NOT SO GREEN  |  Delta 5, Day 2 - PM

By steven d keeler | Sep 30, 2016

 

Copyright (c)  2016 by NSG

 

12:11:00 PM, court is in recess, for lunch

1:20:30 Court resumes session

Court asks Mr. Sturdivent if he wishes to speak to the issue of how to inform the jury of the preceding events.  Prosecution responds, my suggestion would be one not tell them that, inform that it had nothing to do with Mr. Mazza's testimony or any objection there.  I would ask, I do still have some concerns about informing the jury they have been photographed and I understand the court is going to rule as it's going to rule but right now we have an incident ( unintelligible follows, something about live feed and twitter ? ) and now we have another photo taken live in the audience and ( ? ) my concern is, I don't want them ( jury ? ) to be distracted with photography, finding out that they have been photographed or wondering that their photos are out there and I don't want them also to be concerned, cause ... this is, what it's really coming down to is jury intimidation.  Court responds, it seems obvious to me that given that what you have described, and again, I did not see the flash from the audience, the chances that none of the seven people standing right by you saw that I find  very unlikely, so, I ( ? ) need to talk with them ( ? ) I understand it's just the common, decent thing to do.  Given that it is very likely at this point, that at least one of them saw the flash go off in the audience.  Court mumbles something about concern again and asks if anyone has anything else.  Defense ( unidentified ) says that they agree with the prosecutor, however, we do not want the jury to be informed.  Our reasons are this.  First, we don't think that there's any actual threat what so ever, to a juror.  The people involved, and honestly, I don't know the person who made ( ? ) the photo, any of them are intending to intimidate or bother jurors.  I think that they are broadcasting the fact that there's a trial and certainly if any jurors were contacted, that then becomes an issue that should be brought to the courts attention.  And, the jurors have already been instructed on that - I think that any mention that they have been photographed is going to create a side issue to them, could distract them, and eventually create a prejudice to the defense because it's pretty obvious that most people in the court are supporters of the defendants.  And so, it's going to be associated with our side of the table.  Even though none of the defendants or the lawyers had any involvement in these types of things and even if you ( court ? ) tell them that, it's still harder to completely disentangle us from what happened.  So, I am concerned about the prejudiced to our side and without any specific incident other than the picture(s) and the posting, I just don't see that it's something that should distract the jury at this point.  Prosecution ( unidentified ? ) responds, with regard to the decent thing to do, and to tell them, I agree with you, that's true, but I think we're arguing between shades of, you know, it's the lesser of two evils at this point.  Defense ( unidentified ) responds, court can tell the jury after the verdict, if the court feels they need to know that.

Court responds, the court at this time decides that when the jury comes back in, I will tell them that there was a disruption of Mazza's testimony that in no way had anything to do with the content of his testimony and it was completely unrelated and that I will instruct them at the end of the day more specifically about any attempts to contact them, that they should immediately notify a member of the court staff or call 911 if anyone is communicating with them about their services as a juror.  Court asks if anyone objects to that.  Defense then asks if Mazza's testimony can be restarted from the beginning, state does not object.  Court then announces to the room, that because of what happened this morning, I am limiting now anyone's ability to photograph, audio record, video record these proceedings without my explicit permission.  There will be no more photography allowed in this room other than through my explicit ( cell phone goes off ) expressed permission.  There are professionals in the room who appear to have been compliant with my order, the way this courtroom is laid out, it makes it very difficult from the audience's vantage point, to take a photograph that does not include the jurors.  We ( ? ) have already witnessed allowing photography from the public has caused unnecessary unneeded delays in proceedings and is interfering with my ability to conduct this trial.  Therefore, I have grounds to limit that at this point and I intend to do so, so the parties know and I am making a record, I have instructed security before people are allowed back in the court room to inform each person who comes thru security that they are not allowed to use any photography in the court room.  At this time, I will ask, are any of the parties if they have any objections to that limitation on the public's access in the court room.  Hearing none, court asks if any of the public in the room have any objections.  One public stands, asks for clarification, states he has been sending text messages about his impressions of the proceedings.  Court responds, that it's intended order does not limit that in any way, it's only about photography.  Further, court advises further, public can wait for a break, contact court staff and ask to speak to judge.  Same public responds he was told that there were no electronics to be on, in the room, by security, so that courts announcement may not be the case.  Court asks if it is the individuals intention to continue texting, silently.  Public responds, yes, as I have been.  Court responds, it is permitted as long as it's not making noise, or distracting.  Court asks if anyone else wants to voice any objections to the limitations re photography.  Court announces that it hears no other objections, and that it thinks it's order is clear and asks that devices be turned off, unless texting.  Court then makes statement about importance of all present to not do anything that would distract the process, prevent jury from hearing what's coming from witnesses and the lofty goal of this all.  Whispering and low murmurings at this point impedes ability to transcribe.  Court then recalls, it believes there was defense motion, unidentified interrupts, states that at this point we don't have a motion.  Court responds, asks for jury to return.

Unidentified asks ( defense ? ) can we be heard on what your going to tell the jury about ( ? ) later in the day.  Court responds, for the record, the court still closed, the jury is still not in, then says I just intend to emphasis that if anyone attempts to communicate with them about their services as a juror they are to contact 911 or ....  loud announcement of all rise for the jury obliterates courts words and a defense ( ? ) response.

1:28:53  Court asks all to be seated

Court continues, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, when we ended the morning session, there was testimony of Mazza interrupted abruptly and ( ? ) exited the court room, that in no way had anything to do with Mazza's testimony, it was related to something else and you shouldn't be concerned about at this point, so were going to start over with Mr. Mazza, have a fresh start this afternoon.  Court advises Mazza he is still under oath and directs him to the stand.  Court asks Mr. Joyce to proceed.  Defense asks witness to tell him about his background in the area of publishing.

Mazza :  I've written now, on climate change, since the late eighties, and I have worked professionally, full time on the issue since 1998 when I co founded an organization, a major climate change organization called climate solutions where I was employed as research director until the end of 2013.  I've written a book called stormy weather, 101 solutions to global climate change, co authored it, I've written numerous, numerous papers and reports regarding climate change and climate change solutions.  Defense asks what's causing climate change.  Witness responds, well, what we know is that it's biggest .... we're almost certainly sure that with over 95 percent probability that it's being caused by the emissions of fossil fuel burning from coal oil and natural gas, releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which is, what we know is a green house gas, it's a very ... it's a big molecule that captures solar radiation, catches it and creates, basically creates a heat trap and blanket, which accumulates solar energy in the atmosphere, and ... um ... and what this, what this is causing is a, is a increase in global temperatures.  And this has effects beyond temperature increase, heating up the oceans in different ways, it really is changing the whole pattern of the winds and ocean currents, the way the whole planet circulates .  So, this is why some places, sometimes we're getting way more rainfall than we ordinarily do, why sometimes we're getting heavy droughts such as California, um ... so it, so this, this is just that's that's what's called climate change, that's the essence of it.  Changing the shape of all the winds and currents, and, and, so what we're experiencing right now is a , is a definite increase in, in strange and unusual weather conditions.  Defense asks witness what has he done to advance solutions to global warming and climate change.  Witness responds, well, you know, the whole ... what I've done is done a lot of work to advance practical solutions to replace fossil fuels, we need energy, we're a high energy civilization ... were not going to go back to the stone age and we're not going to back to the 1700's and horses, we need stuff ( his word ) to run our cars, our factories, our power plants to light up our houses.  So, I've done a lot of work on , on new energy sources such as solar, wind .... written a lot about how we can practically bring them on faster, what kind of government policies we can implement to, to ramp them up faster, fast enough to deal with the climate crisis.  I've done ... I've written and promoted electric vehicles ... ah, we, ah I have helped, I was lead researcher writer on a project involving forty organizations to ah, ah bring sustainable aviation fuels, not made from oil to the Northwest.  And also, before that the same role researcher, writer in a project engaging fifty organizations on how to build a smart electric power grid here where we can hook on all these solar panels, wind turbines ... ah ... and really create kind of a energy internet.  Um, I also have worked a lot ... I've worked in legislative campaigns so ... ah .... worked a campaign to have cleaner cars in Washington, that means the cars you buy today are more efficient, burn less fuel.  I've worked on other fuels campaigns to bring new kinds of fuels to the state.  I helped develop some legislation, I worked on a bill in 2008 to create carbon reduction goals for the state.  I've also helped create programs ah ... that for cities to help cities to ... ah ... become a participant in this kind of energy transformation - to bring on more solar, to have energy efficient buildings ... ah ... as well .... ah ...  to ah ..... I have worked, done a .... ( witness struggles here ) created a program, helped create a program to actually improve our farming and forestry to soak more carbon out of the atmosphere  through photosynthesis.  So, I've really worked a lot on the practical solutions that I believe we have available right now to really transform the energy system and reduce the pollution of our atmosphere, and by the way, make us a lot healthier, bring us a lot ( loud cough covers remainder ).

Defense asks, so based on your extensive research and engagement what do you believe ... ah ... what do you understand we need ( ? ) to stem global warming ?  Witness responds, well, what we need to do is really move quickly, you know, I've done a lot of work on these solutions, we're not moving quick enough, we haven't, but ... ah ... the recent Paris climate conference, which you may have heard of, ah ... said we really need to stop global temperature rise ... we really need to keep it under about 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit.  We really need to keep it there or were going to see catastrophic effects ... I mean literally sea levels dozens of feet higher, our major food growing areas, such as the Midwest, turning into dust bowels, ah ... really .... ah ...extreme storms, you know, such as, we're starting to see this, we saw record flooding in, in the Midwest and the same storm gave record flooding to Ireland.  And also, elevated temperatures at the North Pole recently above freezing, in the middle of winter, when it's completely dark, the second time in recorded history.  So, were already seeing this stuff ( ? ) happen, so what we need to do is really start to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions our fossil fuel burning, really quickly.  You know, the best, the purest science is saying we ( ? ) need to do it at about six percent a year.  And, to do that, to really do that right, you know, we don't want to crash the economy you know, we don't that you know, those kinds of reductions we had when the great depression start, we don't wanna see that, we don't ... what we ( ? ) wanna do, what we need to do is really have a new World War Two, globally we need a mobilization ... ah .... we need a ... we need to really devote our resources ... we need to start building solar panel factories like we built B - 17 factories in WW II, with public engagement.   ( witness stumbles ) were not going to .... business is engaged in this but were not going to get at this without a large engagement of the public.  So, we need a really, a real ramp up very rapidly to do this.  Defense responds, asks, so how is the political system responding and do you feel that is an adequate response.  Witness continues, the political system has responded inadequately, we, we have seen tinkerings around the margin, we've seen some good stuff ( ? ) happen, I mean we do see because there's been good work in other countries, we've seen solar and wind becoming cheaper and even competitive with fossil fuels but it's not moving fast enough, it's not, you know, we're a, I'd like to say, you know, you know, it's a 1937 and were still appeasing Hitler.  You know, that's kinda where we're at.  Stilll in kind of a Munich climate where we're saying, we're saying - Oh, we can deal with this, we don't have ta, we don't have ta you know, worry too much we can kinda compromise this, but we can't.  We found out later, Hitler was gonna go roll over the world and that's what's going to happen to us with climate change in a different ( ? ) kind of way.  So, Um ... you know, so we're not seeing the political system respond in an adequate way to, to, to deal with the situations we face.  Defense asks, and why is that, why hasn't the response been adequate ?  Witness answers, the worlds most powerful industry has bought the political system.  You know, they, they have ... ah ... put, you know, they have basically bought ... ah ...  politicians with campaign donations, and what we learned recently through investigative reporting by the L A Times, and two Pulitzer Prize winning outlets is that Exxon.  Prosecution interrupts,  calls for hearsay.  Defense mumbles, something about witness has developed these assumptions based upon his research, in terms of climate change.  Defense adds something, but mumbles again.  Court asks state to respond to defense.  Prosecution says ( 1 ) I don't believe witness is an expert and ( 2 ) still, out of court statements offered ( defense interrupts ) responds something mumbles about opinions and basis.  Court responds that witness appears to have established that his is entitled to his opinion and he may expand upon the basis of that opinion.

Witness  continues, so we found out, through, we found out that Exxon had Carbon dioxide monitoring systems on it's oil tankers.  They were doing computer monitoring, they had scientists telling them ... ah .... predicting the kind of temperature rise we ( ? ) have been seeing.  Ah ... they knew what they were doing ( ? ).  We know, we know the oil industry was meeting in the early eighties, to figure it ( ? ) out, to say what are we going to do about this, our main product is causing climate impacts - we know the science.  And, what they did instead, of moving to a different product line that wouldn't wreck the climate and our future, was ... they lied.  They started to fund phoney research institutes to .... they started to bring in some of the people who ran the tobacco campaign, the tobacco industry campaigns, start to fool people, to start to, to, create doubt in the public mind, and through that creating that doubt in the public mind and buying politicians they basically crippled the ability of the political system to operate.  And so, really what's happened is that we've ( ? ) been frozen out, right now, you know, we've been, we had some, those pieces of legislation I told you about those basically happened from 2005 until 2008.  In 2009 we had a federal climate bill that was defeated by the fossil fuel industry.  Just this past year in Washington state governor Inslee had a climate bill that was defeated by the fossil fuel industry and the politicians who they heavily contribute to, in the Washington state legislature.  So, we really see the political system getting tied up and unable to respond because of, because of political corruption, frankly.  Defense asks, what, in your opinion will turn this around ?  Witness responds, it's going to take people power, you know, we can't, we can't hope ... you know, the politicians you know, I like to say all politicians are weather vanes, you know, they respond to the wind.  And, what we need to do is start to blow the wind, as citizens we need to start defineing our democracy, bringing citizen pressure to bear, the politicians need to hear from the people that this is a really serious situation.  You know, people need to understand how serious this situation is.  And, most people don't because it's kinda abstract and the media doesn't talk about it that much, we've heard a lot of doubts and skepticism so what we need is a real upsurge of citizens acting as citizens of a democracy.  Defense asks, so how will ( ? ) create a political response equal to the challenge.  Witness answers, well, that's what this civil disobedience was about.  You know, I mean ... in American history we've had instances of civil disobedience where to move, to move, to move the system - women suffrage movement, women gained the vote through civil disobedience, the civil rights movement, you know, the, ah, African American's gained civil rights through disobedience.  And, that, that brought attention.  Of course, they were directly going against particular laws.  We were not going against the trespassing laws or the train laws, we think those are good laws that should generally be obeyed.  Ah, we just felt in this case it was necessary because as you have heard because BNSF is almost, you know, a company that can have it's own police officers that have superior ( ? ) peers to the local police officers that have federal powers.  The only company in the country, I mean, this is a place where, you know .... where do you have citizen redress of grievances, how can citizens have a voice with this semi public entity ( ? ) ... ah .... so and, and generally we, you look at our media system, you know, what we have, people get their news through the media so you have to do stuff ( ? ) that focuses people"s minds, you know, and it's kinda creative and unusual, to get people thinking.  And, to get people starting to ask, what really is going on - why did these people put their bodies on the line, you know these are kind of normal everyday people, you know there not crazies, you know, there school teachers and painters, and writers and coffee shop owners and you know, what is this ?  And that, so that, ah .... we feel of course, the five of us, one single act, of course that's not going to do it - inspiring others, inspiring other people, you know, to, to stand up, legally, in any way, if what we did ( slight gap between consecutive audio files ) ... of people walking into their congressman's office and say were going to stay here, till we, we hear from you, we want to talk to you congressman to find out what are you going to do about this or, you know, any number of things, you know, were not asking people to go out and erect tri pods, but any anyway of people raising their voices so, so this is what we felt and I you know, I stood as a not just a person who's worked on it, but a parent.  You know, my daughter, my four daughters have had a climate god, you know, ah, um, for a parent and I've tried to be easy on her, and she told me, dad you told me when I was eight years old all the polar bears are going to die.  ( laughter )  Poor daughter, she's nineteen now and she ah ... you know, she comes to me couple years back, sitting on the porch and, you know she said, dad, is there hope for the world ?  And, and, and I grit my teeth, you know, I know I gotta have a positive answer for that, and as, as as, you know, as, as sometimes desperate i feel about how, how, about the accelerating climate change and so, you know, my answer to her was that people stand up and, and, and work to make a, you know, stand up and make their voices heard, yes, there's hope for the world.  So, my going out onto that track was away of saying, was my way of saying stand up for my daughters world as well as all of our own.  Defense responds, now you've already done this a little bit, but can you play back ( ? ) your ( ? ) feelings assembling up the tri pod in the Delta yard to the political response that you think is necessary ?  Witness responds, well, you know, you look, we've already, you know, we've already ... ah ... you know, drawn a lot of, you know, a lot of attention with that um, with what we did, but, but again, this is about inspiring action, you know, it's about, you know, by us putting our bodies on the line inspiring other people to do the same.  And, and, you know, at very least to research it, to look into this, and to, um .... you know, to, to act as citizens, o insist on change.  Defense says, thank you very much.

1:47:56

Court asks if anyone else from the defense wants to bear reference to ( ? ).  Defense mumbles something.  Defense has pause, then continues with another question.  Defense asks, so you've long worked in the political system, do you feel that you had any other options to spur the political responses necessary to face the challenges of climate change ?  Witness responds, you know I've long worked in the political system, within the system, I will continue to do that, I continue to do that.  Um, but, you know, because of this whole lock up of our politics ... um,  ah ... I've seen, I've seen legislative defeat after legislative defeat and, and because of this lock up of our politics I really feel you know, in a lot of ways our options are being exhausted here.  There's more money, there's more money going into politics all the time, politicians are getting more bought off all the time and, and so the only balance to politics and money is people power, cause they ultimately need our votes.  And so, so I really do feel like, you know, our options .... I felt our options exhausted.  And it is time to take extrodinary action.  And, I would not have done it if I hadn't felt that was true.  Defense, again, says thank you.  Court asks if defense has anything else.  Court asks state if anything further.

Prosecution responds, Adam Sturdivent, on behalf of the state, tells the witness good afternoon.  Prosecution asks how are you ? Witness responds I'm doing well, asks state how he is doing, state responds ... not bad.  Prosecution asks, so when you had the signs up at the protest that said coal, oil, or gas, none shall pass.  Would you say that climate change and fossil fuels that was  your main focus that day.  Witness answers, we had two main focuses, climate change was my main focus and coal oil and gas, none shall pass really indicated that we, we, we wanted we want to stop the expansion of the fossil fuel economy here in the Northwest, because of, because of what we're seeing right now is just kind of the opposite of, of going ( transfer between two consecutive audio files, again makes for a questionable transcription ) .... fossil fuels, what were seeing is many new fossil fuels installations being proposed and ... ah ... we're the corridor to Asia, we're the corridor between the fossil fuel reserves of the Rockies and Asia, so we're kinda in the line of fire here, so that's what it meant.  Prosecution continues, admittedly I don't as much about this as you do, you seem very well versed, what do you mean by oil installations.  Witness, well we're talking about for example, Prosecution interrupts, asks refineries ?  Witness continues, ya, what we're talking about is coal ports, there's a coal port proposed for Bellingham, there's a coal port proposed for Longview, there's a major oil terminal proposed for the Columbia river, at Vancouver ... ah, those are just some, those are just some of the plants that are being proposed in our region.  And, they will move by rail, and, and that, you know, and so what we've seen, you know, with the, the ... ah ... there's been a number of oil train explosions in recent years and that was our second, our, our second concern, is that not only, not only is this increased fossil fuel traffic ah, .... ah endangering the climate but it also, it also has implications for our public safety and our health - every coal train is blowing just off all the time and people are breathing it, every oil train leaks and sometimes oil trains explode and kill people.  And they have, in recent years.  Prosecution asks, you said you worked on some practical solutions.  Witness answers yes. Prosecution interrupts, asks, to solve or prevent climate ... or whatever you want to call it ... climate change, what sort of solutions have you come up with.  Witness answers, well, you know, we have a, for example, have a, as I mentioned, a we have, we, we ah, enacted a law here in Washington state to makes cars more efficient.  Prosecution asks, would you say that law has been successful ?  Witness answers, that law has been successful in, in a .... in it's own, in it's own limited way.  It's, you know, what I, what I, what I'm saying is, I'm not saying we haven't seen successes, thru the political system, what I'm saying is we haven't seen successes that scale to the immensity of the challenge.  Prosecution responds, that law, as it was enacted, has been effective, yes or no ?  Witness responds, yes.  Prosecution continues, and then you were talking about ..... progress for cities and I want to understand that, is that coming up with a plan for how they ...  a motor pool works or what kind of systems they use in order for public transportation, you know what are you talking about.  Witness answers, well, you know, those are all pieces of it, how to make cities more efficient, how we would make this courthouse here more efficient ....Ummmmmm .... you know, and how do we just generally, do we finance energy efficiency throughout the city, how we could put more solar panels in, how we could create more electric vehicle charging stations.  Prosecution asks, have there been any successes on that front ?  Witness responds,  there have been successes on that front.  Prosecution asks, such as ?  Witness answers, well, we have more electric vehicle charging stations around, we have better, better, better efficiency.  So, as, as you getting at we are, we are making progress in increments, it's not whether, its not that we're making no progress at all through the political system, it's that were not making progress at a rapid enough speed ( ? ) so what we need to do is push the political system harder to really get that kind of WW II scale mobilization, that we need   Prosecution asks. with regards to ( apologizes for slowing down the witness ) also revitalizing farm and timber, .... explain ?  Witness, oh yes, well, that, you know, there's different ways of doing forestry that ah, having longer rotations between cutting that reserve more forest, that have, ah, that, ah, preserve more carbon in the forests, so more carbon in the forests, there's less in the atmosphere, less, you know, that's where you want the carbon is in the forest.  Farming, you know, there's better ways to reduce tillage so when the farm passes over ( ? )  the soil is releasing carbon, so we have no till farming which plants seeds with a drill, so you don't have that so ... Prosecution interrupts, asks, with regards to the timber, have you ever spoken with like  the Wyerhauser company or anybody like that ( with regards to their forest methods ) ?  Witness answers, we ah, we actually I have, actually I have and ... they could use some improvements ( low lever of laughter ).  Prosecution continues, so lets go a little bit more about what you did, so what made you decide the Delta yard, that was the spot ?  Witness responds, we knew, you know, we knew that ah ... at this point, someone interrupts, says something, witness stops talking and Prosecution tells court he is withdrawing the question.  Prosecution asks, why did you choose the Delta yard over Seattle, Seattle is where the accident ( ? ) happened ?  Why not there ?  Witness answers, umm, frankly, we, we, we had a .... we thought, based upon our observations of traffic on the rail lines that there was a higher chance that we would encounter a coal or oil train in the Delta yard than in Interbay or Seattle, which is where that accident happened.  Prosecution responds, that's why I asked the question.  Prosecution then asks, so then with regards to the Delta yard how did you get on  there ?  Witness responds, we drove, Prosecution interrupts, says, you just drove on to it, witness adds yes.  Prosecution asks, did you know you were not supposed to trespass on that property ?  Witness responds, we knew it was private property.

Prosecution asks, and you knew that you were trespassing ?  Witness responds, we knew we were trespassing.  Prosecution asks, why the tri pod ?  Witness answers, that goes to, I mean, that goes to something that is, you know, it attracts the public imagination.  Witness repeats, it attracts the public imagination.  Prosecution says something about putting the question in his head.  Witness answers, ya, you know, what are these people doing and it also, you know, frankly shows, you know, us being willing to take some risks, you know, a woman twenty feet in the air, us on the poles shows, you know, we are willing to put our bodies on the line, a little.  Prosecution asks, was it your intention that day, to block an oil train ?  Witness responds, pauses, then says, yes, it was.  Prosecution asks, for as long as possible, I take it ?  Witness answers, for the work day.  Prosecution says OK.  Witness continues, we told the officers we planned to remain there through the end of the work day and that we were prepared to dismantle the tri pod at the end of the work day.  Prosecution continues, asks, with regards to protesting, do you not believe that protesting in front of the BNSF property would have been as effective ?  Witness answers, no, we don't.  Witness continues, that is more the kind of common kind of protest which is more and more ignored by the mass media, frankly.  Prosecution asks, so the entire goal was to make a splash and get noticed ?  Witness answers, ah ... not the entire goal .... the entire .... the goal was to increase public awareness and in our media world this is how, this is how we, we communicate with each other.  Prosecution asks, so you goal was just to raise public awareness of climate change, of oil, rail safety, that sort of thing ?  Witness continues, to raise public awareness in a way that would inspire others to take action.  Prosecution asks, you were talking before about Exxon, in the mid seventies, about how they had had phony research institutes, what were these research institutes ?  Witness answers, oh, groups like ah .... right now, ah groups like Heritage foundation, the Cato institute, Heartland institute, there's a whole bunch of them, you know, there in ... ya there in ... those would be several I would name.  Prosecution asks, and their worthless ?  Witness responds, the stuff that comes out of them is fundamentally worthless.  Prosecution asks, how come you didn't protest Exxon, or Shell when it had the rig out ?  Witness answers, we did.  Court erupts into laughter.  Witness adds, if Exxon had a, you know, had a large facility here, you can be sure, Prosecution interrupts.  But that Exxon thing it got noticed, didn't it.  Witness answers, it did get noticed, Prosecution continues, in fact it got a fair amount of, in fact that happened during U.S. open, didn't it ?  Witness answers, I'm not sure.  Prosecution asks, and they also protested out on Chambers bay, and that got noticed ?  Witness adds, ya, that got noticed with, ya, we did, you know.  Prosecution asks, but that wasn't illegal ( ? ) ?  Witness says, there's different ways, as I said in my testimony, you know, I, I'm not, I, we're not asking that all actions be illegal, sometimes though, ah ... we believe the necessity is that you, that you need to, need to cross the line because what you do is going to be, I mean any harm you do, the harm your preventing ... Prosecution interrupts, asks, but what you said, your goal, correct me if I'm wrong, yes or no, what your goal was to get the word out and effect people to act, correct ?  Witness responds, that was fundamental goal.  Prosecution continues, and then the reason, so and the way you chose to do that was to build a tri pod and trespass on the BNSF Delta yard, correct ?  Witness answers, correct.  Prosecution continues, but you also said that you were right there, at the Exxon protest, correct ?  Witness states, at the Shell protest and Prosecution says, at the Shell protest.  Prosecution asks, and you already alluded to the fact that you were aware  of the Chambers, during the U.S. open Chambers bay, Witness interrupts and says, yes.  Prosecution says, and those two were not illegal ( stated as question ).  Witness answers, not illegal.  Prosecution asks, so they were just as effective at getting the word out ?  Witness answers, they were, they were also, they were also effective, ah, you know ... and I believe it takes, it takes a mix of legal and not so legal actions to get the word out.  Witness continues, we have a massive challenge ahead of us, it's going to take, it's going to take all kinds of actions to get this over, to get this across.  Prosecution asks, you said you've been involved in the political process, I've read up on you Mr. Mazza, had to do my homework, ah ... you said that you spent a lot of time behind the computer, so what kind of work were you doing ?  Witness answers, Oh ... I've written papers on the ... ah, as I've, you know, we put out a paper just a couple of years ago, on how to, on  ways, different feed stocks we have.  Prosecution asks, was that published ?  Witness answers, Oh yes .  Prosecution asks, and was it was it picked up and read ?  Witness responds, Oh yes, people picked up and read it.  Witness continues, I've done papers on power grids, on solar energy ....   Prosecution asks, you said earlier there are good laws that should, you know, we weren't trying to protest like they were in the mid sixties, and that these were good laws that should be obeyed, you said that, correct ?  Witness answers, that generally should .... Prosecution interrupts, criminal trespass, witness continues, generally should be obeyed, you know, this is, in our case, we felt the necessity to cross the line to prevent a greater harm.  Prosecution asks, do you think it's possible to get people to join your cause, I'm not saying I'm going to ask for your card at the end of the day, but do think it's possible for you for people to join your cause by legal ( this phrase is what the attorney said, however his construction and omission of additional words in the phrase makes it senseless ) means ?  Witness answers, it is possible, Prosecution says, yes or no, witness continues, it is possible to get and we do that.  Prosecution asks, and you have had successes doing that ?  Witness responds, and we have had successes but the whole question is proportional, it's the question of enough success and how far we have to go, you know, if we really have to, as I believe, largely without fossil fues in the next 10 to 15 years, that is going to take a lot more than were doing now, so I think it takes a mix and I think non violence, definitely non violent civil disobedience is part of the mix.  Prosecution asks do you believe there is hope for the world ?  Witness responds, I do believe there is hope for the world or I wouldn't have done what I did.  Prosecution asks, do you believe it can be achieved without trespassing on other people's property ?  Witness answers, in this case, I didn't.  Prosecution asks, do you now ?  Witness responds, no.  Prosecution has nothing further.

2:04:09  Court asks Mr. Joyce something unintelligible.

Defense asks witness if he is aware whether the protests at Exxon and Shell are still in the public conversation, very much ?  Witness answers, the ah, I mean, Shell somewhat Shell remains in the public conversation but it, you know, once Shell we had success, Shell cancelled Arctic drilling, so that, we won that one.  Defense asks, would you say this action is still very much in the public consciousness, it brought a lot of attention ?  Witness answers, take a look, we've got a TV camera here, we've got a documentary crew here, we've had national press coverage .... yes it has indeed ... yes.  Defense asks, and would you say that besides that attention part of your reason for doing this was for preventing greater harm ?  Witness answers, that is exactly correct, we didn't think that you know, that, you know we did not think a minor inconvenience to BNSF would be a, would be in any way proportional to the greater of climate change or oil train explosion and we extensively practiced because we are concerned about safety, we practiced, we erected that tri pod many times, before we errected it on the railroad  because we didn't want anyone hurt.  Defense asks, you have been involved in a lot of legislative work ?  Witness answers, yes.  Defense continues, and in your experience, has the final law that's been enacted always contain what you thought was sufficient to enact the protections that are necessary for studying climate change ?  Witness responds, no, no, not that, I know, that you can get into the gritty history of these bills, no I think it, we, we in fact passed a renewable fuels standard that has some sustainable fuels in our fuel structure, this ultimately, the oil industry lobbyists got, I don't deal with that the whole ( ? ), but they made the bill ineffective.  Witness continues, we wanted to create a carbon cap an actual binding cap on carbon emissions in 2008 and because of the influence of lobbyists all we could get was goals, so that, so we've fallen short, I'm not, I'm not, what I'm talking about oil industry  and fossil fuel industry influence, I mean, I'm not just talking abstractly, I've seen it.  Witness continues, I know, I know who, I've sat next to them at tables.  Defense asks, would you also say that enforcement side of the coin is also deficient ?  Witness answers, it's deficient, it's deficient because the laws are deficient.  Defense asks, at some point during this civil disobedience, did you offer to remove the tri pod ?  Prosecution objects, outside the scope.  Confusing, unidentified, partially unintelligible conversation erupts among court and parties about relevance.  Defense, states prosecution asked questions about the trespass, so this is relevant.  Court asks, what was the question.  Defense states, the question is at some point you offered to remove the tri pod and leave the rail yard, if media was allowed onto the rail yard.  Court says something, while Prosecution interrupts, asks court if witness is handling his own objections ( he is defending himself ), is that going to be handled by someone else ?  Court responds, it is a little bit of an unusual circumstance, we had a discussion about this off the record ( ? ) - something about handle ( coughing, and the court's continued mumbling interfere )  the direct .... of Mr. Mazza with the permission of Prosecution.  Prosecution continues, but does that not imply objections from this ( something ? ).  Prosecution says, it's a question I have to ask, court interrupts, asks what is your objection.  Prosecution responds, my objection is that it's outside the scope, I asked about trespass, did you go onto the yard ?  Did you assemble ?  Court responds, I am going to allow the question, the objection is overruled.  Court asks witness if he wants to voice anything, the fact that you are representing yourself does complicate, witness says I understand, talking over the court, something about examination, witness again states, I understand, court interrupts, I'll permit you to speak on the legal basis of your testimony if you wish, but I have overruled the Prosecution's objection, followed by unintelligible.  Witness responds, well what I was in terms of responding to the objection because this is specifically about media attention and the ( ? ) we put on it, it is a relevant question.  Court states relevance is not the question, but I am allowing the question please ask it again.  Defense then asks again, at some point during the civil disobedience did you offer collectively to remove yourself and the tri pod from the property if the media was allowed onto the yard ?  Witness says, we did, you know, we, we actually the interviews, by the media of us when were on the tri pod were, ah .... were from a distance, from long telephoto lenses and we were, we were answering questions by cell phone and we really wanted to bring the media down to us at the tri pod to, you know, to talk to them.  We would have been happy at that point to disassemble the tri pod have them cart us off to jail, we were ready for that ... ah ... but that was not allowed so we would up staying there I believe, I believe it was another couple of hours before we were removed.  Defense asks, so you described other sites of protest, of the Shell kayaking event, ah Exxon, do you feel that all these different protests brought different types of attention to what you describe as coal terminal ( interruption ) lots of different ways fossil fuels are incorporated into our region, to our economy, have these different protests brought different attention ( rest of this sentence is not understandable, attorney mumbles ).  Witness answers, yes they did bring, yes, did bring attention, you know, I think we need all ways to bring attention to, to address this absolutely monumental challenge.  Remainder of defense has nothing, Prosecution has nothing further.  Court asks witness, because of this unusual circumstance, are there any questions you would like to ask yourself ?  Witness answers, no, I, we've consulted on that question previously, so .....  Court directs witness to be seated with the defense.  Court announces that the question was not intended to be funny, it was required under the agreement with ( ? ).

2:11:47  Court asks defense to call it's next witness

Unidentified female attorney calls J Minchew.  Witness is sworn.  Defense asks witness how he feels today.  Witness responds, he has been fighting a cold for a few days, I think it's been obviously to probably everybody in the room.  Defense asks witness how he is employed.  Witness responds, I'm actually retired now, I was a career music teacher for 33 years and, ah, retired a year and a half ago.  Defense asks if witness is a musician to this day ?  Witness responds, ah ... yes and no, yes in that music is in my bones as it has been since I was a child, but no in that I scarcely play anymore.  Defense asks, and what was your instrument ?  Witness answers, trombone.  Defense asks witness if he is married ?  Witness answers, yes, I am.  Defense asks, how long have you been married ?  Witness answers, 47 years, she's over there knitting socks and this sounds sappy, but I've been saying it for many many years I fell in love with her before I met her because this great big picture was on her grandmother's wall and her uncle was my age, so our age, so I would hang out with him ... ah ... 47 years .... we got married when we were 19 and nobody thought it would last but we fooled them.  Prosecution asks, do you have children ?  Witness responds, yes, we have a son who is 46 now and a daughter we adopted at age 4, shes 25.  Defense asks, is it fair to say that, Mr. Minchew, that you have grave concerns about the state of our planet ?  Prosecution interrupts, objects, leading the witness.  Court sustains, directs defense to ask another question.  Defense asks, do you have concerns about our planet ?  Witness answers, I didn't always, for most of my life I was about as ignorant about climate change as anybody and, ah ... but in about 2003 or so I found out that there's some things to be worried about and it started with a thing called peak oil which hardly anybody talks about anymore, but in 2003 it was a big item, at least in certain circles and ... um ... so little by little I found out about climate change and stuff ( ? ) and I began to get very, very, very worried.  Defense asks, can you explain your understanding of peak oil ?  Witness responds, I'm a layman, I'm not brilliant like Patrick, um .... Prosecution interrupts, asks what the relevance is ?  Defense responds, because of his motivation for his actions and all of the underlying concerns that he has, his education in this area.  Court says the objection is overruled, mumbles something, says witness can answer.  Witness again, I should say that my process of becoming involved in this stuff is pretty much a linear process, apologizes for cough, I found out about peak oil, I went to a ... I had encountered people who told me about it and I frankly didn't believe it because it didn't make sense to me, never heard of it, but I went to a fellowship of reconciliation retreat on November 5th  ( water gets poured into a glass ) 2004 and in the space of about 18 or 20 hours was inundated with information very well presented, very clear and very unsettling about what peak oil was and what it meant to us as humans.  So, it had a tremendous impact on me.  Defense asks, can you explain what you describe as the peak oil moment ?  Witness continues, ah ... ya, it was that weekend, I had been, I'de heard about it but didn't know what it was so I went there to find out and I found out the .... ah ... so many facts about it that it just sort of blew me up and the thing was supposed to be Friday nite, Saturday and Sunday .... I went Friday nite, Saturday till about 3 o'clock in the afternoon then I just had to go home.  I couldn't take in anymore.  And, ah ... and I actually cratered after that .... November 5th I'm now going into this, it was the worst Christmas of my life because all I could think about was this information I had not known and now, suddenly, now here it is in my head, and .... ah, it was sometime in January before I finally figured out I've either got to forget this stuff, but you don't unlearn what you have learned or else I had to do something with it so I decided to get busy and learn more and do more.  Defense asks, and how did you begin doing more ?  Witness responds, well, I got involved in politics which I don't recommend ( laughter ) there's not a lot of satisfaction to be had there, but I also I began to talk to elected officials, at the city level, at the county level, my wife and I, in 2005 traveled to DC to talk with Rick Larsen, my congressman and Patty Murray, and what's her name, the other senator ( Defense contributes the name Senator Cantwell ) yes, yes.  At this point, the court interrupts, says to folks in the audience, don't try to answer questions for the witness or help the witness in anyway and then directs witness to continue.  Witness says, I will forget names and ( cannot distinguish next ) and I got 58 minutes with Rick Larsen and I talked only about peak oil, which at the time was the only issue that I knew anything about and he was very gracious and gave ( ? ) me the time, we talked, he gave me answers, we dialogued - at the end he said - Prosecution objects at this point.  Prosecution mumbles, but something about hearsay ( ? ).  Witness says, I apologize.  Court recognizes defense.  Defense says, well, I was just going to say he is relating his experiences and experiences of talking to elected officials.  Court over rules the objection.  Witness adds, I'll simply say that I came away with a very clear impression that nothing would be done by Larsen on this issue.  I got a similar response from the senators I spoke with, I got less time with them, I did get to speak with some aids but I went home thinking that was a fun trip but I haven't done anything, nothing has been accomplished.  In 2006 the movie of a documentary, an inconvenient truth came out.  And again, I had heard about climate change, but I didn't give it much thought, cause I was totally consumed with peak oil, and so I watched the movie and thought, OMG ( Oh My God ) , there's a relationship here.  Climate change is caused by the consumption of the burning of fossil fuels and so this peak oil issue is related to climate change.  It took me a long time to figure those out, I think I may still be figuring some aspects of it out ... ah, well I am, but what I then had to do was spend time figuring out how those two issues interacted with each other and how their related, and then, ah, then everybody remembers what happened to our economy in 2008 when actually one of the things in peak oil is that as we ( ? ) witness hesitates, asks, should I explain what peak oil is, my  understanding of what it is ?

Defense says yes and something further, but her words are talked over by witness.  Witness continues, if I may peak oil is simply a theory that was developed in the 50's by a man named M. K. Hubbard, in which, ah, there's a finite of oil in a hole in the ground and you drill down into that hole in order to pump it out, and the first oil to come out comes out as very ... it's under pressure so it comes out easily, it even .... you've probably seen pictures of gushers.  But then as you extract more and more oil the pressure reduces and you have to work harder to get it and ultimately you have to inject something into the well to get more oil out, to keep the pressure up and at some point you can even no longer get oil out or you can get it out at a viable price.  And so, ah the point where you sort of have to start helping it come out they call that the peak of extraction and from that point on it's harder to get, it's less of quality, and, and so it's, it's ah eventually you stop drilling there.  And so that's true for a single well, that's true for a oil field of many wells, it's true for a country, it's true for the planet.  There's a finite amount of oil in the ground, and when you get past the halfway point, and interestingly the IPCC, in 2010, which had never mentioned peak oil in any of it's previous reports said in 2010 that the global production of conventional crude had peaked in 2005.  Defense asks, did you realize, did you recognize a connection ?  Witness goes on, in fact for me, ah oil is the engine of the car, or the carburetor, I suppose, and global warming is the pipe, the tail pipe.  We burn the oil and out comes the carbon dioxide.  And that's a vastly over simplified description, but that's how I ( witness mumbles remainder ( ? ) ).  Defense asks, after learning about peak oil in 2003 did you begin ( ? ) to reduce your own carbon footprint ?  Witness, responds, I did and I have to confess, I'm no saint in that regard, it's hard for me to break the oil habit as anybody.  I wish I were better, what I have done is, I had a 1995 Saturn, which I drove until it died last year and it got about 30 miles to the gallon which for a long time seemed really good, it's not so good anymore.  And I kept driving that old car even when I might have bought a new car  because I figured the oil that was invested in that car was still there and if I trashed that car and bought another car there's a whole nother embedded oil thing.  Ah ... I ride a bike a lot, I started that in December of 2009, it's actually an electric bike.  My wife and I have weatherized our house, we've done other things, I ah, I've also gotten involved in other things, I'm the chair of my neighborhood association ( ? ) and one of the first things I did when I became chair, I was approached by a man who owns some property and he wanted a community garden in his back field, and he had been asking people for about five years to create one and nothing ever got done and so I said OK, I'll make something happen, I'll see what I can do.  And, over the course of a year, we started a community garden, it was, I'm not a gardener but I found some gardeners who would work at it and we put in that garden.  And also, I am a member of a group called transition Port Gardner which I'de like a chance to talk about in a minute, if I can.  Transition Port Gardner, a friend of mine who's in the organization named Dave proposed to the city of Everett that they let us use some bottom land that belongs to the city out on ( ? ) road to do a large garden project.  And they actually gave ( names two individuals ) thirty acres and they went out and started with one acre and over time it's expanded out to about 9, it's not advancing as fast as we thought it would but it's growing.   And, about half of the food from that field goes to food banks and the rest of it goes to the people who developed it, some people sell some of their produce, most people just consume it.  But all these things ... ah, let see, what else did I do ?   I founded a political action committee while I was still very enthralled with politics, I was co-founder of green Everett which was an environmental group in Everett for about 6  years.  Near the end of green Everett we sorta created transition Port Gardner as a project ( ? ) now it's the environmental group.  And all these things were really from 2005 or 2004 even all the way through ... all of this was like finding out, what can I do ?  And wherever I go and whatever I do, I'm looking for what can I do, I found out about transition Port Gardner, in fact, when I went to a drug workshop in Boulder Colorado and asked around who was ( ? ) do environmentalism and I met a guy named Mike who, we talked on the phone and hi, I, he asked what I was doing and I asked what he was doing, he said, we're about to become the first transition U.S.group in the world and I was excited about that and I said I don't know what that is, so he told me, told me about the book, so, I bought the book, that's one of my failings, I buy the book and I read, that's a dangerous thing.  And, anyway, I'm about to lose my track here.  Defense interrupts, let me ask you a specific question about your electric bike, how many miles have you put on that bike ?  Witness answers, I'm crowding 8,000, now I'm aware that a lot of people ride their bikes much more than I do, but most of my rides are in lieu of car trips and it's part of my environmentalism to avoid driving cars when I can and take the bus more often.  Defense asks how old are you ?  Witness responds, 66, adds it doesn't feel as old as I thought it would.  Defense states, now you mentioned that you've run for public office, then asks what public office did you run for ?  Witness responds I ran for city council, defense interrupts, asks in what city.  Witness responds in Everett, which is my home, and, ah ... the first time I ran, I was encouraged by people to run - I didn't want to but I finally did.  And of course I lost, because I didn't know anything about running for public office but I really ran because nobody would talk to me about peak oil and it they won't talk to me, I'll talk to them, and so I did.  And, ah ... in 2007, I thought, well I got 40 percent of the vote in that first race against a heavily entrenched incumbent and I thought maybe I could do better, so I ran again.  I ran in 2007 and got exactly the same 40 percent against a different opponent and ... ah ... oh, I take it back, in that one there was a primary and I washed out in the primary.  But again, in 2009 I thought OK, this time I'm good at it, I can do this so I ran against the same guy I ran against before, and that's where I got the same 40 percent and realized I was never gonna win in the city of Everett, but then I ran two more times, just becasue the guys who were running in those positions were unopposed, and I could not stand to let them be unopposed.  Defense asks, and what was your platform ?  Witness continues, it was always always energy and climate centric, it included things like social justice as well, it included things like low income housing, it included a variety of things that you would expect a guy like me to be interested in and will make a difference in.  But always it was about talking to people about things they didn't know, I am a teacher after all - it's what I do.  Defense pauses, looks for a question to ask, asks does your wife share your views ?  Witness responds, ah ... not all of my views, but, ... ah ... as far as the energy and climate is concerned, yes.  She's on board, in fact, she is the person who has a brain in the family I mean, she remembers things so I'll think of something and start to talk about it and stop and she'll just fill in all the gaps for me.  So, she gets it probably better than I do, but ( ? ).  Defense asks, have you written any letters or opinion pieces on these issues ?  Witness responds, well, as a matter of fact, yes.  I've written a great many letters to the editor, most of them about energy or climate or economics and I started ah, this back a while ago.  In 2008 when the energy, when the climate collapsed one of the factors, not one that got much news, but one of the factors was that the price of oil had risen from about, lets say it started around 30, but it climbed through 50, through 70, through 90 and it topped out at 147 dollars a barrel, so you guys probably remember that and we were paying 4 dollars a gallon, right ?  Well, it was when it was at 147 dollars a barrel that the bottom dropped out because suddenly food cost more, clothing cost more, everything you bought cost more because oil permeates everything.  And so, ah ... ya .  Defense asks, so after all of these efforts, all these various things you have done - what feeling were you left with ?  Witness answers, well, I sometimes got accused of howling at the moon and I became pretty convinced that that's what I was doing, I wasn't moving the ball.  I was talking to a lot of people, I wasn't changing any minds, I was meeting some people who said, Oh - we agree with you Jackie but I wasn't changing minds, I wasn't moving the ball.  And so I began to do some more things.   One of the things I'm particularly proud of is my wife and went to New York city and we marched in the peoples climate march.  About 400,000 people marched through the streets of New York city about climate change and it was to influence ... ah .... ah .... a big meeting that the U.N had called, prior to the COP 20 meeting, a Conference Of Parties, I believe is what I'm talking about and ... ah .... the march was to influence the U.N. meeting which was to influence COP 20 and maybe did, I think it may have influenced something, but ... ah .... still I felt as exciting as that was and as much news as it got, I felt, you know, I don't know what I'm doing, I'm not getting the ball, not getting the job done.  And so, I'm going to have to blow my nose.  Court says something, witness adds, this is extremely embarrassing.  Adds a further comment about noses.  Laughter.  Witness continues about his nose problem, court asks if witness would like to take a quick break. Witness responds, maybe I better.  Court announces the afternoon recess at this time.  Court says something about 10 minutes, and continues however court is drowned out by all kinds of room noise.

2:32:15 PM

2:43:10 PM,  Court tells room to be seated.  Asks witness ( Minchew ) to be seated in the witness stand.

Court asks Mr. Goldsmith, you wanted to address the ( ? ) at the end of the day, defense says, yes, court continues, we'll do that now.

Goldsmith starts, court is going to learn from a witness that, court interrupts, apparently the prosecutor is not here, defense says he will wait.  Long pause, court asks, who else are we missing ?  Unknown voice says just Mr. Sturdivent.  Prosecution comes.  Court continues, Mr. Sturdivent, I was just inquiring about the defense position on the admission for the jury before we leave for the day adds something, unintelligible.  Defense continues, the only nit we have to pick with that is the mentioning of 911, I think that overstates what's going on, in fact the person who took the photo, that was posted, actually very temporarily on the site, I'm told its be off the site for awhile now and is not circulating around the web as far as they know, is here to explain further  the sequence of events that it was totally innocent from my understanding and he did it before the court made the order prohibiting such pictures and I think he's the person the court had show his phone to the court later, ah ... Court interrupts, I recognize him and I don't intend to waste anymore time till the end of the day.  Defense interrupts, the point is, court interrupts, let me be clear though, my admonishment had nothing to do with disclosing to them, that pictures had been posted or taken.  Defense says, right.  Court continues, it was IF someone had improperly attempted to communicate with them they should report it.  Defense states, that's fine.  Court asks, what problem do you have with that ? Defense tries again, nothing, except saying to call 911 implies that it's some kind of crime, that's what you would do if you were a victim of a crime.  Court interrupts, which jury tampering is.  Defense says, it is your honor, but it's not something ever before heard a judge ever tell a juror about a contact, call 911 if someone contacts you.  Short confusing interchange follows.  Someone suggest the phrase, notify the authorities be used as a substitute.  Defense adds, if that makes the court more comfortable, I'm fine with that.  Same someone ( prosecution ? ) states that he has another witness, BNSF, present with evidence, sitting and waiting, evidence that was requested to be brought in.  Wants to know what ( ? ) wants to do with it.  Defense says, I would like to have the chance to look at it.  Court asks, why can't you take this ( ? ).  Again, unidentified states he has been instructed to never take possession ( ? ).  Court asks, what do you ( ? ) propose be done ?  Unidentified states to court, I'm not really quite sure what you want me to do, there are interruptions.  Court asks something,  then defense states, we would like to go through it and decide what we might want to bring into court, that's all, so I guess it could be done at the end of the court day, that's all.  Court then states, so your saying that BNSF employees then have to stick around to the end of the day.  Unidentified says, that's correct.  Yes.  Court asks, how long would it take do you believe at this point to go through that ?  Defense sates something about clients ( ? ), I don't have a right or want to look at other ( ? ) .... I don't think it's very much property, I think it's a backpack, with some materials, that's all.  Defense mumbles something about the evidence and something that was referred to in testimony.  Defense continues, identifies herself as Jamie Hong, states that she would like opportunity to retrieve any non evidentiary items that belong to my client, mumbles something further, and says something about everything that is here.  Unidentified says my understanding, everything is here, I have never seen evidence released this point in time, so ( mumbles ? ).

Court responds, well, everyone's going to have to worry about that after we end court today, I have priorities, we're going to get this case to a jury and so, .... um .... the employees will need to stick around, we'll come back after the end of court today for the defense to review those materials which they have a right to do.  Court asks, anything else, before we bring the jury in ?  Unidentified, states no.  Long pause.  Although it may not be clear, witness has been waiting to continue testimony, and is present.

2:49:48  Jury returns.  Court instructs all to be seated.

Defense, refreshes all about testimony witness was making at the time of break.  Asks something about channels, and getting the message out.  Witness responds, I think I said it was like howling at the moon, running for city council, talking to every official I could, never felt like anything was moving and I'm .... this may sound strange but I'm a guy whose ... ah ... driven by the need to be of use, to put my hand in on things and so I was looking for anything possible that I could put my hand in on, would move the ball.  If even, a little.  And, that's really what brought me to this ( ? )  Defense states, let's turn to the events of September 2nd, 2014, how did you come to be in the Delta yard, or involved in the protest in the Delta yard that day ?  Witness states, I was contacted by a friend, who said we're going to do a thing in Everett ... um .... if your interested I'll fill you in.  And I said, OK, fill me in.  He gave me, it was really kind of a skeleton look at what the plan was at that time.  And, I said, Ok, I'm in.  I mean, it sounds like a more useful thing to do than talking to politicians, and so that's how that started.  Defense asks, and how did this particular action further the cause you had been championing all these years, since 2003 ?  Witness answers, well, one of my problems, I always felt as sort of the only guy talking to people most of the time, sometimes I had people that helped me put on a renewable energy event or different things, but of the time it was just me talking and nobody there.  I've come to believe that more people involved in an event resulted in more awareness and more .... ah .... movement.  I don't know if movement is the best word ... ah, and so the idea of doing an event with other activists ... ah ... was, struck me as valuable.  Defense asks, so on September 2nd, 2014, can you describe what happened when you arrived at the Delta yard ?  Witness responds, well, we arrived at the Delta yard and started setting up the tri pod - we actually had a close call, the van almost drove away with our cables but we rescued them and got  it all set up.  Defense asks, when you came onto the property, did you climb over any fences, or barricades ?  Witness says, no, no.  Defense asks, did you know that it was private property.  Witness responds,  ah ... I suppose I knew that it was private property but I confess, it was early in the morning and dark and I was in the back of the van.  I didn't notice any no trespassing signs, I'm sure they were there, but I didn't see them, so I didn't give that much thought.  Defense asks, how did you select the spot where the tripod was ultimately erected ?  Witness answers, I'm not sure I was in that conversation, ah .... but when I look at it, I see why that spot would have been chosen, it was a place where those four lines came together.  And, it's the place where the oil train was.  Defense asks, and once the tripod was erected, what happened next ?  Witness continues, we sat a long time, I mean people began to come but mostly they didn't talk to us and we had those 7 other good people who were sorta support crew and we had a legal person and a media person and ... ah ... mostly they dealt with people.  We didn't talk to very many.  Defense asks, when did the police begin to arrive ?  Witness says, I'm afraid I can't be very specific as to time because my memory is not that good .... ah, it was, I would say that the first police officer arrived fairly early, ah ... but didn't actually, I don't recall her approaching us .... and little by little there were more and then, the ... ah ...  the plain clothes came in and talked to some of us.  Defense says something ( ? ) and asked for a plain clothes ( ? ).  Witness responds, as I recall it.  Defense asks, and was the officer that you spoke of a she, officer Andrews, that testified earlier ?  Witness answers, I believe so.  Defense, from the Everett police department ?  Witness answers, I think so.  Defense asks, your interactions with law enforcement, how would you describe them ?   Witness states, civil, no one was disrespectful to me and I was disrespectful to no one.  Defense asks, did yo have any interactions with any employees or anyone from BNSF other than the law enforcement officer ?  Witness states, I don't recall any interactions, I recall ... ah .... one guy in particular who was constantly around and taking notes, I mean he was moving all the time and I never spoke to him, I don't know who he was. But I had a hunch he was BNSF.  Defense asks, when you were approached by special agent ( ? ) [ people in the room have the uncanny ability to cough at precisely the wrong instant ] and you were told that you were under arrest, did you resist ?  Witness answers, no.  Defense asks, not even passively ?  Witness continues, well, I mean, I sat there and I was locked to the thing so, but I didn't ... I was respectful, they were respectful, there was no conflict.  Defense asks, what eventually happened ?  Witness says, what eventually happened, ah ... and I haven't heard anybody mention this, there was a point in this, where the Bothell people came up, supposedly because they were the experts, I was told, on tripod extractions and they brought this gigantic, it looked like a concrete saw, gas powered saw .... and it looked like for a while they were going cut us off and frankly I was frightened.  But they decided it was not safe and they put it away, and and that's when they brought in the ... ah ... the claws, jaws of life.  And so, we sat there, I was worried, you mentioned my non evidentiary stuff, I was worried my herringbone, that I've had for 30 years in a hat that no one thinks looks good on me, and ah ... I had taken the coat off because it was in the way of cutting the things ( ? ) over my lap and I put my hat on there, because they covered my head with a firemans jacket and when that was over they took the hat and coat away.  When they got it cut off and took me up and arrested me they took the hat and coat away and I didn't know why they would do that, but ( ? )  .  Defense asks, after the events of September 2nd, 2014 do you believe that you succeeded in your goal, of raising awareness ?  Witness says, ah ... I have to believe ... I don't know that I could quantify, I mean, the news of what we did went out to a couple of hundred news outlets around the world and so more people, a lot of people knew we were doing this and I'm sure some of them were quite glad to see it.  And I have to believe some people saw that and said ..... that's right, that's right, we gotta do something and what they did, I have no clue.  Defense asks, do you believe that your actions on September 2nd, 2014 were necessary ? Witness responds, absolutely ... I mean .... ah .... among the letters to the editor, the op-eds that I've written for the Herald mostly, there's one where I quoted Martin Luther King Jr's., a fierce urgency of now statement, and I said that applies as much to the climate change issue as it does, or did, did or does to civil rights ... ah .... the urgency .... ah ... can I say why ?, I think it's so urgent - defense interrupts, yes, that was my next question.  This, and I'm no scientists, I'm a music teacher, but I've read a great deal and one of the things I think I've learned correctly is that the most urgent issue is carbon dioxide, if carbon dioxide, once it's in the atmosphere it remains there for a long, long, long time, hundreds of years and it, it traps heat.  Methane, for example, which if you follow the environmental news, you know there's a massive methane leak in California that's been going since October and there not going to stop it until probably March ... ah ... but Methane lasts in the atmosphere about - prosecution interrupts.  Prosecution objects as non responsive, the question is why do you believe this is ( connected ? ).  Witness says, I'm sorry.  Court states that objection is sustained.  Court tells defense to ask another question.  Defense tells witness, finish your thoughts on why you believe it is a threat, it was necessary.  Witness states, I believe it was necessary because we have to act, we simply have to act.  It's not a question of should we, it's what do we do.  Defense thanks witness, no further questions.

2:59:38

Court says something about examination.  Court asks if defense has any other questions.  All defense is finished.  Court proceeds with cross examination by prosecution.

Prosecution states, so you said on your ( ? ) examination, you did know you where trespassing.  Witness replies yes.  Prosecution asks, and were you informed you were trespassing ?  Witness answers, ah yes, I believe that was officer Stapleton.  Prosecution asks, and were you asked to leave ?  Witness answers, I was.  Female voice mumbles something.  Prosecution asks, and was it your goal to delay a train ?  Witness states, I think I'de have to say yes to that.  Prosecution asks, in all the time that you"ve spent focusing on global warming, do you believe you've had any successes in regards to the things that you"ve done, other than this protest ?  Witness responds, ( ? ) yes.  Prosecution has nothing further.  Court asks all defense if they have anything further - defense has nothing further.  Witness is excused, court directs defense to call next witness.

3:00:50

Defense, female voice, unidentified, calls Michael Lapointe.  Witness is sworn in.  Court directs female defense to proceed.

Defense asks, how long have you lived in the Pacific Northwest ?  Witness answers, since August of 1999.  Defense asks, how long have you lived in Everett ?  Witness states, since about 2004.  Defense asks, what do you do for a living ?  Witness describes, right now I'm one of two owners of a coffee shop in Everett, on Colby Avenue, the ( ? ) coffee house.  Defense asks how long witness has been doing that.  Witness states, at two locations, it's been a total of about 5 years.  Defense asks, I'm just going to ask you first a little bit about what brought you to September 2nd, OK ?  Witness replies, OK.  Defense asks,  um .... so when did you first become concerned about climate change issues ?  Witness answers, ( pause ) probably way back, when the first Earth days were ( ? ) and I started hearing about some of the, ... ah ... ideas that were being ( ? ) around about the dangers of continuing to pollute our planet.  I really didn't becore very involved to the point of taking action until I moved to the Northwest.  Defense asks, and why is that ?  Witness responds, I had been in the past, since I was 18 years old, originally helped organize a factory in Massachusetts, and I became politically active at that point and I spent years lending my support to other union groups and local issues or issues I thought were important and I had taken part in demonstrations and at some point before moving to the Northwest I had disconnected a little bit, so it's hard, you know, to continue to keep up that pace for a long time.  So, it's not that I stopped being active, I took a step back, but when I moved to the Northwest, ah ... there was just too many things going on, and I felt that it was necessary for me to start, to become again politically engaged to the point of taking or participating in our political and economic system.  Defense asks, and why climate change ?  Witness responds, because climate change, I feel, is the most important of all the issues.  Because if we fail at saving our planet nothing else matters.  Defense asks, OK .... um  .... did you ever have concerns about rail ( ? ) Pacific Northwest [  Note : this defense attorney has the particularly objectionable speech characteristic of raising her voice into a higher whine sort of pitch, while at the same time, trailing off her volume AND running words together, making understanding of what she is saying impossible ].  Witness answers, I became associated with some people in Bellingham who I met through my ... ah ... political involvement of running for office who had taken part in a demonstration to ... um ... ah ... protest the ... ah ... coal terminal plan for Cherry point area in Ferndale.  Defense then asks,  OK ... um ... did you take any other, what have you done, in terms of trying to fight climate change in ( ? ) .  Witness responds, the basic, standing and holding a picket sign, writing letters, contacting elected officials, going to meetings, city council meetings and talking about the concerns I had.  And, asking on the local level with our politicians, would, should, they should get involved in the issues, even though they're not .... well they are locally important.  Local officials need to be more involved because it's local but it's ( ? ) also global.  Defense asks, um ... in terms of, so how often would you say, trying to fight climate change, on a weekly basis ?  Witness answers, it's hard to say, I didn't keep a list, but I'de say continually, to some degree.  Defense asks, so it was a big part of your life ?  Witness answers, yes, as time has gone on, in the last 10 or 15 years it's been ever increasingly more important.  A time consuming part of my life.  Defense questions, are you running for office, right now ?  Witness responds, yes I am.  Defense asks,  OK and is that a platform or big part of your campaign ?  Witness answers, yes, it is and has been.   Defense asks, OK, um have you run for office before ?  Witness states, yes, this will be my third campaign.  Defense asks, OK and so it sounds like, when did you, I'm sorry .... let me rephrase .... when was your first campaign ?  Witness says, 2012.  Defense asks, OK and since then, this is your third one .... um ..... was climate change always a big part of your campaign ?  Witness responds, yes, it was.  There were many issues I attempted to bring to the public.  Defense asks, but climate change ?  Witness continues, a major one.  Defense continues, um ... besides global warming, how would you say these trains, specifically BNSF trains affect your local community ?

3:05:56

Witness says, in a very direct and frightening way.  As was mentioned before, the derailment and subsequent explosion in Canada killed 47 people, those same types of trains come thru my community in Everett every day and there are plans to increase it ( ? ) ten fold.  We're talking mile and half long tanker trains which are virtually time bombs on wheels.  And, they go right through the downtown Everett area where my shop is located and my shop is actually in the half mile radius where the fire ball would be coming down and engulfing my building.  Defense asks, you've seen these trains ?  Witness responds, yes.  Defense asks, and how often would you say they come through ?  Witness states, they come through, it seems like every day ( confusing conflicted response ) so, I'de see them every day they come in, but I understand there getting more and more and the fact is they continue having more of these trains come thru on a daily basis.  Defense asks, why are you worried about that ?  Witness answers, because I care about our community ( ? ) the people I know and care about.  Defense states, so it's not just about climate change, it's also about rail safety issues ?  Witness states, yes, it is, that's a very real part of it.  Defense asks,  OK,  .... um .... is there any other way these trains affect the community besides ... um ... you know, possible, it sounds like explosions ?  Witness responds, well they don't do much for the community to begin with they literally go through our community and cause the possibility of devastation .... ah ... they create some jobs, which is, I've noticed as I'm running for office, they always like to exaggerate through propaganda and manipulating the media as to the effects, or the beneficial effects of having these trains come through as they manipulate the ... ah ... the reality of what kind of jobs will be available through the construction of this coal terminal facility in Ferndale.  Defense asks witness to talk a little bit more about this new coal facility.  Witness asks, the Cherry point facility ?  Defense states, ya.  Witness responds, well, what their doing is there mining the coal in Montana and Wyoming region and their bringing the coal right through our state and they hope to build a terminal in Ferndale, to ship that coal out of our country to China and burn it there, where they have less safety .... ah ... regulations than we have.  Defense states, this sounds like this is happening right in Everett, or near Everett [ implying a question ].  Witness says, the coal trains and the oil trains come right through my ... ah ... city.  Defense asks,  OK, and how do you use the fire wheel ( ? ) at all, as a place to foster awareness ?  Witness answers, that's the whole purpose of the fire wheel.  Defense says, OK, let's talk more about that, why don't you tell me what you've done with the fire wheel.  Witness continues, well, the fire wheel originally came out of the occupy Everett movement, we found that when we were having our encampment outside the Snohomish county administration office on a grassy knoll there back when occupy Wall street was going on that they had rooms in the administration building where many groups could meet.  So, we asked them if we could use that facility to meet the occupy Everett movement and, ... ah ... we were denied that because they said we did not have a non profit license.  You had to be registered as a non profit to use the citizens rooms in the administration building, which made no sense to us, but it was a reality, they were telling us we couldn't meet in our own facilities.  So, part of the discussion that started the fire wheel was that wanting to do in our early discussions was to create a town ( ? ) center, the town square, that's what we're missing in our country we have no place where people can gather.   In the old days, it used to be used to talk about who bought a new cow, how's Mrs. Smith, has she had her child yet ?  That's how information was disseminated in the community, we have nothing like that, where we can meet face to face to discuss what's important to us and the real issues of the day.  We wanted the fire wheel to be that, a community gathering place.  Defense asks, and so, have you held any meetings about climate change and road ( ? )  safety ?  Witness responds, all of the above, we have all kinds of meetings, we have political meetings, we had meetings on coal, the oil trains, civic, religious groups meet there ( ? ).  Defense asks, have you reached out to any other organizations that might be involved in these issues ?  Witness answers, what do you mean by reach out ?  Defense asks, been involved with any other non profits or organizations ?  Witness responds, yes,  I've become part of a ... I participate in many of the meetings there.   Defense asks, can you name some of these ?  Witness hesitates, port Gardner association, Jackie's sustainable port Gardner, I've sat in on their meetings, we've had the coal train watch people meet there, we've had the Sierra club meet there, we've had move on meet there,  all ( ? ) kinds of groups, there's a list, probably hundreds, that I could make, given the time.  Defense asks, have you ever spoken at any of them ?  Witness responds, have I ever spoken at any events ?  Yes, I've spoken at many events.  Defense asks, about these issues ?  Witness answers, I, well I've spoke at, as Jackie mentioned before, I spoke at the last global ... ah ... rally, climate change rally that took place in New York city.  There were also other demonstrations in cities around the world, including Seattle, and I was one of the speakers at that event before the march.  Defense asks, what did you speak about ?  Witness says, exactly what we are talking about now.  I spoke about the dangers associated with global climate change, the oil trains and ... ah ... the effects of and other issues too, that I thought I would direct the baring on our problem with climate change, including the health and safety issues.   Defense continues, ... um ... and I'm just gonna ask a little bit about something for a second ... um ... there were signs that said cut oil trains, not conductors, can you tell me the meaning of those signs ?  Witness states, well, again, going back to the devastating explosion that took place in Canada, part of the reason that happened was because there was one conductor on that train and he had improperly set the parking brake and that's what led to the train going down into that town and exploding.  Had there been two people on that train, they could have watched each other, you know ... so, you know so ... it's more eyes are better as far as safety goes.  Defense asks, rather is interrupted by witness as he adds further.  Witness says, what was happening at the time, we had a demonstration in the Delta yard, there were negations going on between the union and the railroad, they were also attempting to reduce the number of conductors on the train so we wanted to recognize that this is indeed a safety issue and bring it to the light of the community.  Defense asks, to your knowledge, ah .... what happened after September 2nd, with regard to the two crew member policy ?  Witness responds, during negotiations, that was removed from the table.  Defense asks, after September 2nd ?  Witness repeats, after September 2nd.  Defense asks,   ..... um ....and a final question, can you just describe for us how you felt right before September 2nd ?  Witness answers, in regards to the protest planned ?  Prosecution objects, asks relevance of the question.  Defense mumbles something.  Court over rules the objection.  Witness continues, I felt very convinced that this was necessary, I was prepared to face any of the consequences of my action because I understood that by not taking action the consequences would be and will be much worse.  I've always been the kind of person who does what I think is right, regardless of the effects it has, if it's right, you have to do it and it's kinda hard for everybody now days, everybody get through their day and face their own little life personal problems, it's kinda hard to get out of your shell, so to speak, to look around, and see what's going on around you and I think that's a very dangerous situation we have in our country right now.  Far too many people do not understand .... Prosecution interrupts ... witness continues .... the  passion ...prosecution objects on grounds that this is a narrative.  Court states that witness should finish up and that then the court will require another question.  Witness continues, too many people don't, because of personal reasons do not understand what is going on around them, do not have access to the facts, your subject to hearing too many falsehoods or mis representations.  And I think that's a dangerous thing, I always think it's important that the people who know what the truth is, get it out to the people, because the people we elect to represent us are not doing the job and more times than not, not even aware of the facts that they should be aware, the position your in ( ? ).  Defense goes on [ evidently she had more that one more question ].  Defense asks, .... um .... so before ( ? ) September 1st you feel like this was all you can do ?  Prosecution again objects, asked and answered.  Court over rules objection.  Witness states,  yes,  time and time again, I've been disappointed and saw far to many, too little, too late scenarios occur .... something else .... something else has to happen, has to change, I felt it was up to me to make that change.  Defense thanks witness.

3:15:30

Court asks if any remaining defense wish to cross the witness.  Defense all state they have nothing further.  Court asks prosecution if he wishes to cross the witness.

Prosecution asks if witness knew he was trespassing ... witness interrupts and answers, yes I did.  Prosecution asks, were you asked to leave ?  Witness responds, yes, I was.  Prosecution asks, was it your intent that day to delay a train ?   Witness responds, yes, it was.  Prosecution states, you have talked about some of your successes in running for office and about fire wheel, you said your platform also included climate change.  If you were to be elected do you believe that you could do good with climate change, in climate change ?  Witness responds, I believe that myself and people of like mind can get elected, we can do the good we need to do.  Prosecution asks, with regards to fire wall you said .... witness corrects prosecution ..... that's fire wheel ..... prosecution continues, you said that you had several meetings there as a gathering point for anything from the Sierra club to community leaders, do you believe that's been effective in getting some semblance of the word out, so to speak.  Witness responds, yes.   Prosecution asks, some of the things your trying to push ?  Witness answers, yes.  Witness continues, being a coffee shop and being there all the time I'm always talking with people, getting that conversation I think is the most useful thing that comes out of fire wheel.  Prosecution has nothing further for this witness.

Court asks if defense wishes to re direct.  Defense ( Hong ? ) asks, how big is your coffee shop ?  Witness says, it's pretty big ... ( coughing and defense and witness talking over one another make the interchange unintelligible ) ... wide and twice as long.  Defense aks, but in terms of your coffee shop being able to reach the amount of people that a protest could reach would you say that a coffee shop was sufficient ?  Witness answers, no, it's sufficient on a local level, to reach as many people as we need to reach, we need a fire wheel every couple of blocks in this country.  Defense continues, OK .... so ... how many fire wheels would you say you need compared to a tripod ?  Prosecution objects, as speculation.  Court says, that is speculation ( huge laughter ) .  Defense asks, is it fair to say, in order to bring attention to this cause, this important cause that you would need a lot more fire wheels ?  Witness answers, yes, that is a fair assessment.  Defense thanks witness.  Court asks, any other defense wish to question ?  All defense have nothing further.  Court asks if prosecution has anything further, prosecution says no.  Court thanks witness and witness steps down.

3:18:40

Court directs Defense to call their next witness.  Witness is E Spoerri and is sworn in.  Defense proceeds.  Defense ( Joyce ? ) asks, could you tell me a little bit about your activism with ( ? ) ?  Witness responds, I first heard about climate change when I was in high school, in the early 90's, I wasn't aware of anybody doing anything about it until 2011 when Bill McKibbon circled the White house with an inflatable pipe line.  That was the first action I ever say on TV and I thought it was informative and visual, it was something needed to get the discussion going.  And then, two years later, 2013, a group of people started kind of a chapter of Bill McKibbon's organization here in Seattle.  I joined then, we worked on creating rallies, I think we had done one, one major one in that first year and I helped making signs and we pamphlet ed .... ah ... ah .... I also during that first year I joined a citizens lobby group to advocate for national carbon tax and we wrote letters to legislators and newspapers ... and then I also took a on line climate course.  Defense asks, and why do you care about climate change ?  Witness responds, well ..... um ..... I'm really concerned about ... you know, I think we have the responsibility to prevent problems before they get out of control.  I'm really concerned about drought here in Washington and California and globally, it really bothers me to think that were just fighting problems ( ? ) I think we have the responsibility to try to prevent problems and it's .... um .... it's ( ? ) responsibility.  Defense asks, do you have specific concerns about climate change impacting the Northwest, your home ?  Witness answers,  yah, .... well .... the fact that our snow pact isn't ... ah ... we don't have as much snow and much water .... um .... it concerns me, the wild fires, as climate change gets worse there's more likelihood of more fires and .... um .... I think that's devastating, the loss of property,  the fact that firefighters have to risk their lives to put them out.  I absolutely think we need to prevent that.  Defense asks, and do you have concerns about the dangers and safety issues inherent in the transportation of coal and oil thru our area ?  Witness responds,  absolutely, um ... the trains ... ah ... not everything's been done to make the trains safe .... the number of conductors has been limited, the trains .... um ... are filled with oil, making them more likely to explode then if there was less oil per car, the coal, the dust causing illness and the potential for spills all along the Columbia river um ... yah.  Defense asks, prior to September 2nd, 2014 was it your feeling that your actions were making an impact that you thought necessary to change the course of events, that climate change projections predict ?  Witness answers, no, not at all, ... um ... for me the major things I learned  in my introduction to this full movement and from the climate course I took on line, I never saw anywhere in any news, I didn't know .... I didn't know these facts until I went looking for them.  None of my friends know anything about it, like .... um ... um ... I didn't realize that this state is ranked as becoming a major carbon corridor, a fossil fuel corridor.  There are many proposals to increase the size of the refineries, and the capacity of transporting oil into the state ....  estimated that it could be five times more fuel than the Keystone XL pipeline.  Right now, in Vancouver their planning to build the largest coal and oil refinery in North America and I don't know anybody that knows that outside the circle of climate people.  And, further more, I read that they are able to quantify how much carbon we could actually burn and it's one fifth of the known fossil fuel reserves on the planet and that is a total surprise because everywhere on the news I'm hearing the opposite that fossil fuel companies are actively looking for more fossil fuel reserves, their trying to dig further out in the ocean and get more oil, their trying to frack and get more natural gas.  So, I was completely surprised to hear that we can't even burn the fossil fuels that we know about.  The atmosphere and the ocean are close to saturation point and so we can't burn these fuels, so this, these plans to make Washington into a carbon corridor are completely, completely in the wrong direction.  And, the earth can't sustain it.  And finally, I learned that we only have a short window of opportunity to address these problems, maybe 10 to 15 years and so that's the urgency, you know, these are huge changes that we have to make and we don't have a lot of time.

3:25:31

Defense asks, so you feel a great sense of urgency to address these issues and do you feel also that there's mis information in the media, that ( ? ) folks aren't getting the information accurately ?  Prosecution interrupts, objects as speculation.  Defense states, I asking her personal feelings about whether she felt information, ( ? ) defense mumbles something further.  Court sustains objection, instructs defense to ask a different question.  Defense asks, did you feel like your friends were well informed about climate change, your friends that were not specifically involved.  Prosecution again interrupts, objects for the exact same reasons.  Court asks for defense to respond to the objection.  Defense states, I would say that she has an awareness of her friends and their understanding of climate change and that's ( ? ) [ it is both unfortunate and evident that this attorney has voice characteristics that compound his poor speaking abilities, with respect to pace, inflection and distinctness ] the rest of his response is not transcribe able.  Court overrules the objection, tells witness she can answer the question.  Witness continues, well not just my friends, but I think we ( who is we ? ) have a general unawareness of these basic facts.  Prosecution interrupts, says, non responsive.  Court overrules again, directs witness to answer.  Witness continues, she is at first, lost, confused, but then continues .... I think, I think the proper information is not reaching the public.  Defense asks, was that part of your motivation, to engage in this civil disobedience ?  Witness responds, yes, because we want to let the people know that this state is on the brink of becoming a carbon corridor.  We have a choice right now, either invest more in fossil fuel infrastructure that will increase the amount of carbon that's been put in the Earth or we can take that money and invest in something else.  Right now is the time to make that choice, because of the namy proposals to build more infrastructure and we're trying to say that ... um .... first of all, this is happening and the citizens of Washington, we need to know that this is happening.  I don't know that, I only know that because I went out of my way but I do not believe that people are aware of these proposals and then ..... [ witness trails off ].  Defense asks, do you feel like your actions, acts of disobedience, prevented a greater harm ?  Witness responds, well, that's my intention absolutely, if we continue without changing our course, it will be ... serious, people are already fleeing climate change around the world.  If we continue and we exasperate the problem by sending out more carbon there will be serious loss of life, serious problems .... down the road.  Defense want's to ask sort of a background question, how long have you been doing ( ? ) ?  Witness states, since 97.  Defense asks, and you care deeply about ( the region ? ) and citizens ?  Witness states, ya .... I think it's beautiful ... feel very lucky to be here and that's part of my motivation, you know, I hate to see this beautiful place be used as if ... you know, and there being a vehicle for deforestation, I think if we knew about it, if the citizens knew, I think they would make better choices.  Defense thanks witness  Court asks if there is anything further from defense.  There are no further questions.

3:29:22 Court allows prosecution to cross this witness.

Prosecution asks, referring to September 2nd, did you know you were trespassing ?  Witness answers,  not exactly, I knew I was sitting on the tripod and some track.  Prosecution asks, were you informed that you were trespassing ?  Witness responds, yes.  Prosecution asks, were you asked to leave ?  Witness responds, yes.  Prosecution asks, did you ( leave ) ?  Witness answers, after our protest was over, but not initially.  Prosecution asks, so after you were removed ?  Witness responds, yes.  Prosecution asks, was it your intention to delay a train ?  Witness responds, yes.  Prosecution tells court he has nothing further with this witness.  Court asks defense if they have any further re direct.  Defense has nothing further.  Court directs witness to step down.

3:30:16

Court directs defense to call their next witness.  Unidentified attorney asks if there can be a short recess.  Adds further, Defense would like to address the court at that time.  Court tells jury they will be excused for a short time, reminds them of the no discussion mandates.  Court announces that the jury has left, asks for all to be seated.  Court directs someone to speak.  Defense attorney ( ? ) says, at this point, we have [ something about my client leaving ] we have no other witnesses.  Continues, at a minimum, I would  like to have a chance to review the material you took from her ( ? ) before she took the stand.  The way it has worked out obviously, both the state's case and our case has gone a lot faster than anticipated.  In fact, as the court may recall, the state actually, last time we were asked to estimate the length of the case, the state said their case would take two and a half days.  Obviously, that was an over estimate. their allowed to change their plans, but in reliance upon that we talked to experts and had just two scheduled for tomorrow, that could make it and then two experts and a layman scheduled for Thursday.  We did make an effort to get Dr. James to come today, but that effort didn't succeed.  So, that's where were at, we have basically two experts for tomorrow, no other witnesses scheduled tomorrow because it has gone much faster than anticipated, unless Dr. ( ? ) could come tomorrow .... another unidentified attorney ( Joyce ? ) interrupts, says .... I made an attempts to contact Dr. ( ? ) and have him come tomorrow and he is unable to.  Original attorney continues, so were in the unfortunate position of running out of witnesses, I guess what I ask today is to recess for the day becasue I don't think any of the ( ? ) take that long  ... we can certainly get the two witnesses we have scheduled for tomorrow, along with my client in tomorrow and that way we can review all of the material the state has brought with them without delaying the employees any further.  I regret all this, but it's very hard to plan these things, especially with experts, as the court knows, very well.  Prosecution says it will defer to the court, with regards to the timing of everything, and that it believes we can get Brockway ( ? ) to look at things, and that's going to take more than an hour and a half, then I understand what he is saying.  Court asks unidentified how long he/she expects the direct examination of experts takes, tomorrow ?  Unidentified states, we've got Mr. LaPlace and Dr. Gammon ( ? )  ..... unidentified female interrupts ... I would say Dr. Gammon, not more than an hour.  Court asks, the eye witness ?  Unidentified female says, I would say ( mumbles ) , at this point another voice states, I would say less than that.  Original Defense voice says we could  be done in the morning, if we recess now, even with Brockway's testimony tomorrow, and continues, I don't think the jurors will object to being sent home early.

3:33:56  Court announces, we will bring the jury back in, for court instructions as previously discussed, and we will recess for the day.  Court announces that commencing tomorrow, court has the contempt issue to deal with at 8:30 - call the case for be ready for trial at 9 AM.  Court says there may be a delay with respect to building entry at opening, goes on about trying to get started as early as possible, but unforeseen means court does not know when proceedings may encounter unanticipated delays - court does not want to take any chances that case will not conclude by Friday, this week.  Court asks who is the civilian witness who is not available until Thursday.  Unidentified female states, it's Mike Elliot.  She further states, he is a former BNSF employee.   Court mumbles something,  adds something about time.  Court states, we will bring the jury back in, instruct them and recess for the day.  Jury returns.  Court tells jury that court will recess,  return for start tomorrow at 9 AM.  Court adds the warning to not discuss the case among st themselves or anyone else.  Court states, If you ( jury ) are communicated with or contacted in anyway about your service as a juror please contact the authorities right away or contact a member of my court staff.  The court wants to know about any inappropriate conduct on the part of the public to communicate with you.  It is important to disclose that information.  Also do not access any media that is reporting about this case, if you do, advise my court staff in the morning, so steps can be taken.

3:37:50  Court is in recess.

End of day two ( Tuesday )

Comments (0)
If you wish to comment, please login.