| Submit your comments on this article |
| Great White North |
| Opening Statements made in Alaska Greenpeace Trial |
| 2005-05-05 |
| KETCHIKAN — Greenpeace made a "business decision" to ignore a state agency's order for its ship to remain anchored until marine fuel spill laws were followed, a prosecutor said Tuesday. "We've got a schedule to keep here in Southeast Alaska. Gov'ment regs only apply to oil companies, not to us Stewards of the Environment™" The environmental group, the captain of a ship it leased and the ship's agent are charged with misdemeanor criminal counts of operating a vessel without a spill contingency plan or proof of financial responsibility in case of a spill, as required by state law. State law applies to everyone, including Environmental Weenies. Greenpeace, Capt. Arne Sornenson and ship agent Willem Beekman have pleaded innocent to operating the nearly 1,000-ton motor yacht Arctic Sunrise without the plan and proof of financial responsibility. "We're innocent of all charges, Judge. We're Teflon. Pure and clean and nothing sticks to us." In his opening statement, the Ketchikan Daily News reported, prosecutor James Fayette said the ship, which carries up to 75,000 gallons of petroleum products, was not about to remain anchored in Ketchikan just because the Department of Environmental Conservation demanded that it stay until its regulatory paperwork was in order. "Damn the paperwork, full speed ahead!" There were publicity events awaiting the ship's arrival and important reporters to host onboard, Fayette said. "We've got places to go and people to see. "This is publicity," he said. "It was going to motor around Southeast Alaska for publicity." Fayette told the jury that publicity is the lifeblood of any nonprofit organization's fund-raising efforts. Greenpeace had scheduled an event near Long Island and intended to get there on time, said Fayette. "Get them diesels humming, Captain, we have a schedule to keep. And don't get up in a lather about the rocks in the channels. Remember, P-U-B-L-I-C-I-T-Y." "They made a business decision to stay on schedule," he said. Greenpeace and Beekman knew about the state laws when the Greenpeace ship Esperanza came to Alaska for similar purposes in 2003, said Fayette. That ship's papers were in order. The regulatory agency attempted to help the Arctic Sunrise comply in 2004 by connecting Beekman with contractors and regulators who could help and by supplying necessary documents. "Try these people, they will help you to comply. Remember, you do have to comply. Don't forget, now." Sorenson's attorney, James Gilmore, said it's not a crime to operate a non-tank vessel in Alaska without the contingency and financial plans. "It's a violation of the law, but it's not a crime unless it's done with criminal negligence," he said. Willfully disregard the regulations and it can become a criminal matter. He told the jury that to convict the defendants, the jury must find their behavior to be a "gross deviation from the standard of care" that a reasonable person would exercise in a similar situation. Reasonable people would bitch and moan, but in the end they would comply. Gilmore said Sorenson was employed by Stichting Marine Services, a company that provides crews that operate ships. Skippers such as Sorenson rely on Stichting to arrange the legal documentation for the ships their crews operate, he said. "It's not my fault that the Skipper was a scofflaw," sez Greenpeace's lip. Greenpeace Inc. attorney Sidney Billingslea told the jury that Greenpeace was the wrong "person" to charge. Corporations are treated as persons under the law, said Billingslea. Nice try, Wormtongue. "What you will learn is that shipping companies are companies within companies within companies," Billingslea said. Plots within plots, a sea of nested parentheses. Oh, I'm getting a migraine! She traced the ownership of the Arctic Sunrise through the various companies listed on the cover sheet of the state's criminal complaint. One company, Stichting Phoenix, owned the vessel directly, she said. Another, Stichting Marine Services, paid to charter the vessel. Stichting Marine Services turned the vessel over to Greenpeace International of Amsterdam, which allowed Greenpeace Inc., an American nonprofit corporation, to use the ship. Greenpeace International owns the logo that was painted in large letters across the Arctic Sunrise hull, said Billingslea. Greenpeace Inc. had permission to use that logo and the ship in its forest campaign, she said. Big signature, Greenpeace. Will cause you trouble. "Greenpeace had the good fortune, which turned into its bad fortune, to ride on this vessel in Southeast Alaska last year," Billingslea said. Well, Greenpeace, sh*t happens, and you stepped in it. |
| Posted by:Alaska Paul |
| #13 Lol, JFM. Excellent! |
| Posted by: .com 2005-05-05 12:58 |
| #12 They should be sentenced to ten years in a galley: the true envirionmentally friendly ship. |
| Posted by: JFM 2005-05-05 12:57 |
| #11 I will keep Rantburgers up on the developments of the trial this week in Ketchikan, if nothing else, a source of innocent merriment. I hope that the State can stick it to Greenpeace and expose their hypocracy. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2005-05-05 10:45 |
| #10 Confiscate the ship as reparations to the state. |
| Posted by: mojo 2005-05-05 10:20 |
| #9 In his opening statement, the Ketchikan Daily News reported, prosecutor James Fayette said the ship, which carries up to 75,000 gallons of petroleum products, was not about to remain anchored in Ketchikan just because the Department of Environmental Conservation demanded that it stay until its regulatory paperwork was in order. Wha? You mean Greenpeace's ship was not only NOT solar/wind powered, but that they were carrying 75,000 gallons of that hated oil? I'm dumbfounded, I tell ya! There's gotta be a Greenpeace-Halliburton connection here! He told the jury that to convict the defendants, the jury must find their behavior to be a ''gross deviation from the standard of care'' that a reasonable person would exercise in a similar situation. Actually, I would argue the greenies have MORE of a duty to comply. Ya know, the whole ''some are more equal than others'' argument turned and it's head and bite 'em in the arse! |
| Posted by: BA 2005-05-05 09:55 |
| #8 You got it RC! The same irony can be found in the operations of alot of these self-appointed angels and protectors of something or another. They tend to do alot toward destroying and defiling what they claim to love. It's lost upon those leading these groups because their capacity for self-delusion is legendary. Even in the face of the obvious, they cling to the lies and myths they create because they can't deal with the hole in their lives left when those lies and myths are gone. Greenpeace just happen to be enjoying their 15 minutes of infamy right now since they've been pulled out of the sewer and held up to the sun. |
| Posted by: Tkat 2005-05-05 08:21 |
| #7 Lol, Bad - that sums it up! |
| Posted by: Spot 2005-05-05 08:20 |
| #6 So their point is that we need more environmental regulation, but none of it applies to them? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-05-05 08:00 |
| #5 lol. Just goes to illustrate the idiocy of the Greenpeace type mental midgits. |
| Posted by: Tkat 2005-05-05 07:56 |
| #4 I'm still trying to figure out why Greenpeace wants to shave the whales. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2005-05-05 07:50 |
| #3 Greenpeace had scheduled an event near Long Island Takes an awful lot of diesel to motor from Alaska to New York - must be 8,000 miles via the Panama Canal. Nice to hear Greenpeace is doing its bit to reduce emission of greenhouse gases. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-05-05 01:16 |
| #2 My advise to these folks is to just not get in my way. A lawyer will be to late to do you any earthly good. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet 0’ Doom 2005-05-05 12:58:31 AM |
| #1 We didn't do it. But if we did do it, it was because of someone else. But if you find it wasn't someone else, then it wasn't illegal. If it was illegal, then we didn't do it. |
| Posted by: badanov 2005-05-05 00:14 |