|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remarks by Judge Peter Cahill at Conclusion
of ATK Gandhi Action Hearing
Hennepin County District Court
April 23, 2010 |
|
Well, I’ve had a week to think about this case. You’ve had not only a week, you’ve had much longer. I was curious to see what we would discover today and I found it compelling.
I’m going to start by explaining why I am not, as part of this disposition, imposing $100 in court costs.
What I found was a group of people who were very sincere, very compassionate, and I have to give you credit for one thing I don’t always see among protesters: and that is humility. There is not an arrogance about your message, there is more a plea for, almost a desperation, to hear of the injuries of others as you try to stop the violence you see around the world. That’s refreshing. I think your actions are consistent with the highest standards of the traditions of civil disobedience, Dr. King and Gandhi, who you celebrated by doing the protest on his birthday, which I think is very appropriate. I commend you also that you were nonviolent, damaged no property, intimidated no individuals, but rather chose to subject yourselves to arrest in order to get your message across in a nonviolent manner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In court ( l to r) Roger, Geri, Steve and Kate. |
|
|
|
|
Again, with all of you out-ranking me in age, you are the kind of people I want to be like when I grow older. Your message is serious and your message is compelling, as I said. The information you provided was very educational to me and worth my time. So, Mr. Cuthbertson, you don’t have to worry about inconveniencing the Court; it was not an inconvenience – it was actually some of the best time I’ve spent on the bench this week. Or this month. Or even this year. It was worthwhile.
How would a jury have handled this? I don’t know. I really don’t know how a jury - if it had been submitted to one - would have found you guilty or not guilty. Your claim of right defense seems to be thoughtful and not simply based on a moral belief that you can disregard the law but that there exists internationally and otherwise laws that gave you the right to do what you did. And so it is possible, certainly, that a jury would have found you not guilty. To some extent, I don’t have to make that decision today. I don’t have to find you guilty or not guilty because of the disposition we have entered into. I don’t have to make a finding of guilt or not guilty.
And that is why I am not imposing $100 in court costs; because of the seriousness and importance of the message that you have given today. It sounds like every Wednesday, besting the Post Office, neither rain nor sleet … (laughter in the courtroom)
Now I’m going to tell you why I am not going to impose zero dollars in court costs. And that is because I am familiar with not only the trespass laws but the claim of right defense. I was a Public Defender, a private criminal defense lawyer, a city prosecutor, and a county prosecutor in my career. And I’ve dealt with protest cases and let’s be clear – and I think the defendants are clear, there’s a difference between a right to enter on the property and a claim of right. If you have a good faith belief that you have a right, and, as set out in your proposed jury instructions, which are accurate, and have a good faith belief – even if you are mistaken that you have a right, is a defense to a trespass charge. As I said, there is a difference between a claim of right and a right.
My reading of the law through the years including not only the cases cited by the defense but also State vs Scholberg (sp?) is that you do not actually have a right to violate the trespass laws or the treaties. The difference being that following International Law or the Constitution as the supreme law of the land –which recognizes the Treaty power, may, you may be right, violate international laws to make such munitions. You may be right that depleted uranium munitions may violate international law. Cluster bombs might violate international law.
But that’s not why we are here today. And to be honest, I think it is way above my pay grade as a State Trial Court Judge to decide those weighty issues of international law. I’m here because we have a trespass case. And this case demonstrates the tension that exists between property rights and what we hold to be the most sacred rights, the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment rights to freedom of expression. And in reading today’s case law interpreting the First Amendment and the State Constitution, it is my understanding that private property owners can restrict protest activity, keep it off of private property, even if that private property is extensive, even a large shopping mall, a large hospital complex, - that private property owners are permitted to keep people off – even if those persons are engaging in First Amendment, protected, freedom of expression. That’s what the law is. I’m not saying if that’s right or wrong in any case, that’s what the law is. But, that’s one judge’s interpretation of whether you have a right or not. Again, that’s not to say if you have a claim of right. If your claim of right, based on international law, is sincere and in good faith, it would amount to a defense. What I’m saying is my analysis of the law that you don’t have a right to be there doesn’t not mean you don’t have a claim of right. And you can present it today to our “phantom” jury or to any future juries. I’m just giving you my opinion why I am not going to impose zero dollars court costs.
So, what am I going to do? For all four of you, I’m going to continue the case for six months for dismissal automatically without any further court appearance under the condition first that you not be arrested for any trespass activity at Alliant Techsystems. You are free to attend any of the Wednesday protests. This does not limit you in any way from doing that. It does prohibit you from any further arrests. If any further arrests happen, we’ll be back in court and this case will be reactivated. You will still have a right to a jury trial but the case will not be disposed of, it will be reactivated.
I am imposing $1 in court costs – or, by your conscience, one hour of community service – which can’t include protest activity at Alliant Techsystems. I would encourage you to consider devoting time, maybe your hour, to Gillette Children’s Hospital. My sister, my older sister who has now passed, had polio and was in a wheelchair or on crutches for pretty much her whole life. She was helped, and other children who were disabled were helped by the Children’s Hospital; it joined the Shriners’ Hospital. Given your emphasis today about the terrible effects it has on children, I hope you will consider devoting some of your time to our children; I’m sure you already do. But that is one thing that came to my mind – I’m offering that but I’m not requiring that you do it. The children of the world are obviously a huge concern to you and I hope this is one local place where you could spend an hour showing that your compassion embraces all the children - which I don’t doubt. And I leave that up to your conscience.
Someone might ask, Well, why a dollar? Its almost a joke –well, its not. The law has a long history of a dollar in damages being a symbol. And a symbol sometimes can be more effective. Will Eden Prairie Police or the City of Eden Prairie benefit, or the Fourth Judicial District benefit if I imposed $400 in court costs? It is a drop in the bucket compared to the budget deficits we face nowadays. I think it is more important that we have a symbol. It is my ruling that I believe that Alliant Tech has certain property rights but your message was important, nonviolent, and should be respected for what that message was. That is the courts ruling. You are at your conscience to obey – or not. But for today, we are adjourned." |
|
|
|
|
| Defendent Steve Clemens blog on his experience "A Difference Between Night and Day: A Tale of Two Judges" - click here » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
