{"id":462008,"date":"2022-01-08T12:00:34","date_gmt":"2022-01-08T12:00:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/theintercept.com\/?p=382969"},"modified":"2022-01-08T12:00:34","modified_gmt":"2022-01-08T12:00:34","slug":"prosecutors-hit-anti-pipeline-protesters-with-felony-charges-to-send-a-message-defense-says","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/2022\/01\/08\/prosecutors-hit-anti-pipeline-protesters-with-felony-charges-to-send-a-message-defense-says\/","title":{"rendered":"Prosecutors Hit Anti-Pipeline Protesters With Felony Charges to Send a Message, Defense Says"},"content":{"rendered":"
Months after the<\/u> pipeline company Enbridge announced it had finished its Line 3 pipeline, hundreds of the project’s opponents have pending court cases for arrests made at protests during last year\u2019s construction.<\/p>\n
Defense attorneys for the water protectors, as the members of the Indigenous-led anti-pipeline movement are known, said many of the charges are overly aggressive and should be dismissed. Defense attorneys pointed to examples like felony theft charges for protesters who chained themselves to equipment and felony aiding attempted suicide for those who crawled into\u00a0sections of nonfunctional pipe.<\/p>\n
\u201cThese felony theft charges started coming out during the summer and it\u2019s very clearly an abuse of the prosecutorial charging function.\u201d<\/blockquote>\n\u201cThese felony theft charges started coming out during the summer and it\u2019s very clearly an abuse of the prosecutorial charging function,\u201d said Joshua Preston, a lawyer for the water protectors. \u201cIt\u2019s meant to send a message saying, \u2018If you come to this property and chain yourself to something, we\u2019re going to throw the book at you.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n
One of the county attorneys pursuing felony theft charges said the indictments were appropriate. \u201cCriminal felony theft meets the elements of the offense,\u201d Hubbard County, Minnesota, Attorney Jonathan Frieden told the Intercept.<\/p>\n\n
The criminal trials are the coda to a yearslong fight<\/a> over the pipeline in Minnesota between water protectors, on the one hand, and the pipeline company and police<\/a> on the other. Tensions\u00a0flared, with\u00a0Minnesota community members pitted against each other \u2014 partly\u00a0owing to what pipeline opponents said was a “corporate counterinsurgency<\/a>” against their movement, a set of military-style tactics barred<\/a> by the oil company’s permit.<\/p>\n
In addition to the aggressive legal tactics, new questions are being raised this week about the relationship between prosecutors in Minnesota, where the opposition was concentrated, and the pipeline company. Documents<\/a> published this week by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund\u2019s Center for Protest Law and Litigation, which is representing pipeline opponents, show that Frieden sought\u00a0reimbursement from an Enbridge-funded state escrow account to pursue charges against the corporation\u2019s opponents. The requests were denied.<\/p>\n
According to the documents, Frieden attempted to bill<\/a> $12,207.14 to a special account set up by the state of Minnesota to allow Enbridge to pay for law enforcement and public safety expenses affiliated with pipeline construction. Frieden was asking Enbridge to pay for the labor of Assistant County Attorney Anna Emmerling and three support staff for processing approximately 400\u00a0cases associated with construction of the Enbridge Line 3 pipeline.<\/p>\n
\u201cHours are due to multiple arrests\/citations\/complaints and prosecution for public safety related costs for maintaining the peace in and around the construction site,\u201d the county attorney stated in his invoice.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\nHe also asked the Minnesota state official hired to approve or deny Enbridge account invoices if he would extend the period of time<\/a> covered by the account. \u201cI would like to speak with you over the phone regarding the 180 day time limit following completion of the project,\u201d Frieden wrote in an email that the Center for Protest Law and Litigation obtained through a public records request. \u201cI\u2019m wondering if that might be changed in the future given the significant amount of resources my office will be expending over the next 6 months in the prosecution of criminal acts associated with Line 3.\u201d<\/p>\n
Rick Hart, the account manager for the Enbridge-funded escrow account, wrote back, \u201cProsecution expenses are not an allowable reimbursable expense for the Line 3 Public Safety Escrow Account.\u201d<\/p>\n
Frieden appeared to respond<\/a> with frustration. “I look forward to hearing why the multiple late nights and overtime hours by my staff to charge the individuals endangering the public don’t qualify under public safety. I assume the cost to arrest them is covered, just not to prosecute them? How does that make sense under the language you provided below?”<\/p>\n
Despite the denial,<\/u> the requests for reimbursement themselves suggest that a county attorney in charge of prosecuting hundreds of protest-related cases assumed Enbridge would be covering its costs \u2014 a fact that defense attorneys said could have legal significance.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe fact that the prosecutor brought these charges believing the prosecutions were going to be funded by the Enbridge corporation and oil money raises real issues as to the due process rights of defendants,\u201d said Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, director of the Center for Protest Law and Litigation and an attorney representing opponents of the pipeline.<\/p>\n
Frieden denied any bias against pipeline opponents. \u201cThe idea that we as a prosecution or a county prosecuted criminal law because we thought we would just not ever have to pay money is not accurate. We attempted to return some taxpayer money,\u201d he said. When the request was denied, the county moved forward with the felony theft cases, he added: \u201cWe are still prosecuting all the cases so any\u00a0idea that we were prosecuting based on getting paid by Enbridge is not true.\u201d<\/p>\n
An Enbridge spokesperson said the company leaves policing and prosecutions up to local officials. \u201cCommunity police and sheriff deputies are responsible for public safety. Officers decide when protestors are breaking the law \u2014 or putting themselves and others in danger,\u201d said Juli Kellner. \u201cWe support efforts to hold protesters accountable for their actions.\u201d<\/p>\n
The dates covered by the invoice coincide with a period of aggressive law enforcement responses to protests against the pipeline. On June 7, more than 100 people were arrested in Hubbard County while attempting to halt pipeline construction through civil disobedience. During the protest, a U.S. Customs and Border Protection helicopter kicked up a cloud of debris as it swooped low<\/a>\u00a0in an apparent attempt to disperse protesters. Among the\u00a0indictments brought by prosecutors\u00a0was trespass on a critical public service facility<\/a>, a charge defense attorneys said should not apply since the pipeline was not operating.<\/p>\n