Almost a year ago I took a boat ride out to Santa Cruz Island off the coast of California to go on a day hike. The island is part of the Channel Islands National Park, maintained by the National Park Service. I hiked to the highest point, and upon descent, happened across a field strewn with debris from a mid-twentieth century plane wreck.
The debris consisted of torn, crumpled metals, decaying fiberglass and rubber. Most of it was overgrown with grasses, and was a clear and present danger to park visitors. The metals were heavey, jagged, and very sharp. Besides the hazards, of course the debris was also unsightly. Nowhere in park literature was this debris noted, nor were any markers posted warning visitors of hazardous materials in the area.
I began thinking about how to utilize the situation for a couple of purposes. One, to bring light the idea of how these sites could be transformed from areas of hazardous and unsightly debris into park resources: the idea being for the Chief Ranger to put a call out to local artists, to assign crash sites, in order for them to gather the debris, and build works of art.
Another purpose would be to create standing in a court of law and bring to light the current violation of the U.S. Constitution, in addition to the violation of oath of office by members of the 110th U.S. Congress (now the 111th U.S. Congress).
I booked another trip to the island the following weekend, arrived on the Friday of Presidents’ Day weekend, and spent that day roaming a quarter square mile, collecting debris, gathering it to the point of impact. I used bailing wire and pliers, and built a sculpture with the prevailing winds in mind.
I called the Chief Ranger of the park and informed him of the situation. He said the idea about creating resources out of dangerous and unsightly debris was interesting, but I'd have to take that up with a magistrate. At one point in the conversation while discussing the clear and present danger to visitors, he said, "That debris has been out there for years and no one has ever gotten hurt by it."
A few weeks later I received this letter:
United States Department of the Interior,
National Park Service
March 3, 2008
Mr. De Herrera,
You admitted moving pieces of a historic airplane wreck during an interview with the Ranger (a Federal Law Enforcement Officer) while you were on East Santa Cruz Island. You admitted placing pieces in a pile after you were informed that it was illegal to disturb, destroy, remove or collect anything in a National Park.
You are being issued violation notices for the following offences:
36 CFR 2.62(a)—Memorialization
36 CFR 2.31(a)(2)—Tampering
You are required to appear in court. You will be notified by mail of your court appearance date by the Central Violations Bureau.
W.R. Nelson
US Park Ranger
Channel Islands National Park
I was never "informed" of what was illegal. There was no ranger to greet visitors with this information. But as they say, being ignorant of a law is no excuse for breaking it. A few weeks later I recieved an envelope with three notices to appear for Disturbing Historic Plane Site, Disturbing Natural Resources, and Tampering.
I went to the law library in the Santa Barbara County Court House, to look at the codes of federal regulation.
CFR 2.62(a)—Memorialization
The installation of a monument, memorial tablet, structure, or other commemorative installation in a park area....
CFR 2.31(a)(2)—Tampering
Tampering or attempting to tamper with property or real property, or moving, manipulating or setting in motion any of the parts thereof....
CFR 1.3—Penalties
A person convicted of violating a provision...shall be punished by a fine as provided by law, or by imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, or both, and shall be adjudged to pay all costs of the proceedings.
I looked into my defense:
[In a federal matter] one is arraigned before a federal magistrate.... If found guilty, one can appeal, and it’s then heard by a federal judge.... If found guilty by the judge, [the matter] then goes to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and from there to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The opening statement is supposed to focus on what the evidence will show.... If the judge believes the evidence being discussed is irrelevant, one can argue a theory of defense....
Defense of Necessity
[These defenses are] called affirmative or justification defenses, because instead of merely attempting to deny that one committed the minor violation, they are arguing circumstance justified the violation of a minor law in order to attempt to stop a greater criminal act or to prevent a serious danger from occurring. [This] defense has been a part of common law in England and has become an established principle in U.S. criminal law.... There are five elements in the defense of necessity, each of which must be proven:
- There is a danger or harm.
- The danger is imminent.
- Other methods have been inadequate to remove the danger.
- The action taken was a lesser evil than the danger.
- A reasonable person would believe that this action could remove the danger.
http://san.beck.org/...
I went to court and applied the Defense of Necessity to my act of civil disobedience (the government dropped the charge of disturbing a historic site because it did not meet the criteria). It's being applied on the grounds that the material was hazardous, but more importantly, it brings to the court's attention the greater harm of the U.S. Constitution being violated by the 111th U.S. Congress.
Here is the sculpture which was later torn down by the NPS and Department of Interior.
Note: engine part which was anchor to construction--along with metal still imbedded at point of impact--the piece was crafted to denote path of craft upon impact, which coincidentally or not, was approximate to prevailing winds.
Yesterday I received notice from the U.S. District Court, Central District of California:
Court ORDERS the transcripts of the CVB trial held on May 16, 2008 and Sentencing Hearing held August 22, 2008.... The Court sets the following schededule:
- Sentencing and Trial Transcripts due February 20, 2009.
- Briefs due by March 10, 2009.
- Status Conference hearing is set for March 23, 2009 at 9:30 a.m.
The judge in the matter is the Honorable Robert M. Takasugi, Senior U.S. District Judge: http://www.takasugifellowship.com/...