Treesitters Sue Timber Company For Trespass

Eureka, CA – Former treesitters have branched out in their lawsuit against Pacific Lumber (PL), adding an unusual twist to the case with new challenges to the controversial Northern California timber company. Dueling allegations of trespass will be brought before the court in a hearing on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 at 9:00 am at the Eureka courthouse. Hearing location is Courtroom 10.

The arguments stem from a “SLAPP” suit filed against tree-sitters and others protesting destructive logging in the sensitive Freshwater Creek watershed. A SLAPP suit is a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, used by corporations to quash protests against their operations. PL first filed suit in Superior Court in September 2002 complaining trespassing activists were occupying trees on PL property. In response, seven tree-sitters filed counter-suits last year, and recently amended with allegations of forcible entry and trespass by Pacific Lumber. Allegations of trespass filed against PL and its contract employees who forcibly removed the young tree sitters, are based on the legal position that the protesters were “in possession” of the ancient redwoods they were occupying, which is precisely what Pacific Lumber charged.

The separate corporate ownership question, however, is also under argument because the location of the trees occupied by the activists is in the county right-of-way directly adjacent to a public road. PL has long snubbed the activists’ requests for proof of ownership, saying the deed is a public document. But in answer to a question from the Court at a July 29, 2005 hearing, PL attorney Nicholas Kloeppel said ownership was “complicated.” Now PL has promised “simplified” proof will be presented to the Court at Tuesday’s hearing.

The court will also consider whether to issue a protective order on controversial footage from hidden cameras mounted in the helmets of treesit “extractors” hired by PL to forcibly remove activists from the high branches of ancient redwoods marked for cut. Activist defendants have been denied access to the footage and allege invasion of privacy based on the presence of the hidden “head cams.”

###