NOT SO GREEN | Delta 5 Day 3 - AM
The following document is Copyright (c) 2016 by NSG
Transcribed using the following technology :
TheRecord Player - 126.96.36.199
Day 03 of the Trial
No. of For the Record files : 32
All times are shown as 12 hour, AM, PM format
Preface to this document.
This partial transcript, and those that follow, is an attempt to accurately and with detail, document the proceedings of a courtroom trial. Snohomish county uses a commercial software package to record and create for distribution, a record of the proceedings of trial. The technology For The Record and its software program player must be installed on a user computer. Then, compact discs, which are obtained from the court clerk, may be played so as to hear the trial proceedings. The proceedings are, on a daily basis, divided up into time slices, with each slice being a separate file. File time lengths are 3, 4, 5 or slightly more minutes in length, as played in real time. There is no explanation why one time slice is started or stopped at a particular instant with respect to what is actually going on ( being spoken, by someone ) in the courtroom. Spoken sentences may be chopped in half, across two slices.
Now, as to the fidelity and procedures involved, I wish to make the following clear to those who will read what follows. The court clerk instructions ( on paper, provided with the CD's ) do NOT identify which room microphones are assigned to which persons in the room ( or even area of the room ). Further, there is no way to determine which microphones also belong to which volume control ( there are 5 ) when adjusting the player program. Even more obstructive, are the instructions given by the Court and subsequent adherence ( or lack ) by those speaking and or present in the room. Instructions may be given and then not followed consistently, microphone techniques may be good, fair or poor, names may be offered with or without spelling, questions may be repeated with wording altered so as to be unclear to a listener, the intention of the questioner. Individuals speak up, mutter, speak over one another and do or do not speak closely to any microphone. Unidentified individuals coughing, near to a microphone cover up microphone responses. The overall audio recording experience is best described as compromised . So called media individuals may be heard to continue whispering after being admonished to be quiet, unidentified individuals pour liquids into glasses, shuffle papers and generate desk or surface noise as the proceedings unfold. What results, when a written description from audio is attempted, may well have inaccuracies or omissions. The author of this document in its five parts, finds this CD distribution to be wholly unsatisfactory. With this preface, the process will be attempted. Note that where you read a question mark, in parenthesis ( ? ), it will be used so as to denote uncertainty in understanding the audio and perhaps, who is speaking, at that instant. Keep in mind, the transcribed words attempt to match what was spoken, resulting in unusual, illogical complex sentences, at times. Additionally, the Record Player interface allows for a speed control, which is used in an attempt to clarify spoken content. There are no guidelines as to how to preset audio channel levels and use the speed control so as to make all the above documented shortcomings manageable. One final technical note : each time the Record Player program is started on a new file ( time slice ) all level and the speed settings are reset to neutral .
Snohomish County District Court, Everett Division, Department 3
DAY 3 - Wednesday SOD Department 1
8:35:16 Court resumes session.
Unidentified female ( attorney ? Trueblood ? ) makes some off microphone announcement about representation. Court responds, that it made preliminary findings yesterday that Mr. Berenson ( ? ) had committed mis conduct in a court room environment ( ? ) by taking still photography ( ? ) jurors and flash photography during the trial and at this time ( ? ) is here representing him. Court wish the individual in question to have some sort of opportunity. Female responds, something regarding before we talk about the finding of contempt, she wants to talk about the individual and the photo that the court saw that has the jurors in it, the photo that the individual took yesterday and the photo he took on Monday, that he was not present in the court room on Monday when the court ordered no pictures of the jurors. Becasue the courtroom was quite crowded, he was waiting outside and he did not, he is hard of hearing, so I don't think he was actually in the room when the court made that order. Female continues, he was here yesterday morning when the court made the order no pictures of the jurors and he immediately went on his phone, the court has his camera, and erased that photo however has not erased it yet from his camera. It is his intention to do so. I don't think he intentionally violated the court's order, I don't think he knew about the court's order. He has since deleted the photo from everywhere it has been stored, other than his camera, which the police took yesterday. He has deleted it from his home computer, he printed out the ( ? ) photo and I can verify that it is from Monday, by the way of where people were sitting in the room on Monday, there was a woman sitting next to me Monday morning, we came back after the lunch break and she moved over to sit in front of the jurors. And, she is sitting in that spot in this photo. So, I can tell that the photo is from Monday. With regards to the flash photography, he attempted to turn off the flash and he did not do so, that was a mistake on his part. He admits that he did have a flash, he tried several times to turn it off and it just did not. So, I don't think there's sufficient basis for a contempt finding, I know in speaking to the individual, yesterday multiple times, and also today, that he is mortified to be in this position. He had no intent to violate the court's order or cause any disruption in this trial. He finds this trial very important, he feels very proud and very fortunate to be here watching, he knows the room is very crowded, some people haven't been able to get in. He was happy to be here on Monday and yesterday, he would never do anything to disrupt this trial or violate the courts order. I think these were honest mistakes on his part. He didn't publish with almost anyone, he just made a couple of errors ( her inflection, pitch changes, and speed up and slow down in delivery make the next few utterances simply no understandable ) he has a cellphone but does not have it on. He doesn't want to make any other sort of errors, all electronics are stored in his backpack. Court asks if there is any input from the Prosecution. Prosecution responds no. Prosecution utters some additional, which is not understandable.
Court announces to Mr. Berenson ( ? ) that at this time, it will withdraw it's finding of contempt. Based on conversations with ( ? ) and others, court emphasizes to him and others in room that court considers this to be a serious violation even if it is an accident, at this point court will not put up with it further, given that I have not allowed photography from the audience for the remainder of this trial, without my explicit permission. Court is concerned about maintaining the integrity and authority of this court and erros of humans challenge that. Court does not appreciate that, the parties don't appreciate this interruption in this important proceeding and so I want to emphasis to everyone in the court room court will have a zero tolerance policy from this point forward with those of you who are here who interrupt these proceedings. Court wishes to get this case to the jury and people who come to observe this trial have a right to do so but they do not have a right to interrupt these proceedings. Mr. Berenson ( ? ) at this time the court concludes the contempt proceeding for you. Do you have any questions ? Individual has nothing. Female attorney ( ? ) asks the court, I was going to hand to the clerk, the photo ( ? ) . Confusing interchange follows, not understandable. Something about the mechanics of getting the camera back to it's owner and with any photos deleted.
8:42:56, court is in recess until 9 AM
9:10:38 AM, court resumes session.
Court announces the details of the proceeding. Court asks if there are any preliminary motions or issues before the jury is brought in. Prosecution raises one issue. Prosecution begins to talk, interrupted by one of the defendant's cell phone ringing. Confusion and multiple persons speaking is concluded by the court reminding all to turn off electronics and no photography to be taken without court's permission. Prosecution continues with issue. Special officer M Stapleton is still holding evidence ( ? ) and state has not received any evidence that he was crossed or subpoenaed and ( ? ). Prosecution's first question is : what is the relevance of tube that defendant Brockway used to put her arms under, it has no relevance as to whether she is trespassing or not and has no relevance as to whether defendant is delaying a train. Court asks Prosecution is he is the one who submitted the photo. Prosecution responds, he submitted the photo because it has the cables in it. court mumbles some response, court wonders if Defense intends to use that ( ? ), Defense interrupts, we do intend to use that as well as the contents of her backpack. Court asks if this defendant is testifying this morning. Defense says yes. Court wonders aloud, why don't we have the evidence be marked and ( ? ) in possession of the court ? Defense agrees, Prosecution will get the whole backpack now, for the court. Long pause, many talking. Finally, court tells the room, session is still on the record and everything they are saying is being picked up. Note : this transcription does not include all that was picked up, but it IS there, for the record if so requested. Court finally states, alright, there are going to be your exhibits, from the Defense, so come up and let the officer know what you want marked. Court announces, for the record, officer Stapleton brought these items in, a back pack full of items. Court asks Goldsmith, do you want these items to be, items within the backpack, to be individually marked, or marked as one exhibit ? Goldsmith answers, I think as one exhibit. Court asks Prosecution, and Prosecution does not object. Backpack and ( ? ) are marked as exhibits M and N. Prosecution asks for special officer Stapleton to be excused, there is no Defense objection. Court asks if there is anything else before bringing in jury. Prosecution has nothing, Defense has nothing.
9:17:00 Jury is seated. Session resumes
Court welcomes all to day three. Court instructs Defense to call their next witness.
Defense ( unidentified female ) calls E De Place. Court reminds witness to speak up, and tells Defense ( Hong, Trong ? ) to proceed. Defense announces she is going to ask witness some questions about his qualifications. Defense asks, what is your occupation ? Witness responds, he is policy director at Sightline institute, a research center based in Seattle. Defense asks, what does Sightline deal with ? Witness responds, we look at a range of questions related to environmental and economic issues in the Pacific Northwest. We work in Oregon, Washington and British Columbia, there are a whole range of issues we work on. My particular focus is on energy policy and particular transport of energy products. Defense asks, what is your official title ? Witness answers, my official title is policy director. Defense asks, how long have you been doing this ? Witness responds, I have been at Sightline for 14 years, I have been policy director for the last 5 years. Defense asks what was your previous function at Sightline ? Witness answers, I had worked on a range of questions, related to energy and carbon emissions, climate change, transportation economics, many, many fields. Defense asks, what is your educational background ? Witness answers, I have a bachelors degree from Seattle Pacific University, I graduated in 1996. I have a masters degree from the University of Notre Dame where I graduated in 1999 . Defense asks, and what kind of courses did you have to take to receive these degrees ? I was actually a political science major as a under graduate, I was a philosophy, working on a PHD in philosophy at Notre Dame. Defense asks, have you attended or conducted any seminars related to your field or your work ? Witness responds, I both attend and present at conferences related to energy economics and energy transport so I'm known in the field as students of the field and have been for 9 years now. Defense asks, how often do you attend or speak at these conferences ? Witness responds, several times a year, at minimum. Defense questions, can you name for us some of the events you've spoken at ? Witness responds, sure, I've spoken at the Pacific Northwest Regional conference of economists, I've spoken at, ah, several times at what's referred to as the Institute for energy ... ah ... economics and climate which is based in New York, several others. Defense asks, before Sightline, where did you work ? Witness answers, I worked for the Northwest ( ? ) foundation, a private foundation based in St. Paul, Minnesota working on economic development in low income rural areas. Defense continues, do you have .... um ... are you a member of any professional associations. Witness responds, I'm not. Defense [ while the transcription has been leaving out this particular defense's continual use of starting every question with " OK, um ... " this attorney has been consistent in the use of this means to vocalize a pause before asking a question ] asks, when did you start researching the transportation of fossil fuels ? Witness continues, we ( ? ) began a careful examination of this ( ? ) particular type of fossil fuel transport in around 2010 and 2011 when the coal export schemes first emerged on the scene, in the Pacific Northwest. Defense asks, have you published any articles on this topic ? Witness responds, I have published an estimated 300 articles on the topics of coal export, coal transport and oil transport. Defense asks, can you just name some of the titles of these articles or anything ? Witness responds, sure, the publications that I have produced : Northwest coal exports, Northwest fossil fuel exports, ... ah ... the Northwest pipeline on rails, which refers to oil trains in particular and then specific targeted looks at some corporations who are a major player in the industry. Defense asks, this topic, I'm assuming, also relates to climate change as well ? Witness answers, it does, one of the things that's most interesting about this topic right now is, it represents a dramatic change in the way that energy has been used and transported, particularly in this region down to what's likely to come down the pike in the future. Defense continues, have you focused your research on the Pacific Northwest specifically ? Witness answers, my research focuses on the Pacific Northwest but of course the energy economy is continent wide, and so, it is often very germane ... um ... to understand the dimensions of the regions, of the continent wide ... ah ... energy economy. Defense asks, have you ever testified before ? Witness responds, I have testified ... ah ... before with the Skagit county hearing examiner, in a case related to oil trains and I have testified any number of times in front of legislative bodies including the King county counsel, the Seattle city council and .... ah .... probably at least a half dozen .... ah ..... ah .... times in front of the state, maybe a dozen times in front of the state legislature. Defense asks, have you ever been on the radio ? Witness states, I've been on the radio more times than I can count, yes. Defense asks, and what materials did you review to prepare for this case ? Witness responds, in preparation for today's .... ah .... conversation, I reviewed many of the publications, including those most relevant to oil by rail transport. Defense asks, and are these materials you routinely rely upon in your field of expertise ? Witness responds, they are, indeed.
Defense asks, what are fossil fuels ? Witness responds, fossil fuels is a term common in my profession but is perhaps unfamiliar to those outside of it. Fossil fuels refer to those sources of energy that were originally deposited as biological material, plant material. And, over time they compressed into energy dense forms that we now refer to as coal and oil or natural gas, some derivatives of sort ( ? ). Defense asks, and what do we use them for ? Fossil fuels are used mostly to produce energy. We .... ah ... dig them up, process or refine them in some way and then generally burn them. We burn coal to produce electricity, also to produce industrial products like steel, oil of course, is refined into a range of consumer products like gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and so forth. Natural gas is used for both electricity production as well as the manufacture of petro chemical products. Defense asks, and how are they normally transported ? Witness continues, well .... ah ... coal, because it's a heavy bulk commodity, is typically transported by rail, or ... ah ... not so much in this region, but it has been transported by rail decades if not centuries in this country, or by truck. Oil typically is transported by pipeline or by tanker vessel. That has been changing since 2012 when we first saw an outsize growth in the movements of oil trains. Defense asks, and what do these trains look like ? So, the trains, .... ah ... many that go through this region, you've probably seen them already, a whole train is typically composed of a hundred to a hundred and ten .... ah .... hopper cars, um .... full of coal. Each of those cars contains about a hundred to a hundred and ten tons of coal, so aggregate, your looking at 10,000 to 12,000 tons of coal per train. In an oil train, you would again see roughly five .... oh ..... sorry, a hundred .... um .... ah .... tank cars that are usually black, uniform in appearance .... ah .... ah ... each of those carrying about 700 barrels of oil, so if you do the math for a hundred tank cars, you have about 70,000 barrels of oil, which is .... ah .... something like 70,000 barrels of oil per train passing by. Defense states and asks, these are big ? Witness responds, there quite large, more than a mile long, sometimes up to a mile and a quarter there fairly large. Defense asks, can you tell us a bit about the impact of trains carrying this type of material ? Witness answers, ya .... so, .... ah ... we see a range of impacts of, you know, from the rail transport of fossil fuels. The most immediate impacts are those that are felt by ordinary drivers on the roads because those trains are so long, because they have to move at a relatively modest speed in urban areas, they obstruct traffic quite frequently, so we have seen lots of folks who are concerned about getting to the stadiums, for example, on time. They find their way blocked by way of a coal or oil train. But, that's probably the most benign form of impediment they have to our lives. Coal trains are know sources of coal dust, coal dust is well know to be ... ah .... ah ... fairly serious health concern .... ah .... ah .... in addition to that, oil trains bring with them a range of very serious implications, including the risk of oil spills, which happens frequently, on oil rail cars. We have also seen them derail and explode catastrophically 10 times in the last two and a half years. When I say catastrophically, I'm referring to very ( ? ) looking, 300 foot tall fireballs of explosion, in one case, killing 47 people in a small town in Quebec. Ah ... so there's a very immediate risk from a derailment and fire .... ah ... and then, ... ah ... last, but not least would be the larger environmental concerns of moving new coal and oil products to market, burning them, because the burning of all fossil fuels this is one of the major characteristics of coal, oil and natural gas is that burning them releases carbon ... carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide warms the planet and when we look at new projects, it is not, not, not what's happened in the Northwest historically but the new projects that have come on line since 2012 or been proposed since 2012, if we add up the new coal, oil and natural gas projects proposed for the Pacific Northwest we would see something like 822 million metric tons of carbon emissions. Which, probably doesn't mean anything to a lay audience, but that's roughly eight or eight and a half times as much carbon dioxide as produced by every activity in the state of Washington, on an annual basis. It's roughly five or five and a half times as much carbon as would be transported or would have been transported through the Keystone pipeline which of course, many held up as an environmental litmus test for president Obama. So, what we're talking about ... um ... for this last category of impacts from fossil fuel transport are very, very serious carbon implications that have very, very serious .... ah .... implications for the global climate. Defense asks, how immediate are these risks ? Witness responds, Oh, well,there very immediate, right now, this .... ah .... I guess it's worth spending just about 30 seconds on this, the historical context. The Pacific Northwest has been for as long as it's been really a region in this country, has been known as a relatively clean part of the national energy picture. Most of our power comes from hydro power, we have been .... ah ... prided ourselves in environmental leadership, leadership in clean energy. Over the last few years we have seen a dramatic change in North American, in fact, global energy markets. And, in very simple terms what has happened is that the region has become the victim of it's geography. It is pinched between large reserves of coal, oil and natural gas in the interior continent, huge deposits, some of the biggest deposits on earth and the fastest growing energy markets, which are in Asia. And because of the economics of transport, bringing these products to market it means that the Pacific Northwest is finding itself confronted with dozens, literally dozens of proposals to build new gas pipelines and liquefaction sites for natural gas, fifteen oil by rail proposals, as many as ten coal export terminals, a whole range of petro chemical proposals that I won't talk about today. And so, as a consequence, the Pacific Northwest has moved from an area that is largely irrelevant to American energy economy, to one that is probably one of the most interesting places in the world because there is such intense pressure from coal and oil, gas companies to move their product through this region. Defense asks, so it sound like it's also happening ( ? ) now ? Witness answers, it is happening right now, to a very small degree we have begun to see about 10 to 15 percent of the total amount of the total amount of projects that are being proposed. When I say a project is being proposed, I don't mean a napkin sketch, I mean an actual project, with a submitted permitted application, with an advanced PR team, with a, often times hundreds of millions of dollars of capitol behind it. So, I'm talking very specific projects .... ah .... that would .... um ... move absolutely staggering quantities of coal and oil through this region. Defense asks, can you name some of those projects in the Everett region or that area ? Witness answers, sure ... one of the biggest coal export terminal anywhere in North America is being proposed .... ah .... for .... ah .... site at Cherry point ( coughing, something about Bellingham ), it's referred to the gateway Pacific project, it would move, on an annual basis, 488 er ... sorry, 48 million metric tons of coal per year. Which I already said, would be the biggest export terminal anywhere in North America, biggest in the world, in fact. In addition to that, we have proposals to move ... ah, larg quantities of oil trains to sites North of Everett at the Puget Sound refineries, some of those are already operating. Many of them are capable of expanding, .... ah .... then there are a whole range of proposals at Grey's harbor, in the Hoquiam, Aberdeen region and then, a very large number on the lower Columbia river. Defense then asks, and so, just to break down the numbers again, ( mumbles ) , I apologize, I'm not an expert on this field, what does this mean for communities in this area ? Witness responds, what it means is a huge increase in the transport of oil and coal traffic, so, .... ah ... you go back to, let's say 2010, you would have not been able to find what we refer to as a unit train of crude oil, you might have been able to find an isolated tank car here or there, carrying crude oil because it is moved around, it has been moved around historically in relatively small volumes. Not until 2012 did we begin to see the arrival of these 100 car, mile plus long oil trains. Since that time, we have seen an increase to about 4 per day. If all of the projects are permitted, operated at full capacity, we would see .... ah .... up to 14 oil trains per day traveling thru Washington state, that's loaded oil trains, plus the empties returning, which would also obstruct traffic, and also the .... on top of that we are scheduled to see something on the order of 35 to 40 oil, er ... coal trains, that's included loaded and empties .... ah .... on a daily basis ... through this region. So, I don't want to go on too long, but as a point of context, Washington state has 5 oil refineries, 4 fairly large, one small, so we are considered a refining center in this region, we refine oil, consume it here locally, we can refine about 630,000 - 640,000 barrels per day,. that's our refining capacity in the Pacific Northwest, in Washington state. We are scheduled to see a million barrels of oil, delivered only by rail through Washington state. So, that is to say if we got rid of every pipeline, every tanker vessel and only took the oil trains scheduled for delivery here, we couldn't come close to refining that amount of oil, which strongly suggests that the oil is not intended for us, it is intended for markets abroad, probably in Asia, perhaps in California, arguably Hawaii or other places. So we stand to see ... ah .... a dramatic increase in the amount of crude oil that is moved in this region, and the vast majority of that will be delivered by train.
Defense asks, just to back track a little bit, can you give us an example of derailment or explosion in the Pacific Northwest ? Witness answers, yes ... so, it is widely ... ah ... believed ( ? ) in the industry that rail is the most dangerous way of transporting crude oil short of truck, trucks are um ... probably slightly more dangerous, but their much more dangerous than pipelines, more dangerous than tanker vessels. Ah ... in the Pacific Northwest we have been fortunate so far, the derailments we have seen, the spills we have seen, have not resulted in the sort of catastrophic explosions we have seen in other regions of the country. We have, however, seen at least one crude oil train derail, it happened under the Magnolia bridge in Seattle in the summer of 2014. Defense asks, so fairly recently ? Witness echos, fairly recently. Defense asks, in your opinion, it was just lucky that it wasn't worse. Witness responds, Oh ... we were very lucky, what happened is in the early morning hours, around 1 AM, I believe, an oil train that was moving between the South rail yard and North rail yard in Seattle, derailed and the tank cars fell over on their side .... ah .... ah, though the construction of those tank cars becomes quite an interesting matter, we won't get into today, .... ah ... but they are very prone to leaking, they have an outlet valves(s) on the bottom that often, crack, even under ordinary circumstances and release some of the fluid oil inside. That oil, if it is .... ah .... contacted by spark can easily com-bust, in this particular case, the oil train flopped over on its side, three other cars did, and nothing happened. We dodged a bullet, in a serious way, at that point. Defense then asks, was this a BNSF train ? Witness responds, it was, BNSF is the dominant hauler of crude oil nationally, BNSF is also the dominant railroad in Washington, western Washington, and this did happen on BNSF track. I would add, that BNSF has on its track, what we refer to as class 1, the best quality of track, has had two derailments that resulted in catastrophic explosions, one in Eastern N. Dakota, in 2013 and one in W. North Dakota in early 2015. Defense asks, were there any casualties ? Witness answers, in neither case were there casualties, it happened in a remote rural areas, one of them was actually recorded by drivers with their cellphone cameras, so you can hear ... um .... a sort of Fargo ... ah .... accented voices describing the eruption of a towering fire ball just yards from town. Defense asks, if this had happened in a community or town such as Everett what could be the consequences ? Prosecution wakes up, objects, as calling for speculation. Court states it does call for speculation, objection is sustained. Defense asks witness to describe how BNSF responded to this ( which ? ) accident ? Witness answers, yes .... ah ... BNSF's response was ... um .... in my opinion quite poor, the derailment happened at I believe 1:05 AM, we believe they had their own crew on the scene within about 5 minutes of the derailment occurring because it was quite near their existing rail yard. They did not contact the relevant authorities for almost two hours. When they did contact the relevant authorities, that is, the department of ecology, they notified the department of ecology that there was no hazardous material involved in the accident, which flies in the face of both the law and common sense ... um, in fact did not inform the Seattle fire department, nor did they inform any of the local emergency response authorities. In fact, those folks were notified when an area business owner arrived to work, saw the derailed oil train and realized that something was amiss. In fact, the city of Seattle's emergency response chief heard about that in a radio broadcast, that woke her up. So, the railroad was extremely amiss in reporting this, in fact never did actually report the presence of hazardous substance on that train until the receiving oil refinery, the refinery based in Anacortes, actually notify the department of ecology that is was a train headed ... ah ... their direction, and it was in fact loaded with crude oil and so, it was in fact a combustion risk. Defense asks, and so, your opinion too, that BNSF has handled these risks poorly ? Witness responds .... ah ..... BNSF has handled these risks extremely poorly, it's part of a pattern of behavior that we have seen from them and we have documented their .... ah ... emergency response to other derailed hazardous substance trains, there was a train, for example, near Chambers Bay in Tacoma that derailed, carrying sodium hydroxide .... ah ... when that train derailed, we saw a similar pattern of obfuscation and failure to coordinate or inform the relevant emergency res-ponders. And, it's a ... it's a contention of mine that's born out by statistical evidence from both federal and state regulators, and, if I may, I would point out that since 2006, in N. Dakota, the federal railroad administration, is the federal agency that is tasked with overseeing ... ah ... the safety of the railroad infrastructure .... ah ... cited them, BNSF, for 721 violations ( of what ? ). BNSF's response was that it wasn't as bad as it sounded because it was less than one track defect per mile. In Washington state ... ah ... ah ... our state agency called the utilities and transportation commission which is the regulatory that oversees the railroads, among other features of our infrastructure ... ah they analyzed one period, from November 2014 to February 2015, during that period they found that ... ah ... the railroad had failed to report 14 spills of hazardous materials by train including crude oil, for a total of 700 violations. BNSF's response to that UTC finding was that there were actually only 235 violations during that period, not 700. Defense asks, so how accurate are these numbers, where are you getting these numbers from ? Witness responds, the numbers that I cited for this state regulatory body come directly from the state regulatory body, the numbers I cited for the federal inspections, in N. Dakota, come directly from the federal railroad administration. Defense asks, in terms of going back to the expansion of transporting oil in this way, where are you getting these numbers from ? Witness states, all of those numbers come directly from the industry themselves, so what I have done in my assessment, my inventory of these projects, is to look at the submitted permit applications for oil by rail projects, so these are the numbers provided by the industry themselves. All I have done is gather that information and add them up. Defense, in your opinion, how effective are traditional means in raising awareness about this issue ? Witness states, well, not very effective unfortunately, we have seen ... ah ... 47 people die in Quebec, in the first catastrophic derailment that happened and subsequently 9 derailments with catastrophic explosions ... ah, there is probably no other industry in America that can operate this way, we have a battery pack fire on a plane, the FAA grounds those planes until the problem is fixed, if we have an airbag deployment problem the federal government will recall those, force the recall of those cars until the problem is fixed. In the confluence of the oil industry and the rail industry ... ah ... which is what we see with oil trains, you can have derailment and explosion after derailment and explosion almost like clockwork for more than 2 years, and the federal government response is largely to meet with the industry components and talk about a very delayed phase out period where by a fraction of the most dangerous rail cars eventually be removed from service in some period of years. So, the response from government agencies has been woefully lacking, we have been fortunate to get some media attention, that happens when you ... ah ... hold up ( ? ) trains in the middle of populated areas, but .... ah ... isn't ... ah ... as a general matter in response, directly to your question, most of the ... ah ... attempts to draw ... ah ... attention, awareness to this issue have not been adequate to task. Defense has not further questions. Court asks if other Defense has any questions. There are no other questions.
9:40:46 AM Court directs Prosecution to cross.
Prosecution has one question for witness. Prosecution asks, you say you keep statistics and scientific evidence, correct ? Witness answers, yes. Prosecution continues, do you have any scientific or statistical evidence that illegal protests are more effective in getting the word out, than legal protests ? Witness responds, no sir. Prosecution has nothing further. Court asks Defense if they have any re direct. Defense ( again, no identity, it's a female ) asks, in your opinion, more awareness is better, right ? Witness answers, yes, yes, that's correct. There is nother further from other Defense and Prosecution. Court has witness step down.
9:41:45 Court directs Defense to call it's next witness.
Defense ( unidentified ? ) calls Dr. ( ? ) . Long pause. Witness is sworn. Name is Richard H Gannon. Defense ( ? ) begins questioning, asks, can you tell us what your occupation is ? Witness responds, at this moment I am a retired professor from the University of Washington, my appointment was in Chemistry and Oceanography and an adjunct in atmospheric sciences. Defense asks, what is your educational background ? Witness answers, I have a PHD in physical chemistry from Harvard, in 1970 and .... ah .... then, I ... ah ... was a scientist studying the origins of life in space, with interstellar molecules. When I came back from Brazil, I realized that I wanted to really work on science that affected people, so I transitioned from astro chemistry into environmental science. After a short time as the director of science at Pacific Science center, where I worked in public understanding of science, I continued my interest in public understanding of science through public lectures that I did in retirement. Defense asks, can you describe some of your professional activities ? Witness answers, I think most relevant today, would be ... ah ... I worked when back in Brazil, on transfer of ozone ( ? ) looking at the chlorofluorocarbon using radio telescopes, as I have done for interstellar space. And then I followed these Freon gasses into the ocean and began to study the Freons as traces of ocean circulation, which is useful to calibrate models of the role of the ocean in global climate change. This is how I really made the transition from laboratory chemistry to space to the stratosphere to the ocean. This is why I had an appointment between chemistry and oceanography. In the early 1980's I was the director of the carbon dioxide measurement program for the U.S. government. So, I really had my finger on the pulse of the planet from Barrow Alaska, to the South Pole, especially the Mona Loa record. I went to the Mona loa observatory with ( ? ) at that time, to convince them that not just a ( ? ) that the U.S. government could also measure CO2 accurately at Mona Loa. And that's when I became radicalized, looking at how CO2 was increasing in the atmosphere. I was invited to be a co author on carbon cycle chapter of the first intergovernmental panel on climate change, in 1990. So, I really ( ? ) involved in climate science and interpreting climate science and explaining climate science to the public for many, many decades, most of my career. Defense asks, do you have any publications ? Witness responds, I have a extensive ( ? ) peer reviewed publications, as I said, some of them would have been in fundamental lab chemistry, some of them would have been in astronomy or astro chemistry ( ? ) of them would be in stratospheric chemistry and the role of the ocean, the one that I'm most proud of is a cover feature in Nature, where, .... ah ... satellites could look at trees and see the green, the regional green of the forest and incorporate that with the measurements that I was responsible for of CO2 uptake in the ( ? ) by Mona Loa, Barrow, the South pole. This is the first paper that sort of directly connected measurements on the ground of seasonal CF, CO2 changes with satellite measurements of seasonal greening. Defense asks, have you ever testified before ? Witness answers, not in this setting, I've given testimony for the state ( something about fossil fuel plants ), the citing was about 10 or 15 years ago. Not any trial like this though. Defense asks, did you review any materials in preparation for your testimony today ? Witness answers, yes, I did, I have sort of talk that I give to school groups, church groups, business groups, but I reviewed again carefully the summary for policy makers of the latest report from the IPCC, 2013, 2014, which is the international consensus on climate change, fairly ( ? ) scientifically conservative actually. And then, ... ah ... that science stopped about 2012, so there's 3 or 4 years since then, so the more recent literature, which is not in the IPCC report yet. Locally, the climate impacts group at the University of Washington issues regular reports on the impact of climate change in the Pacific Northwest and on the state of Washington, sector by sector. And, they have two reports, one on Puget Sound and one on impacts for the state. Their not funded to look at mitigation, their funded only to look at adaptation. But those reports are also in my review and preparation for this day. Defense asks, are these materials typical of materials that would be relied upon by professional in your field ? Witness answers, absolutely. Defense asks court if she can re-position herself. Court says, sure.
Defense asks, let's start on a global level, can you describe for the jury how fossil fuel emissions are affecting our climate ? Witness answers, well, it's been know actually for 250 years that carbon dioxide traps ( ? ) was shown by a British scientist in a public lecture in 1850. Since 1900, Arrhenius ( Svante ) was the first one to calculate how much the world would warm if we doubled the CO2 in the atmosphere. He was in Sweden, he thought it would be a great thing. But he was ( ? ) calculation, it was 5 degrees Centigrade, which is within the range of the best models today, for the global warming from double CO2. This is a very, very, very old problem. President Lyndon Johnson warned the U.S. Congress 50 years ago, 1965, of the dangers of climate change, so this is not a new problem at all. ( ? ) started the measurements at Mona Loa in Hawaii, in 1958. And this first IPCC report is 1990 and then there have been reports every 5 years since then. So, CO2 is a green house gas, we know that if you put it in the atmosphere it mixes globally within a year or a year and a half and it traps heat. And, part of that heat is captured by the ocean, which warms the ocean, which evaporates more CO2 which doubles the effect of warming, so we can say that double CO2 in the global atmosphere, in equilibrium, will have a warming somewhere around 2 to 4 degrees Centigrade, double that for Fahrenheit, 4 to 8 degrees, as a global average. Since we live in the Northern hemisphere and on the land, you can double that again, by a factor of two. Warming is greater in the Northern hemisphere, than the Southern hemisphere, greater on the land than over the ocean, greater in the Arctic than the equator, greater in the winter than the summer and greater at night, than during the day. All these things are observed. Defense asks, I know it's difficult to explain to a lay person such as myself what that effect is on our planet, but can you give us an idea of what effect that has on our ecosystems ? Witness answers, well, we ... ah ... as a species, we evolved during the last ice age or so, maybe 200,000 years ago .... homo sapiens ... and we walked out of Africa about 70,000 years ago and we survived the peak of the last ice age, about 25,000 years ago and so the period of the last 10,000 years, the Holocene, ... ah ... we came to cities, we established writing and civilization, all of this in a very stable climate. And the atmosphere today, is something that no living human has ever breathed backed to the origin of our species, no person alive, any person, ever has breathed an atmosphere, a pure atmosphere of 400 parts per million, that's where we are today. What was the climate back then, that was in the Pliocene, 3 or 4 million years ago ? Well, it was ... ah ... 3 or 4 degrees warmer ( C or F ? ), the sea level was 30 or 50 feet higher ... ah ... the condition of the forest, the grasslands, the desert was entirely different. So, ... ah ... we've already changed the atmosphere in such a way that the climate coming to us is going to be something that's, there's nothing in our history, nothing in our living memory and nothing in our genes will prepare us for this. Defense asks, are you saying that our climate as it currently stands is unstable ? Witness answers, yes, our climate will continue to change as long as CO2 changes. If you want to stabilize the climate, you have to stabilize atmospheric CO2, which means stop emitting CO2. Defense asks, and when you way stop emitting CO2, your talking the level of current emissions. What will it take, in scientific expert opinion, to stabilize our planet ? Witness responds, well, the Paris COP 21 agreement is very optimistic, I think it's an inspirational ( ? ) target ... ah ... it says we must stop the warming well below 2 degrees C. And, even at 1.5 . Personally, I think we see 1.5 in the rear mirror already, I think we would be very lucky to stop at 2. Most of the scenarios that have the world stopping at 2 degrees global warming had global emissions peaking in 2010 and in the latter half of this coming century negative emissions. Sucking the CO2 back out, somehow, we don't know how, but these are not very realistic plans at the present time, so we have an enormous task ahead of us. Now, they say net zero emissions so yes, if we can .... ah ... make the tropical forests more effective, find some way to suck CO2 out of the open air and bring it ( ? ) back down ... ah ... then, then we can stop at 2 degrees ( C or F ? ) with some chance, 50 - 50 chance for our children and their children. But, this is an enormous task, an a 1 or 2 percent per year decline in European Union and the U.S. will not do it. And, of course, we can't ask India and China to stop their burning coal and oil, because we did. They say, you guy's got rich doing this, don't tell us not to do it. Our children need a good life too.
Defense asks, you mention the Paris treaty, does that treaty have any teeth, so to speak ? Witness answers, it was carefully crafted so that it would not require ... ah ... approval by the U.S. Senate. Ah ... European Union and many other countries wanted a much stronger binding treaty. There are elements of the treaty which are binding, the individual country commitments which wil be reviewed on the 5 year basis do have some teeth. They are ... ah ... they have a shaming quality, you can say you didn't meet your commitment. But, there's no legal penalty or financial penalty if a country says .... hey, we tried, we didn't do it. So, it's a little bit like this analogy ... ah ... the junior high school teacher gives you a writing assignment, to turn in the paper, but there's no penalty for the grade, you never have to turn in the paper, all you have to do is come to the assembly area in two weeks and show the other kids your homework. That's a very simple view of Paris, I actually think it's much stronger that that ( ? ) but all of the words in the treaty that said countries shall, cross out shall and put should. And that way it avoided becoming a treaty that required approval by the USA. Defense asks, and turning now to the local effects, can you describe for us, how much Washington state has already warmed ? Witness answers, yes, it's pretty typical, again, now I'm quoting numbers from the climate impacts group in the University of Washington which reports on a regular basis to the state of Washington, state department of ecology. The warming over the last 50 years or so, in this state has been about ... ah ... about 1.5 degrees F, which is pretty typical for other state's in the United States, particularly the Northern tier states. We have a moderating influence of the Pacific ocean, of the winds that come off the ocean, so other states would be warming more than that, so the warming has been about 0.8 degrees C or 1.5 Fahrenheit, pretty close to the global average, so far. Defense asks, and what are the projections for warming in the near future ? Witness answers, it depends entirely upon the emissions scenario. So, in the latest IPCC report, there was a high emissions scenario, which was double or triple CO2 by the end of this century, and we're on that track, actually, in terms of emissions, we're on the high emissions scenario. And there's a very optimistic one ( ? ) which takes well below 2 degrees C somehow, and so the warming in the sig ( ? ) reports is a function of .... ah .... the .... ah ... emissions scenario. And the low emissions scenario, we might have a 2 or 3 degrees F by the middle of this century ... if ... and high emissions scenario we might have 6 or 7 degrees F as a state average by the middle of this century. And these numbers continue to go up as long as CO2 increases. Defense asks, can you describe some specific eco systems, for example, our shell fish industry here in Washington state ? Witness responds, ocean acidification is called the evil twin of global warming, it actually, it's part of the same problem. CO2 is an acid gas, if we over pressurize the atmosphere the gas is pushed into the ocean. This is happening globally. And we can now measure the change in the acidity of the world's ocean. It's up 20, 30 percent why ( from what level ? ), because the atmosphere is going up 20 or 30 percent. When we double CO2, the acidity of the ocean will double. And right now, we already see the impacts, Taylor ( ? ) shell fish, for example, that the natural spawning of oysters off our coast, has suffered, because in the first day or two these larvae have to make a little calcium carbonate shell and the waters are too acidic, it dissolves their shell. They can't do it. So, the spawning of oysters now has to be controlled by Taylor, by adjusting the chemistry of the water, or doing ( ? ) something else. So the impact on our shell fish is immediate and it's quite apparent. I think the other thing that worries me as a salmon fisherman, is that, as we have less snow pack in the summer ... ah ... the waters, the snow pack is not stored in the winter because the rain, the precipitation is coming as rain, not snow. And it means that the runoff starts earlier and is less and so by summer when natural fish are trying to migrate, the stream flows are very low, the waters are too warm. We lost half of the sockeye in the Columbia last year, cause the flows were too low and too warm. Defense asks, you spoke of snow pact, how much snow pact have we lost in our mountains ? Witness answers, this is variable, of course, we have decades of warmer or cooler, wetter or dryer, but over the last 50 years, we've probably lost 20 or 30 percent, averaging over decades, of the snow pact. The predictions are, by sig ( ? ) by the middle of the century, for a high emissions scenario, we may lose 40 or 50 percent of the snow pact, by 2050, with enormous implications for hydro power, for agriculture, especially in the Yakima basin. Defense asks, what are the projections for change in storminess, flooding, drought and extreme weather in our region ? Witness responds, I like this question, because people say, OH ... is that storm due to global warming ... wrong question, wrong question ! Is that drought .... wrong question ! Think about it this way, the basic state ( ? ) of the atmosphere is no longer the same ( ? ) , it's warmer, warmer means it holds more moisture, so the basic state of the atmosphere, out of which all weather arises, is different. So, you could say every single weather event has a component of global warming ... we've loaded the dice, we've changed the odds, it's like which cigarette gave me lung cancer, which bottle of whiskey wrecked my liver - don't ask that. We know the statistics, if you keep smoking, if you keep drinking your going to wreck the climate ( yes, that's what he said, somehow drinking, smoking are going to wreck the climate ) if we keep putting CO2 in the air, we're going to wreck the climate. Defense asks, and talk a little about sea level rise, and the effects of sea level rise in our area . Witness answers, this is an area, where I met with the sig ( ? ) researchers yesterday and they have some very, too conservative values for sea level, because in the last two years, very alarming reports have come in the peer review literature that major glaciers in the ... ah ... sea ... ah ... polar ice in Greenland and Antarctica has been destabilized, and is now unstoppable - nothing anyone can do can keep these ice masses from going into the sea, melting and raising sea levels. So, instead of ... right now we have about an inch every 10 years, global seal level rise, we may get 10 times that. And so, people like Jim Hansen, and S Ramsdorf say, no, no a meter, ah ... 3 feet, not 2 meters, no, NOAA says 6 feet by the end of the century, we may get several meters by 2050 - bye, bye Miami, so were talking about major sea level rise. When I give talks in Anacortes I tell people your grand children will not see the ( ? ) in the Skagit, so there will be no ( ? ) in the Skagit, that will be all under water, in this century, quite possibly.
Defense asks, what is the role of climate change in the current drought in the western United States, California to Washington ? Witness answers, this is one area ... you know ... this attribution of saying a particular area extreme event is due to climate change, in the case of a long term drought and heat wave over large area, the models are getting pretty good. We run the model a thousand times with green house gasses, a thousand times without it and you look at the differences and you can begin to say with what odds a particular drought slash heatwave is due to climate change. And, in the case of the California drought we know from tree ring data it's ( ? ) a once in a thousand year event. And the California snow pak is a once in a 500 year event. We start having once in a thousand year events happening every 10 years or every few years, and the pattern and the pattern, it's exactly like what the models say is going to happen later in the century, you begin to have some confidence that these things ( ? ) are not, quote, natural events. Defense asks, these effects are immediate, we're feeling them right now ? Witness responds, Oh, yes. Defense asks, would you say our climate is in a state of crisis ? Witness answers, for me, yes. I ... ah ... I lose a lot of sleep over this. I'm called Dr. Doom in my talks, but you need to give people some sense of hope that this is not inevitable ... ah, S Solomon, in IPCC ( ? ) said these changes, there be drought in the Western United States, is not inevitable, but it is irreversible, once we do it, we say ... oh, OK, let's ( ? ) right, let's do something ... too late .... for a thousand years, nothing comes back. The ocean ocean acidity is not restored in 10,000 years. This is a little bit like nuclear war, once we've done it, there's no coming back, that's why we have to stop it now. Defense asks, can we stop it now, in your opinion ? Witness answers, yes, I think so, I think we can move very rapidly to renewable resources with or without nuclear. The big debate about the role of nuclear, I'm personally saying, there's no sliver bullet, there's silver buckshot and nuclear is one of the pellets, we need them all. And the first one is efficiency. Solar and wind are coming on very strong, professor Jacobson ( ? ) of Stanford has ... a ...ah ... a detailed road-map for every state in the U.S. and every country of how we can move to a totally renewable economy by 2050. That's were we have to go. We've got to get 80 percent off of fossil fuels by 2050 or 2070, that's the goal. Defense asks, you've been working on climate change for a long time, experience dating back to the 1980's, would you say were on that road, right now ? Witness asks, which road ? Defense tries to clarify, the road to recovering our climate ? Witness states, not yet, not yet. Defense asks, why not ? Witness responds, first baby steps, I think Paris is very good, Paris cancels out Copenhagen. We really have the road map now, somebody once said, it's not the game, it's the scoreboard. It's not the ceiling, its the floor ( ? ) . And the secretary of energy said, it's not the car, it's not the dog that chases the car, we just caught the car, what are we going to do with the car ? We need to sort of get out of the car, the fossil fuel developed car, and get in an electrified whole surface transportation in our country and world. Defense asks, based upon current science and your experience working in this area, would you say that our government is adequately responding to the catastrophic climate change ? Witness answers, at the federal level ? Defense responds, at all levels, but we'll start at the federal level. Witness answers, I think Obama could have done more and he would do more with a different congress. I think that .... ah ... the king ( ? ) power plan is a good start, the fuel efficiency standards are a great start ... half the emissions in this state are from transportation. And the rest of the U.S. coal fired power is only a quarter, but for us transportation is number one, number two, number three ... ah ... and ... ah ... electrification of our surface transportation will be really, really important. So, no the federal government hasn't done enough, would have to do much, much more and, at the state level again, .... ah ... I think .... ah .... our governor has the information, he has the personal commitment to it, but he doesn't have the legislature fully on board with him. I think that there is much more that can be done at levels, King county is probably doing a pretty good job, I think there's a public information issue, I think that as long as we have presidential candidates deny the science of climate change, I'm ashamed of that, at Paris there were no deniers there. 195 countries plus E.U., no political party, right or left, of any of those countries, denied the climate science. One country and one political party, sadly, that's us. Defense aks, and when you speak of a public information problem, what do you think causes that lack of information from reaching the public ? Witness responds, well, back to the time when I was in charge of the U.S. CO2 measurement program from NOAA in Boulder, 1982 - 1984, Exxon had a very good research program, I knew some of those guy's who were measuring ocean acidic, and making predictions exactly like the predictions ( ? ) we have now of 2 - 4 degrees C warming for doubling CO2. Exxon knew and they knew very well and then, .... ah ... they were a major fund of climate misinformation, so the fossil fuel industry in the United States has a big role to play in the extensive misinformation campaign and in funding people who will stand up and politically say there's no problem. Upton Sinclair said, it's very hard to convince man something is true, if his salary depends upon it being true. Defense asks, what can the average person do, to raise awareness of this issue ? Witness states, I get this question always at the end of my talks, which is always a pretty gloomy talk. First of all, determine your own carbon emissions, go on line, get a carbon counter, see what your emissions are, you'll probably find, if you fly alot, that's number one. Driving is number 2. Your house is important too. Seattle city light has good programs for energy efficiency, I have solar panels on my house, I drive a Prius, but I fly alot, so I'm guilty in many ways. So, what you can do to reduce your own carbon emissions, and personally I buy carbon offsets to offset my flying as well, and taxing ourselves, we need need to impose a carbon tax. Wee need either a cap and trade system like California has, or a carbon tax like British Columbia has. I hope that the two environmental efforts in this state somehow join forces so that we have a clear ballot initiative at the end of this year for the voters of this state, because we need to put a price on carbon, that's number one, number one in the U.S. , number one in our state and number one globally, a price on carbon. Defense asks, would you agree, that citizens, speaking out, in, about this issue and providing information to their neighbors is an important aspect of .... Witness interrupts, talks over defense trying finalize her convoluted question. Witness states, I have to, I have to, that's what I've been doing since I retired and yes, everyone has to do that whether it's in a coffee group of your neighbors, I've not spoken as much to chambers of commerce, rotary clubs, Lyons clubs, I've done some of that but getting to the business community is going to be really, really important. Defense asks, were you involved in a case, Zoey, Stellar, Foster et all versus the Washington state department of ecology ( ? ) ? Witness answers, yes, I was, in a small way, I met with A Rogers .... Defense interrupts. Defense wants the witness to tell the jury what that case is. Witness answers, well, maybe you should tell cause I don't really know it very well .... it's a case .... ah ... where young people sued the state department of ecology about their rules for adjusting climate change being insufficient .... is that accurate ? Defense states, I can't comment on that, but .... Court interrupts asks witness not to ask question of her attorney. Big laughter in the room follows. Witness continues, and my role was really ... ah .... Andrew had contacted professor, Dr. Jim Hansen saying, this guy ( witness ? ) out here, he's willing to write something about this, is he a good guy. Hansen say, ya ... get him. So, I wrote a statement about how I thought the 2 degree limit was not safe, 1.5 had never been agreed upon by scientists, or the two had never been accepted scientifically as quote safe and that 1.5 was always in play, as it is now in Paris, you see it in the document ( ? ). And that's basically what my statement said, I didn't attend any of the hearings, I merely submitted a statement about the science, at the international level. Defense thanks witness. Court asks if Defense has any thing further for this witness. Defense has nothing further
Court directs Prosecution to examine witness.
Prosecution states he has one question for witness. Prosecution asks, do you have any scientific evidence that illegal protests are more effective in eliminating global warming or helping climate change than doing legal protests or getting to meet groups of ( ? ) or groups like that ? Witness responds, I have never .... ah ... been involved in the direct action like we're here today to address ... ah ... to ... but, I believe ... has extremely powerful effect .... Prosecution interrupts, asks for objection, as non responsive. Court sustains object, after witness states, let me try again. Prosecution asks again, do you have any scientific data that illegal protests are more effective than legal protests or other methods like you mentioned earlier ? Witness states, I have no scientific data. Prosecution has nothing further. Court asks if defense has any re direct. All defense has nothing further. Witness is excused. Court directs defense to call it's next witness. The defense calls Abigail Brockway. Witness is sworn.
Defense asks witness to tell the room about herself. Witness begins and continues, I was born in Bellevue, WA, in February of 1969. My mother was a stay at home mom, and my father, and um .... um ... he was a trial lawyer. And, I have a younger brother that is 4 years younger than me, and ... ah ... I ... um ... I went to college .... voice interrupts, where did you go to college ? .... Cornish college of the Arts, on Capitol hill .... again, voice interrupts, did you graduate ? ..... yes, I got a bachelor of fine arts degree, and .... um ... while I was there .... I ... um ... I .... ah .... cleaned offices, actually I cleaned my dad's law office ... um, and on weekends and then I realized that I could clean offices, so I started a little business cleaning offices while I was in college, and .... um .... then I .... voice interrupts, just answer the question, don't worry where you look .... witness mumbles something, voice interrupts again, did that lead to the work that you do now, the office cleaning ? [ this voice must be Defense, never bothered to restate his name ]. Witness answers, can I just slow down a little bit, I'm trying ..... again, voice interrupts. Just .... I'm trying to help you here, did your office cleaning lead to the work your doing now ? Witness responds, um ..... voice interrupts again, what do you do now, what kind of work ? Witness answers, I'm a painting contractor and .... um ... I [ long, long pause ] .... I married my husband Roger and he's a carpenter and so we merged our businesses - I had a painting company and he had a carpentry company and we started a small business of painting and carpentry .... voice interrupts again, and you still do that ? .... witness answers, yes, and so .... voice tries to coach witness, with question - and so your married ? .... Witness continues, as if she was not asked ..... and so in 1999 I got married, um wait .... OK, and um .... what I also wanted to say, was .... um .... Prosecution interrupts, with objection, unresponsive [ I think that's what he said ]. Court sustains, directs Defense to ask a question. Defense states, just answer my question, at which point witness begins to argue with her defense. Something about how the question was ( ? ) and she is trying to tell about herself. Court interrupts. Court says, I won't have you arguing with your own lawyer, when lawyer asks you a question, answer that question, directs lawyer ( Goldsmith ? ) to proceed. Defense asks, you also have a daughter, what's her name and age ? Witness responds, her name is ..... and she is 13 years old now. Defense asks, how did you learn about the issues that ultimately led to your action in this case ? Witness answers, I ... um ... I , in ah ... after High School I couldn't wait to register to vote, so I registered to vote and that was 1987 and then in 1988 there was a presidential election and so I went to the caucus and I ... because ... so, I went to the caucus and I .... um ... I ... um ... was elected through all the way to be a state delegate ... um .... as an undecided delegate and I think that people pushed me through as I moved through the process because I was young and I was interested in politics, and I think that the other people wanted to younger people getting involved so they were .... Defense interrupts, asks, so what issues concerned you then, during this process ? Defense further asks, leading up to the day of the arrest, what issues became important to you ? Witness states, I ... um .... I collected signatures for initiative 103, which is the community bill of rights and ... um ... while I was collecting signatures, I decided to go to a community center cause I thought there would be a lot of people to get signatures for, and that's where I met Robin, from the Sierra club and she was talking about coal trains in this area. Defense again interrupts, so that was your first exposure to coal trains, did you learn a lot about the subject then ? Witness states, ya, so I .... Defense interrupts again, asks, what did you learn ? Witness answers, I learned that ... um ... coal trains were coming through our community, there were proposals that the Sierra club was educating people for so that they could actually, go to public hearings to submit comments and ... um ... and so I studied the issues and prepared myself to .... Defense asks, did you learn about any of the harms from coal trains, for example, what harms did you learn about ? Witness responds, I learned about the dust blowing off of them, they were going to actually put some surfactant on it, so the dust wouldn't blow off. Defense asks, and did you learn about train safety as an issue that was important to you ? Prosecution wakes up, objects, these are leading questions. Defense adds, I agree, I'm trying to add ... get her focused. Court allows this method to continue. Defense asks again, did you learn about train safety as well. Witness states, I did.
Defense asks, and was that an important issue to you ? Witness responds, yes. Defense asks, was there something that happened in the summer of 2014 near your home, that .... ah .... moved you to more action ? Witness answers, yes. Defense asks, what was that ? Witness responds, there was a derailment, .... um ... underneath the Magnolia bridge. Defense states that testimony has been give already about the derailment. Defense asks, what did you do in response to that situation ? Witness answers, I .... [ long pause ] witness asks somebody, can I just have a minute ? Defense tries again, just try to answer that question. Witness responds, can you tell me what you said again ? Defense states, OK, what did you do in response in learning about that derailment ? Witness states, I was really worried cause that was right, one mile from my daughter's school and there's a thing called the blast zone that I learned about, so and anywhere within a mile of an explosion when an oil train explodes, then ... um .... your supposed to evacuate that area and my daughter's school was on the edge of that area. And, so, I got very concerned and I was very concerned because before that I had learned a couple other things. Defense asks, OK, and have you learned about train safety as well ? Witness states, yes, so I had driving moment ( ? ) what happened was I was driving home and I heard NPR, there was a story on the radio and ( ? ) was telling the story of this whistle blower and this whistle blower was expecting a train in 2010 and it was during the winter. Prosecution objects, this is all hearsay. Defense says, I'll ask another question. Court says ask another question. Defense asks, so, you were concerned about train safety, about train dust, explosions, was climate change an issue you were concerned about ? Witness responds, absolutely, mumbles something else. Defense asks, Ok, what kinds of activities before September 2nd 2014, did you do to try to effect change in those areas of your concern ? Witness responds, would you ask the question one more time ? Defense asks, what types of things did you do to try to effect change in those areas of your concern, train safety, climate change and so forth ? Witness answers, so, I'm a member of a church and I'm a member of Earth ministry which focuses on getting the faith community to understand about caring for creation, I am a faith action network and I ... um ... and that's also a faith group, inter faith group that once a year they go and they learn how to legislate their representatives. Defense asks, did you do other personal things, like lectures or talks, did you do that at all ? Witness responds, I did. Defense asks, where did you give lectures or talks about these issues ? Witness responds, I went to my church and I told ( ? ) about this situation. Defense, OK, have you written letters ? Witness answers, I have. Defense asks, who have you written letters to about these issues ? Witness answers, well, I felt like I needed to address first, the executive, so I wrote President Obama and he wrote me back. Defense says to court, he has marked defendants exhibit E, wants to show jury, asks witness to describe the item. Witness says, this is a letter I got from President Obama. Defense asks, where you satisfied with the President Obama's response to that letter [ which you wrote ? ]. Witness states, I was excited to receive a letter from the president but when I read the policy I was very disappointed by what his plans were. I didn't think it was powerful enough for the situation we're in. Defense asks, so what other things did you do then, besides ... did you write letters to other legislators ? Witness answers, I did. Defense asks, OK, and do you remember who you wrote to ? Witness states, Patty Murray. Defense asks, and what about, did you ever wrote to the Seattle city council ? Witness speaks over the last part of Defense question. Witness states, I wrote a letter to D Constantine. Defense continues, and what about the Seattle city council ? Again, witness speaks over the last part of the question. Witness says, and I wrote a letter to the governor, and I wrote a letter to M O'Brien ( ? ). Defense asks, he's the Seattle city councilman ? Defense, then without waiting for an answer, asks, did you ever visit the city ( council ) ? Witness answers, I'm feeling rushed, can we just slow down a little, I'm anxious and I want to take some deep breaths, and I'm feeling like your in a hurry. Defense counters, OK, asks court, can we take a morning recess ? Court announces a recess so the attorney can talk to witness, mumbles further, then reminds jury about discussing the case. Witness steps down.
10:21:29 Court is in recess.
10:34:55 Court returns from recess. Witness is seated. Court reminds the room that there is no photography without permission. Court reminds witness she is still under oath. Court directs ( Goldsmith ? ) to proceed.
Jury is not in the room. Defense makes a funny. Laughter, some comment from Court, more laughter. Jury enters.
Defense asks, did you ever testify before any legislature, city council ? Witness responds, yes, before the department of ecology many times, there's a lot of hearings, for the ( ? ) proposals. Defense asks, about how many times did you testify at hearings ? Witness answers, too many to count. Defense asks, did you start getting involved with actions, or protests ? Witness answers, ya .... I actually signed the Keystone pipeline pledge of resistance and that was really pivotal for me .... um ... a lot of times I signed a lot of petitions on line, but this was actually the time when you sign the petition and you promise to ... ah ... risk arrest if need be and a hundred thousand folks committed to that act and it was actually so powerful that the president didn't want to embarrass the ... ah ... the country, by having all these people, you know, doing a protest like that. So, that .... I found that very powerful. Defense asks, why did you feel the need to get involved in specific actions like that ? Witness answers, because everything that I did, I didn't feel like it was making any difference, I would testify for two minutes and I felt, at the end, I felt really excited because, I mean .... at the beginning I felt really excited because there would be thousands of supporters and there would be nobody against the proposal and then, ah ... I felt like we weren't heard. It felt like an exercise that we participated, but it didn't feel like we were actually heard, because the decisions were .... it felt like the projects were being rubber stamped no matter what we did, no matter how the quality of the comments were and how large the crowds were and how little the opposition was it just seemed like those were still getting approved. Defense asks, so you got involved in protest types of actions, correct ? Witness responds, yes. Defense asks, what other types of things did you do then, in the protest actions area ? Witness answers, well, I wouldn't say this is a protest action, but one thing I did before protest, I prayed and I preached at my church and I was very active and so I really did feel like, I tried a lot ... everything I could think of. Before I switched to direct action I actually felt like I tried to work within the system to the fullest extent possible. Defense asks, are you still trying to get people to sign petitions to this day ? Witness answers, I am. Defense asks [ this attorney starts his questions with " and so, " ] were you involved in other protests where you were not arrested ? Witness answers, I was. Defense coaxes witness to name some of others. Witness responds, I was in charge of the support rally for an ... a .... ah .... some barrels that were put on a railroad track. Defense asks, when was that, do you remember ? Witness answers, July of .... [ long, long pause ] ... was it 20 ... no, I'm just wondering out loud, I'm not ...... Defense asks, was it before the arrest in this case ? Witness responds, yes, it was. Defense asks, and, and, were you involved in other protests before the arrest in this case ? Witness answers, tries to respond, is confused, at this point Prosecution objects, again, to the leading questions. Court over rules, directs witness to answer. Witness states, yes. Defense asks, when - what was that, briefly ? Witness responds, actually, say the question again ? Defense asks, again, what, you were involved in a die in protest, what does that mean, when did that happen ? Witness answers, so there's been a lot of explosive trains that have been happening and so, these ... ah ... these things are happening and ... um ... and so 350 put one together by the stadium and .... um .... there was one for typhoon Hayian and these things were happening, so we've been doing a lot of these protests. Once again, Defense asks a leading question, so like these people are dying, is that what they do ? Witness evidently said yes, Defense doesn't hear it, and asks, is that yes ? Witness states, yes. Before Defense can ask, witness suddenly comes to life on her own. Witness states, so I feel like there was a list of things to try that I got from 350 dot org, it just had this check list of all these things, so I did street theater, for instance, we did the ... um ... the parade, it was the ... um .... the Fremont parade and we made a coal train and we marched in the parade, so graphic art is very powerful so I'm an artists, I went to art school, and so, being able to use art, even in ... um ... poetry is very powerful and also, ... um ... in our liturgical dance in our church is very powerful .... Defense interrupts, asks, you talked about the Magnolia derailment, that was near your home, was that a key moment, that was about July of 2014, was that a key moment for you, that you took another step ? Witness answers, ya ... the very first step was ( ? ) and what I found out from ( ? ) was that a train exploded and it was a brake problem. Defense asks, and 2014 there was a derailment near your home ..... witness interrupts, and goes on. And so one year later it was this derailment. Defense asks, so what did you do after that, did you join a group that was direct action, go to a camp, remember that ? [ Defense is almost pleading at this point, for witness to become " connect the dots, with your responses " ] . Witness answers, yes, I did. Defense asks, tell us about that. Witness responds, so the last straw that broke my back, was actually the Magnolia thing, and having it soo close to my daughters school was so stressful for me and I felt powerless and feeling like there's a ticking time bomb and that's what it felt like, so my daughter and I actually went to backbone action camp and we learned to climb some trees and that's were I met ( other defendant ) and I already knew ( other defendant ) from 350 Seattle and ( other defendant ) was also from 350. Defense asks, so you joined the group of the other defendants for this protest on September 2nd, is that how it came out ? Witness doesn't wait for Defense to stop speaking. Witness answers, and so, at that camp, we decided we needed to do something more. Defense asks, and so the action on September 2nd, that was the something more ? Witness responds, yes. Defense wants witness to look at a picture.
Defense shows witness what has been admitted as exhibit B. Defense wants witness to approach and point to the picture, so as to point out something to the jury. Defense asks, as a statement, point to picture, where you are, to the jury. Witness points to the picture. Defense asks, were you scared ? Witness answers, no, I felt really powerful, and um ... up there. Defense asks, your sign, what was that all about, cut oil trains, not conductors ? Witness answers, cut oil trains, not conductors, um .... I learned about ( ? ) who was a whistle blower and he got fired and um, when he got fired .... um .... it, I believe it was unfairly, from a brake inspection that he was insisting on doing at the 2010 Olympics [ yes, her words ] and the company insisted that he quit the brake inspection to stay on schedule and move ... and he refused and he was fired and so what happened with that is ... um .... [ witness seems suddenly lost, very long pause ]. Defense leads on, so why don't you have a seat here, have a seat. Defense tries to ask a question, but suddenly witness comes back to Earth. Witness continues, I learned about whistle blowers so it's a cut oil trains, not conductors and I was really concerned about ... um ... I joined railroad workers united and I learned a lot of stuff about railroad safety. Defense asks, what is railroad workers united ? Witness continues, it's a group that was designed to keep the crafts from in fighting and join together and actually work together on safety issues .... um ... in the industry. And I joined as a solidarity member, I don't run a train or anything like that. Defense asks, did you also get involved in labor union issues involving the railroad ? Witness answers, I did, and so one of the issues I learned from railroad workers united was it said there's a big campaign about two person crews and they wanted to reduce it to one and the vote was ... um ... it was September 2nd, the day we protested and I think the vote was on September 10th, I think or 9th or something, so almost a week before. Defense asks, had something to do with that vote as well ? Witness answers, ya ... yes. Defense again leads, by asking, so that was another area of your concern ? Witness answers, it was a big concern. Defense asks, and you felt it was urgent ? Witness responds, yes, I mean the vote was happening and if there was just a one man crew then it would be just like ( ? Canada, train explosion ? ) where they only had one crew member on that train. Defense asks, did you, also, there was some mention of the Shell flotilla actually after this protest, were you involved in that protest ? Witness answers, yes, I was a kayaktivist, I was actually on the land brigade and one of the things we were trying to do is to prevent the workers from actually getting in because if we could just delay this project for two weeks then it was too dangerous for them to actually go to the arctic because they only had a small window. Defense asks, did you get arrested in that occasion ? Witness states, no, I did not, I supported people that were arrested, the raging grannies were arrested and I was a support person for the raging grannies. Defense asks, and the city council person, M O'Brien, was he arrested too ? Witness responds, he was, but that was the flotilla action and that was another team was working, I was on the land team, and O'Brien and the activists were on the water. Defense asks, while you were up on that tripod on September 2nd, whenever you had contact with a police officer or other authority figure, what would you ask them ? Would you ask them to do something ? Witness answers, would you say that again ? Defense tries again, when you were up on that tripod ? Witness says, I had a petition and I was petitioning the government ... um ... I had a petition in my backpack and I, it was one of my goals for this action was to call .... um .... for a moratorium on fossil fuel projects and it was targeted directly at governor Inslee. And so, I felt like I needed to be in that railroad yard because it was the only location where I could have a direct action that would say to both the railroad company that workers, we are with you, we care about workers rights, we care about safety, we care about moving through this community and the other hand we're trying to get our government, our legislators who are representing the people to stop listening to industry and actually listen to the people who don't want these projects.
10:47:30 Defense wants to show witness some photos. Photos are marked but witness is asked to not show to jury, as photos have not been admitted. Defense states, this is a group ( of photos ? ) that has been labeled F, G, H and I . Start with F. Defense instructs witness to look at all the photos, start with F and take a minute to do that.
Defense asks, do you recognize those photos. Witness says, yes, I do. Defense asks, do they depict you up on that tripod that day ? Witness responds, yes, they do. Defense moves for admission of exhibits F through I. Court asks, any objections ? There are none. Defense instructs witness to step down again, and he will show F to the jury. Defense asks witness to tell the jury what she is doing in photo F. Witness states, so, this is the point .... um .... when this ... ah ... cherry picker, which is a fire engine, it's a fire ladder and it came up and there were .... um some fire fighters in there and I asked them if they would sign my petition and they said that they were not allowed to sign my petition because they had their uniform on. And I said to them ... well, after you tuck your children in at night and you take off your uniform and, would you please go to the computer and we have a petition on line that you could sign that would ... and this is very particular for firefighters because firefighters are in great danger when there is a train explosion, there's no way to actually ... um ... do anything, you have to just run away from that, and the firefighters are concerned .... Defense asks, and so what is that package your handing the firefighter ? Witness answers, that has a petition in it, it has my ( ? ) petition in it, and it has an empty one for the firefighters to sign. Defense asks, did they actually accept that package ? Witness states, well, so ... and is interrupted by Prosecution. Prosecution asks court, relevance ? Defense tries to ask witness if she knows what happened to the envelope ( package ? ). Court interrupts, asks Defense if he is conceding the objection. Defense responds, I'll concede the objection. We'll move on to the next picture. Defense asks witness, do you remember what's happening here, exhibit G ? Witness responds, well, yes, we're talking about that petition and negotiating whether their going to sign it or not and then, I'm trying to slowly give them one thing at a time so I have this sign that says, if you were looking for a sign, this is it - and the other one says rise up, and so I was just handing these things one at a time. I had a coat, I had a backpack, I had a lot of gear up there cause I was planning on staying up there for a long time. Defense asks, OK, you had some drinks and food with you ? Witness answers, water, food . Defense asks, you were wearing a diaper ? Witness answers, yes. Defense asks, how long were you up there, total ? Witness responds, 8 hours. Defense asks, and how long were you planning on staying up there, if they hadn't taken you off the tripod ? Witness answers, I wasn't sure, I hadn't been up there, I didn't know how it was going to feel, so ... um ... once I was up there I really wanted to stay out there as long as I could. Defense asks, were you going to stay overnight ? Witness responds, well, um ... I struggled with that because I wanted to see if all of my goals were met and I wasn't sure, I had a lot of hopes and I wasn't sure if all of them were going to be met or how many to be satisfied with cause this was really powerful and important part and I didn't want it to end. Defense instructs witness to be seated. Defense asks, before you sit down, lets just look at the photos [ even though he has told her to have a seat prior ] . Defense asks, in this photo, which is exhibit H can you explain to the jury what's going on there ? Witness responds, so, I am, I believe that I am, I was attached to this tripod so if I fell off, there's a rope that would catch me and so that had to be disconnected but also before they did that they have to connect a safety line to this cherry picker so I'm always lashed in at one point. Defense asks, so that was their safety line ? Witness answers, it was their safety line attached from the cherry picker to myself. Defense states he is going to show witness the final photo, exhibit I and asks witness to explain to the jury what is happening there. Witness answers, I'm just stepping off the tripod and making it into the cherry picker and the fire fighters are making sure I don't fall off or trip. Defense, for the second time, instructs witness to have a seat. Defense produces exhibit N and asks witness to identify it. Witness answers, this is the thing ( ? ) that I had on top ... um .... not knowing how the action was going to go. Defense interrupts and asks, is that not the ( ? ) that you had with you on the tripod that day ? Witness answers, yes. Defense continues, and depicted in some of the photos admitted ? Witness again answers, yes. Defense moves to admit item N. Court asks for objections, there are none. Defense asks witness to tell court about this item.
10:52:43 Cell phone goes off, evidently it belongs to defendant Mazza [ 2nd time this has happened ].
Defense asks, is that a home made item ? Witness answers, yes. Defense asks, why did you have it up there with you ? Witness answers, because I ... ah ... this is something I ... you can buy time, when you do an action like this, you don't know if your going to be picked off in one hour, or , or if there going to let you stay longer and so, this is, this was something that I wanted to stay at least for the day, you know, I mean, we haven't talked about my goals, but um .... but I wanted to be able to have this as an option, so I could stay longer if they decided to come straight after me then at least I could buy some time if the media was trying to get there and I wanted to have time to tell my story - I really needed to tell this story, we needed to tell this story. [ to this point, whatever the item is, it has not been descriptively identified ]. Defense asks, and, did you actually attempt to put your arm in there and lock yourself in place for a longer period of time ? Witness responds, when ? Defense asks, near the end, as been described by other witnesses ? Witness answers, so, as the fire fighters were coming up, I could see them coming up and I was trying to make a checklist, did we meet all our goals ?, and I started to get nervous and I wanted to stay longer but I had these messages, that were grounding messages on here and so this one reminds me of my daughter .... Prosecution objects as non responsive. Court sustains objection. Defense asks, can you describe what you did, what you were trying to do ? Witness responds, I was trying, I was struggling with the fact that I was a mother and um .... and um .... Defense asks, were you trying to put your arms in there ? Witness responds, I wanted to stay longer, but because I was a mother I decided that that was enough, that I'de made the point that it was going to be more harmful with me if I stayed overnight, for my family, for a lot of different people, if I didn't have a family I would have absolutely, and this is my grounding message to say, that's enough. Defense asks, so you attempted but didn't finish the attempt to put your arm in there, is that a fair statement ? Witness answers, I actually made the choice, I didn't know what it felt like up there, I didn't even know if this was long enough, like you'd have to latch it with something underneath there, and I wasn't even sure if my, if it would latch or not latch. Defense asks, so what were the goals you had that day ? Witness responds, well the first one was definitely towards governor Inslee to have a fossil fuel moratorium, have him reject all new fossil fuel projects, and .... um .... another goal was to let the railroad workers know we love trains and we support workers but we don't accept coal trains and oil trains coming through and trespassing in our communities. Defense asks, did you think your actions were necessary to prevent those harms. Witness responds, absolutely I felt like ... um ... it was very symbolic that we chose to trespass because I felt that the railroad and the oil and even .... they were trespassing against us. Defense thanks witness, states nothing further.
10:56:10 Other defense has nothing further. Court directs cross examination.
Prosecution asks, so you did know you were trespassing, correct ? Witness answers, absolutely. Prosecution asks, and you informed that you were trespassing, as well ? Witness responds, yes. Prosecution asks, and you were asked to leave ? Witness answers, I was. Prosecution asks, and you refused ? Witness answers, yes. Prosecution asks, was it your intent that day to delay a train ? Witness responds, yes. Prosecution asks, you said you had goals when you were up there, correct ? Witness answers, yes. Prosecution asks, have you heard from the governor ? Witness answers, he has not written me back. Prosecution asks, you've done several other things, like the Shell oil rig, you were on the land and you were not arrested ? Witness responds, I was not. Prosecution asks, is that because it wasn't illegal ? Witness states, no, ah ... I was working with people that were getting arrested, so I was supporting them. Prosecution asks, but what you were doing was not illegal ? Witness starts to respond, is directed by Prosecution that the question is a yes or no question. Defense objects to Prosecution as characterizing question as yes or no question. [ Court, as habit, once again, mumbles some sort of response ] [ I think the court directed Prosecution to ask another question ]. Prosecution asks, and you have campaigned before and gone to department of ecology public hearings, is that correct ? Witness answers, yes, in fact, those same raging grannies, we had another action at the Olympia ( ? ) so when we were there before the hearing to show, to try to get more people to turn out, we ..... Prosecution interrupts and objects as non responsive. Court asks Defense to input his opinion, Defense says I think she was just about to finish her answer. Multiple parties speak at same time. Court sustains the objection. Court directs Prosecution to ask another question. Prosecution asks, are you going to continue to be active and going to public hearings ? Witness responds, absolutely. Prosecution begins to say something, witness rambles on. Witness says, there's one ( ? ) that's yesterday and continuing and I am going to write a letter, I'm not going to physically write a letter, but I'm going to submit it, also on line and so there is still a window of opportunity for the ( ? ) project, which is the largest project in North America. Prosecution asks, do you believe that going to those hearings is important and effective ? Witness answers, I think I need to split that question in half, because one, it's important, it's absolutely important, do I think it's effective, absolutely not. Prosecution has nothing further. Defense asks, have you ever been arrested before or since September 2nd ? Witness states, I have not. Other defense has nothing further, Prosecution does not wish to re cross. Witness is excused.
Court asks Defense if they have another witnesses this morning. Defense says something abut a doctor who will not be present until 1 PM. Court announces to jury that the court will be taking a break again. Court announces a break ( lunch ) until 1 PM and that time court will resume with further testimony. Court speculates and Defense agrees that the coming witness will be the last Defense witness for the day ( day 3 ). Defense adds something, part of which is missing from the time slice. Defense continues, ... 9 tomorrow, I'll get him here at 8:30. Court announces a preview of the coming proceedings. Court believe the afternoon session will recess early. Court reminds jury about the discussion issues and outside contacts.
11:00:30 Court is in recess for lunch.