Activists against tar sands convicted of trespassing and resisting an officer

Latest

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

(Left to right) Lisa Leggio, Vicci Hamlin and Barbara Carter, the three women who were convicted of trespassing and resisting an officer in a protest against the expansion of tar sands pipelines. PHOTO/MI CATS
(Left to right) Lisa Leggio, Vicci Hamlin and Barbara Carter, the three women who were convicted of trespassing and resisting an officer in a protest against the expansion of tar sands pipelines.
PHOTO/MI CATS

Editor’s note: The following is a press release issued on January 31, 2014. You can contact Chloe Gleichman, 1-734-474-1974, elkecee@gmail.com or Chris Wahmhoff, 269-910-6495, Whammy737@gmail.com.
MICHIGAN—The trial of peaceful activists from Michigan Coalition Against Tar Sands (MI CATS) ended with the jury finding Vicci Hamlin, Lisa Leggio, and Barb Carter guilty of both charges brought against them: trespassing and resisting and obstructing an officer. Supporters are deeply saddened that after deliberation for over 10 hours, the verdict returned as guilty of all counts. The jury was split most of this time, returning to the courtroom several times for clarification. Sentencing was scheduled for March 5. The defendants’ bail was revoked and they were immediately taken into custody.
This action in which Lisa, Barb, and Vicci were a part of, was not only aimed at stopping the expansion of Enbridge tar sands pipelines before the next disaster. It was also to stand in solidarity with First Nations land being turned into a sacrifice zones to mine tar sands. The activists supported the communities currently being poisoned in Detroit and other places because extraction industries put profit before people. Their actions were nothing less than necessary.
Vicci Hamlin, who became a great grandmother Monday, expressed how for her and Lisa as parents, this is a necessity. She stated, “The threat that tar sands extraction poses to my children, grandchildren and now great grandchild requires me to act.” Lisa Leggio, who will be a grandmother next week,  said, “ I came to Michigan from New York, and fell in love with nature and the water. Seeing up-close the devastation that the 2010 tar sands spill caused to the Kalamazoo river and surrounding community, I think about my daughter and her unborn child. What are we leaving them? I did this for them, and we did this for everyone’s children.”
Prosecuting attorney Danielle Dixon and Judge Collette forbad the defense to mention many of the reasons why defendants were taking this action: such as, the 2010 Kalamazoo oil spill of Line 6B, the largest on-land oil spill in US history that still is needing cleanup, past its deadline. On Thursday, Barb Carter was silenced by Judge William Collette for mentioning that she lived three miles away from the Marathon Tar Sands refinery which affects her ability to breathe when entering or leaving her home. The judge also personally questioned her after both the prosecution and defense questioned her.
The MI CATS has vowed to continue peaceful resistance despite the sentence imposed.  As long as Enbridge is attempting to pump toxic tar sands into refineries, which are principally located in communities of color, MI CATS will be standing alongside anyone who wishes to stop them.
The charges used have historically been used to disrupt communities and incarcerate mainly people of color and the poor in Michigan. The fight to challenge Michigan’s Resisting and Obstructing statute is going to continue with the MI CATS appeal.

Free to republish but please credit the People's Tribune. Visit us at www.peoplestribune.org, email peoplestribune@gmail.com, or call 773-486-3551.

The People’s Tribune brings you articles written by individuals or organizations, along with our own reporting. Bylined articles reflect the views of the authors. Unsigned articles reflect the views of the editorial board. Please credit the source when sharing: ©2024 peoplestribune.org. Please donate to help us keep bringing you voices of the movement. Click here. We’re all volunteer, no paid staff.

2 COMMENTS

  1. This is unfair judicial practice. Explain to me where it says the defendant is not allowed to state their case. What is up with a jury that does this and are not aware that they too live near this mess. That they would be so unconscious as to favour the business interests and bully citizens…

  2. I chained myself to a giant excavator along the Keystone Pipeline near Okemah, Oklahoma in February, 2013. My trial is on 6/26 of this year. I am only facing a fine of $250. Most of our people got dismissed. There were thirty three of us. Maybe since Oklahoma was already approved our sentences were not taken seriously? It makes me feel doubly terrible to read of this.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Featured

Supreme Court Dismantles Federal Regulation of Business

Recent Supreme Court decisions have opened the floodgates to allow corporate interests, in the name of profit, to dismantle the system of federal regulation that protects our rights and wellbeing.

Campaign to Debunk the Lies about Migrants and Refugees

Join a campaign to combat the mainstream lies and shine a moral light on the truth: that no human being is illegal, and seeking asylum is a human right.

U.S. Supreme Court’s Criminalization of Homeless Met with Universal Disgust

A movement is growing against the latest “legalized” atrocity on the most vulnerable, in governments, among advocates, ordinary people, and most importantly, by organized and individual homeless people. As said in the homeless movement, “We only get what we are organized to take!”

Project 2025: Far Right’s Plan to Demolish Immigration Threatens All of Us

The right-wing Heritage Foundation's Project 2025, billed as a policy playbook for a second Trump administration, includes provisions that would demolish the existing immigration system and set the stage for mass deportations.

Supreme Court Rules Arresting, Citing People for Not Having Shelter is Constitutional

Criminalizing the homeless for sleeping in public spaces when having no other option does not violate the cruel and unusual punishment clause of U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment, according to new ruling.

More from the People's Tribune