow the rule of law, this defendant has, in his own words, repeatedly said he intended to disrupt the lease-bidding processToday's indictment is our response to his decision.
DeChristopher says he had hoped for mercy from the new Obama administration:
Those hopes were misplaced. Now my hopes rest on a jury of my peers.America's granddaddy of civil disobedience, Henry Thoreau, spent a night in jail for refusing to pay his taxes as a protest of slavery and the Mexican War. He was freed when his aunt paid his taxes. Tim will be in the clear if he's got a friend or relative with $1.8 million to spare.
16 Comments:
And a Star is Born....
It just goes to show that you don't have to be smart to be an environmentalist whack-job.
Ditto to the above.
What's funny to me is his half admission that he KNEW what he was doing could land him in jail.
His civil disobedience was based on the belief that he would be caught and then the Obama administration/public sentiment would save him.
Tim couldn't be so stupid as to not understand that this was probably illegal. Sounds guitly as charged.
When a person decides to perpetrate civil disobedience it is wise to know the possible penalty. If that is a maximum of 30 days in jail and a $250 fine, then maybe that's okay. But if the penalty can be 10 years in a federal prison and a $750,000 fine, then maybe the civil disobedience is not such a great idea. The old saying "look before you leap" covers this situation.
He won't serve time, nor should he.
He's not worth it.
He's an anti- corporate, anti- wealth obstructionist.
The earth needs leaders. She won't find them among today's "environmentalists".
He will get the max....as he deserves!
Rock Star?..
no....more like a Bitch Star!
Wonder if his civil disobedience argument will carry any weight with his cellmates as they obediently sodomize him uncivily~
Payback for DeChristopher is DaBitch!
$1.8 million seems like such a small price to pay for what he accomplished, and the possible extended impact of what he did. I agree that we can't have people disrupting things like he did as a matter of course, and so I'm conflicted about what needs to happen. I have hope that technically, he did nothing wrong, and will be exonerated. But, I guess only time will tell.
What I'm not getting in all of the anti-de Christopher blather here and on today's talk shows it this: I haven't heard him say even once that he'll fight the penalty or that he shouldn't pay some price for breaking the law. Yes, he said he had hoped for a break from the Obama administration. He didn't get it. His lawyer is now working on a plea deal--standard practice in all prosecutions, federal or state. So, if De Christopher understands that civil disobedience requires consequences--and he appears to get that in spades--who can say he doesn't understand the fundamentals (ala Gandhi and King) of breaking the law to make a bigger point?
Also, "Ethan," you are terribly misinformed about "today's enviros." You haven't a clue about who is out there in the trenches working to carve out what's left of wilderness and fighting things like ORV abuse (hardly a radical concept--Guv Huntsman is well behind that idea) around the West. Please tell me when was the last time you took a petition door to door, or met with one of Utah's congressional delegation to hammer out wilderness legislation?
You are simply dead wrong about the real guts of the modern environmental movement. Even a bunch Repubs in Congress signed on to the wilderness and wild and scenic river bill last week. Environmentalism suffers under the brainless rubes in Utah, but it's hardly a radical world view and the tide is turning toward a greener planet. Get on board or be lost.
Meh.
I know who's in "the trenches".
A group of anti corporate social activists who are abusing the donations of
average people who believe they are volunteering to "carve out what's left of the wilderness"
Our environmental concerns are too important to be left to a movement of con men.
Take your anti- capitalist, anti- corporate, anti- wealth crap somewhere else
while the rest of us work to replace coal and oil with better options.
And if "anti- capitalist" doesn't describe you, then you've been suckered. And you should rethink your involvement.
Ha Ethan. Take a look around you at everything "anti-capitalist" these days. Federal government is bailing out banks, automakers and mega-insurance companies. Obama gets to basically fire the head of GM and demand a replacement. We're chugging our way--for want of a better word-- to socialism (and I love it). It's about time as a middle-class working stiff I got something besides propping up a failed war effort in Iraq for all the taxes I pay. And don't worry. With the stimulus money rolling out, and hopefully a carbon tax in the works soon, great minds will be working on ways to make cleaner energy. Like I said man, get on board. The train is about to leave without you.
I would hardly call the bailout anti- capitalist.
It's an intelligent way to manage a crisis by stabilizing banking to ensure the flow of credit which will secure business growth
and hire people back to their jobs.
Anyway, you're kind of confirming what I've been saying...
that environmentalists are not pushing a pro environment agenda as much as they are pushing a social agenda.
So... thanks for that. I'd much prefer to kill coal, oil, etc...
and promote wind, solar, and geothermal
by using an aggressive market based strategy that can leverage wealth to promote efficiency to build greater wealth.
Now that your eyes are bleeding from all this talk of money...
That previous anonymous comment was mine
The problem with the environmental movement these days is that it is fundamentally premised on obstructionism. Rarely do environmentalists win on the merits of political debate, instead choosing to make projects and development go away by delay and expense brought about by litigation that costs relatively little to the environmentalists relative to those whose projects they delay. (I know, you'll say the cost if they don't protect us is the loss of the environment for all of us).
Take Legacy Highway as an example. Years of time (both in terms of the clock-ticking and lost productivity of people sitting in traffic) and hundreds of millions of dollars for what? Rubberized asphalt and lower speed limits. Whoooo, am I glad the Sierra Club saved us from the wanton destruction of non-rubberized asphalt and faster speed limits.
I must take issue with your comment, anonymous 1:38. I have first-hand knowledge of the strong and steady behind-the-scenes work SUWA leaders did with Sen. Bob Bennett in crafting the recent wilderness bill. It took months and months and many hours of face-time with Bennett and his staff members, but in the end two supposedly diametrically opposed political forces came to terms with a piece of compromise legislation each could live with. Smart and truly dedicated environmentalist are realizing (at least with land use, which is sort of the topic of Glen's post here) it isn't all or nothing anymore. Their future big concern will be to protect what is left of wilderness from the ravages of ATVs, for one thing. I'm really fed up with people who toil in the environmental protection movement being painted as nuts and radicals. It isn't fair. It isn't even true.
Actually, Holly, I think the point of Glen's post didn't hit on what you say at all. It wasn't about environmentalists realizing it isn't all or nothing. Instead, it was about the civil disobedience gamble being lost (or so it would seem). And if civil disobedience represents the moderate way, heaven help us. There's plenty I don't agree with, but the rule of law means I take. In fact, the facts (as understand them) show the utter meaninglessness of the civil disobedience here. The leases were later invalidated. Had Utah's favorite new monkey-wrencher respected the rule of law, the leases would be in the same place they are now. Even had they not been cancelled (perhaps some weren't) there are still other avenues of challenge. We can't simply all go about disregarding the outcomes of our democratic processes because we really, really feel that it's a moral imperative.
Suppose my distate for rampant immodesty and public displays of gratuitous cleavage leave me in great fear of our society's moral path. As long as I'm willing to pay the fine, can I go around accosting strangers with sweaters knitted by the Relief Society? Or if my relative was killed by a drunk driver and I believe that alcohol is a scourge even beyond that. Can I head to the liquor store and smash up all the bottles?
The point is simply that the stability of our society depends upon respect for the rule of law. Mr. DeChristopher, whose sincereity I do not doubt, did not respect the rule of law. This does not represent a middle way, or compromise.
Now, Holly, what you say about the wilderness bill may be true. I simply have no idea. Indeed, perhaps you're right that environmentalists are becoming more conciliatory. I have my doubts. However, you cannot honestly believe that the past twenty to thirty years of the environmental movement have been based more on moderate compromises than on obstructionist confrontation. The facts (and volumes of case law) belie that claim.
Post a Comment
<< Home