Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Judge Mary Ann Driscoll has dismissed criminal charges against protestors including Al Gore’s daughter on the grounds that their actions were necessary to prevent climate change.
Judge sets aside charges in pipeline protest
Jordan Graham Thursday, March 29, 2018
…
The protesters, including Karenna Gore, the daughter of former Vice President Al Gore, were facing charges of trespassing and disturbing the peace after climbing into a construction trench. On Tuesday, prosecutors asked a judge to convert the criminal charges into civil infractions, saying in the event of a conviction they were unlikely to ask for any further punishment. After allowing the motion, Judge Mary Ann Driscoll found the defendants not responsible, saying she agreed with their argument that their actions were necessary to combat climate change.
“Based on the very heartfelt expressions of the defendants who believe, and I don’t question their beliefs in any respect, who believe in their cause because they believe they were entitled to invoke the necessity defense, I’ll accept what they said,” Driscoll said.
…
This finding echoes a similar judgement in England in 2008, in which protestors were cleared of causing £30,000 of criminal damage because necessity defence.
Not guilty: the Greenpeace activists who used climate change as a legal defence
Six Greenpeace climate change activists have been cleared of causing £30,000 of criminal damage at a coal-fired power station in a verdict that is expected to embarrass the government and lead to more direct action protests against energy companies.
The jury of nine men and three women at Maidstone crown court cleared the six by a majority verdict. Five of the protesters had scaled a 200-metre chimney at Kingsnorth power station, Hoo, Kent, in October last year.
The activists admitted trying to shut down the station by occupying the smokestack and painting the word “Gordon” down the chimney, but argued that they were legally justified because they were trying to prevent climate change causing greater damage to property around the world. It was the first case in which preventing property damage caused by climate change had been used as part of a “lawful excuse” defence in court. It is now expected to be used more widely by environment groups.
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/sep/11/activists.kingsnorthclimatecamp
If activists take this in my opinion ridiculous court process as a green light to interfere with fossil fuel installations, fossil fuel companies could suffer economic losses.
It might even lead to loss of life – sneaking onto active worksites, jumping into construction trenches, closing valves without warning on high pressure pipelines and scaling smokestacks is dangerous, both for the activists themselves and for any workers caught up with trying to save activists from their own stupidity.
From here: https://ballotpedia.org/Mary_Ann_Driscoll
My question is, “at who’s request?”. The court’s? The defendants’?
Did she get the case because she’s already retired and could make an outrageous ruling with impunity?
I found the answer to my question by following the footnotes.
(This is Massachusetts law)
So according to this, judge Mary Ann Driscoll is a man?
Could have been at one time, maybe. 😎
But actually, pre-PC English is being used. You know, the English used for centuries before Gloria Steinman and the other feminist got their panties in a wad.
These “protesters” were acting childishly, and the judge accepted that. As almost anyone would, he dismissed criminal charges on the basis that the protesters held childish beliefs, but really believed them, as do little children when they do something incredibly stupid (to us) because “if i didn’t nail the closet door closed, the monsters would come out at night!”
Would the monsters die from closet warming due to increased CO2 if they didn’t get out?
Well trespass is usually a civil not a criminal matter isn’t it? If they broke something it would become criminal. They still haven’t got away with it yet.
Look up criminal trespassing.
Judges should be elected to afford at least an opportunity to replace those that feel a lifetime appointment gives them the right to judge by their opinions rather than by the law. It is perhaps wishful thinking that the Boston judge would be voted out of office, however it would be some consolation to try.
The problem is that it would the citizens of Boston who would be electing the judges.
Judges in Massachusetts are not elected they are appointed.
Reading comprehension is your friend. You should try it some day.
The post I was replying to stated that judges should be elected.
Care to try again?
Don’t have to try again, my post was factual.
Boston citizens are also citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and are eligible to vote in elections of the Commonwealth.
Factual but immaterial to the comment.
There, that was easy.
The Ma AG is on a climate witch hunt…good luck with that.
https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-schneiderman-former-vice-president-al-gore-and-coalition-attorneys-general-across
P.S. The judge retired a few years ago but signed on as a Reserve Judge, meaning she can try cases that will last less than 90 days in Ma.
I can Imagine that the Ma AG gave her a call to take the case….
http://dailybail.com/home/climate-witch-hunt-the-new-inquisition.html
https://ballotpedia.org/Mary_Ann_Driscoll
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ecowatch.com/pipeline-protestors-acquitted-boston-2554052139.amp.html
Also click on link to civil disobedience center in above article. There is no questions that someone pulled strings to have this judge try the case…
It may have been factual, it was also irrelevant.
Now let’s hear how it happens that shutting down a pipeline has any effect whatsoever on the demand and use of gasoline and oil products, like heating oil. Judgesa re often totally incompetent and unqualified to render decisions.
This is why it is so important to demonstrate that the pseudo-science of the “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming” is a fraud. Otherwise, you’ll let these hooligans get away with murder and wanton destruction of other people’s property.
The end justifies the means. What could go wrong?
Leftists have always considered themselves to be above the law.
No it’s official.
It’s legal to shoot someone in the act of doing harm to others. Anyone who messes with a pipeline should simply be shot on the spot.
By accepting the necessity defence, judge Driscoll displayed either incompetence or a stunning lack of appreciation for our laws, and the judicial system. The bar for the necessity defense is set high in the US, higher than the one in the UK I believe.
They picked a retired judge and had a closed door meeting to explain what the best outcome would be after they delayed it as much as possible. We are supposed to believe that politics does not influence the law. Politicians don’t respect that rule, or many others.
What do we suppose Bill Clinton wanted to talk to Loretta Lynch about that required a secret meeting instead of a phone call at a time when his wife should have been facing federal criminal charges?
Bruce,
I guess it’s a debate for the professionals, but I understand US Judges are political apontees. I also believe Judges in the UK have no political association and represent the law only.
I’m no authority so accept any informed comment on the matter.
In the US Federal judges are nominated by the President then approved or rejected by the Senate.
It’s up to each state how their own judges, local and state, are chosen. IE In Ohio, they are elected. In Massachusetts, they are appointed.
https://ballotpedia.org/Judicial_selection_in_Massachusetts
(Scroll down to the map to see how each state selects its judges.)
So now there legal precedence for tearing down bird and bat choppers and busting the mirrors at the bird fryers?
Really I have no idea about the laws of the crown but it seems to me that there should be a civil route to getting these miscreants if the criminal route doesn’t work.
‘..The protesters, including Karenna Gore, the daughter of former Vice President Al Gore, were facing charges of trespassing and disturbing the peace after climbing into a construction trench…’
Is it possible that the charges were wrong? Seems there should have been a lawsuit claiming property damage and other possible losses seeking monetary restitution.
Your tax dollars at work…(site run by public radio (PRI).
http://occupyworldwrites.org/2018/03/29/judge-drops-charges-against-13-who-argued-pipeline-civil-disobedience-action-was-necessary-to-save-planet/
A better report on this “trial” is this “Well, that’s not quite what happened in court on Tuesday. The prospect of a jury trial was rendered moot when prosecutors reduced the defendants’ charges from criminal misdemeanors to civil infractions (like a parking violation). ”
Another states “Neither Ms Driscoll [the judge] or the court clerk was available for comment. However, one member of the court’s staff who asked not to be named, confirmed to The Independent the judge had found them not responsible. The person denied, however, that the judge had made the ruling on the grounds of legal necessity.”
in other words, the whole eco-terrorists narrative that the judge accepted “legal necessity” is either FALSE or minimally, unconfirmed.
Re-reading what she said – “Based on the very heartfelt expressions of the defendants who believe, and I don’t question their beliefs in any respect, who believe in their cause because they believe they were entitled to invoke the necessity defense, I’ll accept what they said,” Driscoll said.
So: 1. She “doesn’t question their beliefs”. What do their beliefs have to do with anything, and why should the court, or indeed anyone care whether she questions them or not? Red herring much? 2. This one gets tricky: Because a) “they believe they were entitled to invoke the necessity defense” and b) because “they believe in their cause”, c) she’ll “accept what they said”. What kind of twisted, circular reasoning is that?
But yeah, technically, she doesn’t actually say that the necessity defence applies here, only that they BELIEVE it applies. So that makes it alright, I guess.
There IS a valid defence of necessity, and the test is whether the accused BELIEVES they were faced with a ‘lesser of two evils’ situation.
In this case the prosecution should have attacked the ‘reasonableness’ of that belief. If someone was truly concerned about the future of the planet, I would argue that it would not be reasonable to only view assertions from one side. If these activists had really looked at both sides of the question and come to the conclusion that there was an immediate danger, then the defence should be open to them. If, however, they had only followed one side of an argument to justify their beliefs, I suggest that this is not the action of a reasonable person, and that defence should not be open…
“‘Necessity’ is the plea for the infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves.” William Pitt 1783
Dodgy
Whilst it’s necessary for any judicial process to examine both sides of the argument, a judge has the responsibility to examine the reasonable circumstances inherent within the case.
Trespassing and causing criminal damage, in the face of humanities contribution over generations to increasing CO2, would not forestall the effects of climate change, even were it man made.
There are innumerable legal processes these people could have pursued before resorting to civil disobedience, but it seems the celebrity and political influences contributed by one particular protester are enough to frustrate the legal process.
However, I think we should all be careful about calling out a legal official over her decision. These people, in my experience, are anything but daft.
There are, of course, exceptions to every expectation.
It’s looks like the breakdown of law and order.
Seeing as how the US Constitution has been supplanted by 235 years of “precedent” it gets closer each day to, “Katie bar the door”. God help us.
I’ll have to take the judge’s car(s) away from her to prevent her from driving them and causing global warming… Otherwise known as car theft, it’s not because I’m doing it for a good cause. … and the parts will be of use to the less fortunate.
In our legal system, the judge was permitted to render that decision however much we deplore it. A jury could have also ruled likewise. The option of suing the defendants in civil court is still available to the company.
Looks like we will need a Canadian border wall to go along with the Mexican wall, though I’m not sure folks here in the US would provide a smarter jury, nor judge, for that matter. I’ve got to stop watching “Idiocracy”, too many correlations and it’s not even the year 2500 yet!
Should have been Massachusetts border wall. Though probably the Canadian one is a good idea too.
Hell, now that I think about it more maybe just large city border walls.
Canadians are going to need a border wall to keep out the refugees fleeing here when ‘Civil War 2: It’s Back And This Time It’s Personal’ starts in a few years. There’s no way we can survive another hundred million liberals up here.
So sad! If we are currently in danger, it is from activism, not lethargy, not complacency, not intransigence.
The ‘fix was in’.
That’s the way socialist democrats mete out ‘social justice’ in ‘sanctuary cities’ like Boston MA.
Please note that the state of MA has had a looong history of harboring criminals and illegal aliens. Senator Ted Kennedy directed refuge for illegal aliens from Ireland in MA for decades, after letting then-pregnant Mary Joe Kopechne drown when he drunkenly ran his car off of the Chappaquiddick island bridge in 1969.
Social Justice for Socialist Democrats Matters In Massachusetts….
This is where the Left is taking us … replacing common law where man derives inherent rights from God … to the “morality” of Gaia. The new Leftist Gaia law says everyone and everything is subservient to Gaia. Good luck with that. The last time man worshipped Gaia … virgin girls were tossed into volcanos to appease the Fire God. Not only are Gaia worshipers taking us back to 12th century technology … they are adopting the religions of primitive peoples.
I believe Driscoll has invented a new defence: the “Belief Defence”, wherein as long as you believe something is necessary, you get to skate. They believed they were “saving the planet”, and that, apparently is enough for her. Talk about a slippery slope.
Somehow, I don’t think this new defense would work for those who have the opposite belief. It’s a one-way street. Anyone engaging in damaging protests against environmental groups because they believe they are damaging the planet for future generations would have to pay in full and probably serve jail time. No judge would give them mercy for their “beliefs.”
Yes – it exonerates every form of sociopathic criminality….. and it preserves their ‘self esteem’ as well.
And the Tsarnaev brothers strongly believed they needed to stop drone strikes, with all possible means.
Can he use the ‘Gore’ defence to get of death row?
Ethicals lying in the trenches? I guess so.
“Karenna Gore, director of the Center for Earth Ethics at Union Theological Seminary, was not one of the defendants, but she was among those arrested in 2016 for a “mass graves” protest against the pipeline where activists dug then lied in trenches.”
“Gore and the Climate Disobedience Center hoped their colleagues’ case would go to trial where they could test using the “necessity defense” to block or sabotage fossil fuel projects in the name of stopping global warming.”
https://www.westernjournal.com/pipeline-protesters-claim-climate-made-me-do-it-judge-acquits/
This judge is inviting and sanctioning mob violence. If one group can damage or destroy the property of another group simply because they “believe” such actions are proper, where does it end? Why bother finding someone guilty in a court of law before punishing them? Just get a mob together and exact the punishment you believe they deserve. Take revenge on someone simply because you believe they deserve to be punished. The courts have now begun to sanctioned such actions. No limits have been specified. So, apparently, lynching people is not out of the question if you believe it to be necessary. Your beliefs do not have to be proven correct, just sincere. Does this judge realize that she could be putting herself out of a job? If people can punish others and destroy their property without a court order and without allowing them to seek redress in a court of law, why do we need judges or courts? We can just act on our own, based on our beliefs. But first you had better make sure that your mob is bigger than their mob. How can a civil society survive under such conditions when gang violence is the order of the day?
“No man will contend that a nation can be free, that is not governed by fixed laws. All other government than that of permanent known laws, is the government of mere will and pleasure.”
— John Adams
“Even the best of men in authority are liable to be corrupted by passion. We may conclude then that the law is reason without passion, and it is therefore preferable to any individual.”
— Aristotle