Despite my belief that judicial actions in the US require a law degree to decipher, I decided to address Judge James Boasberg’s May 7 denial of an injunction against further activity on the Dakota Access Pipeline. It took quite a while to articulate it in a way that a regular person and a legal-minded person can understand and validate. Since I am not a lawyer, it took even longer for me to decide to post it, until I remembered all the water protectors are still going strong. This is for them. I only wish Judge Boasberg would bother to read it as well. Also, we really need to make the legal system more, not less, accessible to all.
Here is his order:
Judge Boasberg Order of March 7, 2017:
"As the Court concludes that the extraordinary relief requested is not appropriate in light of both the equitable doctrine of laches and the Tribeʼs unlikelihood of success on the merits, it will deny the Motion." - Civil Action No. 16-1534 (JEB)
Here is my dissent:
1.) Define the doctrine of laches. This is the earliest reference to laches available through Wikipedia: "Vigilantibus non dormientibus æquitas subvenit ("Equity aids the vigilant, not the sleeping ones [that is, those who sleep on their rights]" -Ibrahim, Ashraf Ray (April 1997). "The Doctrine of Laches in International Law". Virginia Law Review. 83 (3): 647–692. JSTOR 1073651
2.) Summary of Tribes' timeliness: "The Corps did not hold 389 meetings with Tribes. A significant portion of that '389' number were requests from Tribes to the Corps seeking information about the proposed pipeline and the Corpsʼ process for reviewing it, raising concerns and objections, and requesting meetings to discuss those concerns—many of which were ignored by the Corps.
The Tribe participated fully in the NEPA process. The Tribe submitted three lengthy sets of technical and legal comments on the December 2015 draft EA, comprising hundreds of pages, raising objections and seeking better analysis of spill risks and the Tribeʼs treaty rights.
The Tribe sought to protect its rights when no one else would. The Tribe refused to get out of DAPLʼs way and allow them to do something the Tribe thought was illegal and immoral. Neither the Corps nor DAPL ever explained why, if the pipeline was so safe, they didnʼt select the alternative route and cross the Missouri River north of Bismarck where the river is narrower." — http:// earthjustice.org/features/faq-standing-rock-litigation
3.) My reply regarding the spirituality plea: The main watchword of the water protector camps was "prayer". In other words, the very existence of the camps was the expression of spirituality in the cultural practices of the Sioux people. This alone should demonstrate a rebuttal of the doctrine of laches. Even the Oceti Sakowin came together in prayer at camp, to determine if the current events applied to prophecies. The fact that the Court invoked the doctrine of laches is an attempt to refute reality, and with the help of the authorities and their bulldozers to depopulate and then obliterate the camps, demonstrates a disregard for human and civil rights that is astonishingly savage.
The Standing Rock Sioux people have already succeeded on the merits, namely the presence of the Sacred Stones and other camps, that in a matter of weeks amounted to being the 14th largest community in North Dakota, and which the governments of Morton County, North Dakota, and the United States depopulated and then obliterated using trumped-up rationales. The US District Court has chosen to estoppel the spiritual significance of the camps in determining its order. I believe a sturdier rendition of your conclusion would be to include that fact for all to see, and that these two actions, namely, the attack and destruction of the camps, and the estoppel of what the camps stood for may be seen as willful blindness to the 24/7 engagement by the tribes and camps, for generations, and throughout this time of fighting against the pipeline. Such traumatic acts as these leaves one in total shock.
As it has so many times before, the court chose to use the cover of legal maneuvering to trivialize the fact that a spiritual effort has been in existence all across treaty lands all this time. The court, being part of the larger community, should have stipulated the reality of the camps before even commencing the case. The only ones sleeping here were the American people; the water protectors have been as vigilant about defending their rights as humanly possible.
"Vigilantibus non dormientibus æquitas subvenit ", or to better paraphrase the truth in this case, "equity favors the Sioux, whose vigilance is acknowledged, and whose rights are inviolate." Your order would make that abundantly clear to all who would assert otherwise, and the injunction could now be in place.