Exhausted

Perhaps they will learn to hear us? When they realize the pain they have caused… in their own heated rush… for self-fulfillment… of a greed that is not truly satisfied… by force?

Perhaps they will realize it is through coherent, collective, collaborative cooperation – where all have enough and all are fulfilled, all are heard and heeded – that we release the old ways and find a new way forward? A way that is truly and beautifully compassionate, loving, and coherent.

I’m sorry, Nimaamaaaki… for not listening to You when you called to me… asking.

How many more times can You take this failure from us?
How many more times will You forgive us for not listening?
For not doing what You ask of us – to love and protect you…
…as You love and protect us?

Giving up Everything

Giving up everything
my hungry ghost of hopefulness

Giving up everything
not haunted by wanting this

Giving up everything
 the fortune I was saving

Giving up everything
I mercy-killed my craving

Giving up everything
I’ve opened up my eyes for this

Giving up everything
see the whole magnificent emptiness

Gave what I want for how it is
for the stone inside and the bitterness
for the sweetness at the core of it

Giving up everything
The master plan, the scheming

Giving up everything
 my cursed search for meaning

Giving up everything
 the compass and the map I was reading.

The hinterlands I’m leaving
I’m finally leaving behind

Giving up everything
 the big to-do, the hullabaloo
The tug-of-war for some twisted truth
 For the everlasting ache of it
No longer slave, not chained to it
 no gate, no guard, no keeper
 no guru, master, teacher

See the slow-receding faces
dissolve to black, no traces

Meanwhile, I remain… an Army of One.

I am surrounded by comrades.

And we are Learning to Sit Without Knowing…

We are all Highwomen… hoping all will come to understand how to Do No Harm.

Are we feeling the hopeful desperation… of birthing this new world? It feels we’re almost there.

She’s going to be worth all the pains, pressures, gains, and losses… of this long, hard labor.

Today’s blog was inspired by and empowered through the work of many fine woman. Some know not their influence, some do. There are too many to name… so the musical ones have my formal recognition here today: Amy Ray & Emily Saliers, Annie Humphrey, Carrie Newcomer, The Highwomen, the incomparable Natalie Merchant, and so many others.

What do we REALLY KNOW about Covid Vaccines… and other Treatments?

28 Monday Jun 2021

Posted by JamiG4 in Coronavirus, Human Extinction

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Bret Weinstein, Dr. Robert Malone, Steve Kirsch

Note: Partway through blogging about this video, it was pulled from YouTube… so I got what I could… This one is currently still up (on the Informed consent and reproductive toxicity of vaccines); a portion of their 3-hour talk, now pulled (additional pieces linked below). I’ve also considered titling this blog: The Science Behind Vaccine Hesitancy.

Three guys discussing the COVID-19 situation – a long discussion, so it was good to listen to their thorough consideration. Who are these guys? Two were vaccinated with Moderna and one on Prophylactic Ivermectin – simulating a ‘composite herd immunity’. Dr. Robert Malone is the inventor of mRNA Vaccine technology. Mr. Steve Kirsch is a serial entrepreneur who has been researching adverse reactions to COVID vaccines. Dr. Bret Weinstein is an evolutionary biologist (the Ivermectin user).

One could argue, that if everybody just took Ivermectin for a month, worldwide, we would end the pandemic.”
~Steve Kirsch “How to save the world, in three easy steps” @4:45 minutes

I got turned on to these guys by my buddy James Kunsler as a part of his recent blog:

Big Lie No. 1 is actually a whole bundle of lies surrounding the Covid-19 pandemic. The chief national health official, Dr. Anthony Fauci (a.k.a. “The Science”) can’t get his story straight about whether or not he funneled US taxpayer money to a lab associated with China’s People’s Liberation Army, to engineer a virus that was turned loose on the rest of the world. An email train of evidence shows that he did.
That was bad enough. Then Dr. Fauci (and most of the nation’s medical bureaucracy) worked hard to suppress cheap and effective treatments that defeated the virus and cured patients if used in the early stages of infection, namely, Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, Vitamin D, and Fluoxetine. (Fluoxetine, or Prozac, used “off-label,” modulates brain inflammation.) The suppression actively continues to this day. Dr. Fauci & Company promoted the use of a PCR viral testing system run at excessive cycle thresholds that flooded the medical system with false positive tests. The test’s inventor, (Nobel Prize winner) the late Dr. Kary Mullis,said the test was never meant to be used as a diagnostic tool.
Dr. Fauci and the medical bureaucracy are promoting an experimental “gene therapy” as “vaccines,” or so says the man who invented the mRNA vaccine procedure, Dr. Robert Malone — and you can hear him say that in this three-hour-plus roundtable discussion on Bret Weinstein’s Dark Horse YouTube podcast (if it hasn’t been taken down by the time you read this, because to-date YouTube suppresses all mention of Ivermectin, etc.). You will learn in this detailed discussion that the three vaccines being used have produced more deaths and “adverse events” in aggregate than all the other vaccines medicine has developed over the past thirty years. Let that sink in. You will also hear Dr. Malone describe the spike protein, which is the chief mechanism activated by the vaccines, as a “toxic” agent.
This cannot be good news for the millions who gave their consent to be vaccinated. We have no idea what the long-term effects will be, but it’s apparently the case that the toxic spike protein does not behave the way it was supposed to. That is, it does not remain in the intramuscular vaccination site, but rather migrates all through the body, with a special affinity for causing cardiovascular mischief, neuromuscular disorders, and damage to reproductive organs. Stand by on how all this works out. And beware of fresh attempts by your government to coerce you into a vaccination, or a series of them.
This is a fast-developing story, obviously with many sub-plots, but the net effect for “Joe Biden” will be to badly erode whatever shreds of legitimacy still hang on him. News about vaccine deaths and “adverse events” has also been suppressed, but that effort appears to be falling apart now, even as the government ratchets-up pressure to jab the substantial number of the “vaccine hesitant.” (Count me as “vaccine fuggeddabowdit” on this one.)”
The Three-Way Squeeze by James Kunsler 6/15/21

So what are the main pieces of info that struck me that struck me from the discussion at Dark Horse?

Steve Kirsh’s carpet cleaner got the Phizer vaccine and had a heart attack 2 minutes later. His wife also had hand trembling after being vaccinated. This triggered him onto questions on the safety of the vaccines. The guys then had a discussion of how the mRNA isn’t staying in the shoulder muscle, instead moving throughout the body after being injected. Though the FDA knew about the biodistribution, they determined the spike wasn’t biologically active. We know now, that spike is very dangerous.

The literature noted that, if the mRNA didn’t stay in the place where it is injected, the scientists knew it would be problematic, though they believed they have engineered it to “stay stuck”. Normally, before we would release this for human use, we would do animal studies but this was not fully understood before human vaccinations began with these emergency use products. Kirsch believes, “that’s the smoking gun.”

The group discussed the details of how this works in the body. The problem is NOT with mRNA vaccines but the issue is that, with the spike protein, the action of the body with this vaccine and the spike protein allows it to interact with the many places in the body. They claim that 200K vaccine users have died. And the issues is that voices on that have been censored while the “safe and effective” message has been promoted very widely.

Mr. Kirsch explained next about a woman with a miscarriage which was something never seen before. The baby was bloody, the brain was split in half – from a woman vaccinated at 25 weeks pregnant who’d been vaccinated a month earlier. The doctor assumed it was NOT the vaccine – because “it’s safe” – so the issue is reported as a genetic defect and not added to VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System]. Dr. Malone calls this the Groupthink problem; relies on assuming something not necessarily true. They go on to discuss how we get to a place where we understand the real data.

Bret Weinstein astonished by the large number of stories he’s heard from the vaccinated – which could be sampling error and is surely anecdotal. How do we confirm? Older people seem to have less issues – again in his small sampling.

Dr. Malone, a regulatory professional who talked with folks at the FDA, reports that adverse events were occurring and were atypical for a vaccine trial. This gets to the core – a problem is seeing Coronavirus as “every other vaccine we’ve seen”.

[I’d ask, if we are assuming it is a natural evolution, and not lab made with splicing, then perhaps we missed very critical things in the trial development? I mean, how DO they explain that strange polybasic furin cleavage site in the SARS-CoV-2 sequence???]

Dr. Malone was alarmed by the very unusual findings he read. Noted first the absence of reproductive toxicology package, normally in the genotoxicity – toxicity to the genes of the test system (in this case, the Aims test largely) – level one of genotoxicity analysis in vaccine development. Peter Marks, director of SEVER(?) says that new data is now available from Phizer in last couple weeks and is currently in evaluation. Mr. Hirsch noted that the study was on rodents who lack the same ACE2 receptor reaction as humans. Dr. Malone says we can all agree “corners were cut… in an emergency situation”. Hirsch says, “They took a risk and they lost, basically.” Though they would have done the same things… this is Monday morning quarterbacking, for sure. However, the FDA cartoon indicated that there were no corners cut…

Bret says this is not even a large-scale human experiment as an experiment would require that we’re doing systematic collection of data for analysis on all of the recipients, which we are not. Hardly any tracking is happening and much of the data is being lost or not reported. Hirsch argued that “nobody knows about VAERS, they’re told to report to V-SAFE.” Doctors are told to not report to VAERS, reports from doctors have been reversed without their consent…

The hypothesis of “there is a problem with these vaccines” is supported by the flatline data over years in VAERS now suddenly showing a spike in reporting.

Well… Youtube removed the video… so… there’s that. Guess they saved me from three whole hours… so let’s jump to the new video… below. First a couple other links

Medical journals, such as JAMA, Lancet, Nature and Chest are supported by pharmaceutical ads. They all rejected the largest, 600-patient prospective RCT from Egypt showing hospital rates with Ivermectin of 1 percent vs. 22 percent standard of care and mortality rates of 2 percent vs. 20 percent, respectively. These types of rejections are common.
Most of the world governments and institutions are acting like they have earned our trust. They have likely lost it. Patients want free flow of information with accountability.
Powers that be suppress the truth about COVID-19 by Richard Eggleston 6/13/21

Based on what I now know about the miniscule vaccine benefits (approximately a .3% reduction in absolute risk), side effects (including death), current COVID rates, and the success rate of early treatment protocols, the answer I would give today to anyone asking me for advice as to whether to take any of the current vaccines would be, “Just say NO.”
The current vaccines are particularly contraindicated if you have already been infected with COVID or are under age 20. For these people, I would say “NO! NO! NO!”
Should you get vaccinated? by Steve Hirsch 5/25/21

Should you get vaccinated? by Steve Hirsch 5/25/21

Still up… the larger one was pulled.

Two kinds of harm are possible from the vaccines: Short Term and Long Term: Possibility for driving escape mutants, possibly responsive to the vaccine, and then risk of ADE (no signal for this thus far!).

Coagulation problems associated with the adnovector. Plausible there are complications from the spike protein of Covid-19. There is no more obvious more plausible hypothesis.

Novel lipids in humans, with little experience of them in animals, is a concern. There is currently a review of a new data package from Phizer in process. Peter Marks at the FDA is recognized as an authority. The data provided by Canadians, we see concentration in ovarian tissue of a novel lipid reagent, unfamiliar to us at this point.

The FDA response to thalidimide has guided their modern-day legislative structure with a concentration on reproduction and consequences for birth defects. Hopeful that Phizer’s new data includes reprotox and genotox-data (though done on rats) and though reproductive risks don’t often become clear in early studies.

However, there have been examples in the past of unanticipated female reproductive responses not revealed by animal testing. Going to the bioethics, we need full and open disclosure of all the data. The burden is on the government, not to tell us what to do, but to convince us with data on what we ought to be doing. Reproductive implications at present require transparency and reports such as dysmenorrhea, often not shared by those who suffer, must be encouraged when they occur.

Giving children ice cream to get vaccinated is wrong. Ethical lines have been crossed throughout history… internment camps in the U.S. during WWII… and judgment calls are made to compromise core ethical principles when people are “at war”… which we, in hindsight, often lead to calling “mistakes”.

Steve Hirsch notes that knowing what he knows now, he would NOT have vaccinated his three young daughters and would have encouraged them to not be vaccinated. [9:10] Experimenting on our children is frustrating him. [Understatement…]

He attempted to get information to Biden to no avail, instead was gaslighted with non sequiturs. There was no willingness to debate the data, only dismissal. So many are standing on the “academics” calling vaccines “safe”. Instead of reviewing the data, the reliance is on those promoting vaccination. Instead, those speaking against all the “experts” are called wrong. [Reminds of the Enbridge Line 3 narrative in Minnesota…]

The spike protein is not a harmless antigen.

The NIH is basically sandbagging effective treatments, that the CDC is going along for the ride, that the FDA is fooled, and that people in Congress think Tony Fauci – whose been called out as the creator of the coronavirus and caused this whole thing… and then screwed up – yet they haven’t even analyzed any of the cases.”
14:30 Steve Hirsch on Informed consent and reproductive toxicity of vaccines

Dr. Malone notes we’ve been thru multiple cycles of this… as with gastric ulcers where this kind of attack was prevalent also against truth tellers. The guts to continue to speak up, in spite of opposition, is important.

Here are a few other links from their longer talk that remain up:

Spike protein is very dangerous, it’s cytotoxic (Robert Malone, Steve Kirsch, Bret Weinstein) From early in their discussion…

“Don’t come back until your lips are blue” (Robert Malone, Steve Kirsch, Bret Weinstein) On people being turned away until their blood oxygen is low enough to be dangerous… and given no treatment whatsoever, though some are available. 5:00 Dr. Malone notes in the U.S. primary care docs have sought solutions, resorted to off-label Rx, after reading the pre-prints, and FOUND GOOD SUCCESS in INNOVATION. Innovation is coming from front-line docs, revealing the fundamentals of what makes this country great, which is often not large-centrally controlled enterprises but individual solutions.

Pfizer data REVEAL – Where do the lipid nanoparticles collect? (Robert Malone, Steve Kirsch, Bret W) It looks like mainly… the ovaries! {Though the CDC says it’s safe for pregnant women, it may not be safe for woman at all???) Bone marrow signals… reactivation of latent human retrovirus (like shingles)… and other data appear to show concerns. While data have been available to the regulators, the messaging has not made it clear to the public. Bret also concerned about auto-immune disease development, which Dr. Malone agrees is something that must be monitored for, in those who receive the vaccines. Animal models give us signals on what to investigate for human impacts.

So… alarming short term concerns with where the spike proteins and lipids are being found, the high uptick in harms in the system (which appear to be conservative), and long-term harms that might develop. Cannot un-vaccinate yourself… says Steve.

Dark Horse Podcast – Pfizer data REVEAL – Where do the lipid nanoparticles collect?

Bret notes that Ivermectin is a good solution, yet the stigma against it continues, the censorship continues. And Flovoxamine, which may help with long-haul COVID as it can pass the blood/brain barrier, is similarly targeted.

All being driven by the financial interests of private corporations… who want to try experimental work… and thus avoiding the costs of TRUE studies on their drugs.

Safe range doses of Ivermectin, with a well-known safety profile, are being stymied by those who say Ivermectin needs to be PROVEN… (it has been). As there is no profit in doing this work (the drug is now 0.03 cents per dose!), trials haven’t happened.

Did you also hear that Merck (2/4/21) made claims against their OWN DRUG, Ivermectin? How crazy is that??? Well, what they didn’t tell you is they are working on a brand “new” (aka EXPENSIVE) drug that will work against SARS-CoV-2!! [Wondering if they just added some weird thing to their already proven formula… simply to be able to create a new stream of big dollars. And what the side effects of that might be…]

So… Good Luck, Everybody! And Keep Researching and Investigating… cause we’re all on our own now!!

Here’s Kuntsler’s latest blog… which brings up the point I’ve asked from the beginning… do vaccines have a possibility of making MORE variants… James blogs:

The leading government policy just now is to hector, browbeat, and coerce Americans to get vaxed-up with vaccines that appear to be pretty hazardous. The Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Johnson & Johnson vaccines so far (which is not very far) have produced more deaths and adverse events than all the other vaccines for all other diseases developed in the past thirty years, and we have no idea what the long-term effects will be of a spike protein that likes to damage blood vessels, brains, and reproductive organs. That’s another thing the news and social media don’t want the public to inform themselves about, not to mention the scientifically-based opinion that vaccinating a populace in the middle of an epidemic is pretty certain to provoke the evolution of new and more dangerous variants of the disease agent.”
Free at Last – James Kuntsler 6/18/21 (my emphasis)

Meanwhile, Bret wrestles with why vaccines are being pushed for everyone. Me too, Bret. Me too.

MN Court of Appeals as Bedazzled as the PUC?

21 Monday Jun 2021

Posted by JamiG4 in Citizenship, Insanity, Local Reporting, Politics, Preventing Line 3

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Enbridge, Judge Reyes, Line 3, MN PUC, Regulatory Capture

Though Enbridge TESTIFIED in 2017 to being able to SAFELY run their current Line 3 – EVEN IF their new pipeline “replacement” project was NOT approved, the PUC used that basis – that their current Line 3 was UNSAFE – for their Line 3 approval order.

Now even Judges Jesson and Kirk appear similarly seduced. All were seemingly so bedazzled by the Enbridge narrative that they agreed it was “REASONABLE” that the MN Public Utilities Commission would agree to allow Enbridge’s new pipeline request… based on their current UNSAFE Line 3!!

It is surely an argument only a cat chasing its tail would comprehend!

One lone soul on the Minnesota Court of Appeals – celebrated Judge Peter Reyes – retained his wits and clearly demonstrated in both words and a simple chart how ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS the PUC had been in their decision.

It’s right in front of our noses and yet there has been no explanation by the PUC on how they made this LEAP to approve Line 3 while getting NONE of the data they’d gotten for their previously submitted Enbridge projects in 2008 and 2012.

How is that reasonable? How is it based on evidence?
And how does it possibly adhere to the law?
As Reyes notes, It Does Not. While the MN Department of Commerce approved previous projects, this one it did not. And rightfully so as is easily seen here:

Chart could be a depiction of “Regulatory Capture” in the dictionary?

Judge Reyes uses the term “arbitrary and capricious” multiple times throughout his dissent. This is a touchy legal term so it feels almost like he’s really rubbing in the point that this is so CLEARLY a violation of the law… or perhaps he’s expressing how amazed he is to be standing alone in his Dissent opinion? It’s clearly stated here.

In sum, Enbridge knows how to provide demand forecast data in a certificate-of need application, yet conspicuously chose not to do so here. The PUC knows how to evaluate demand forecast data and has in the past, but did not to do so here. The inescapable conclusion is that the PUC acted arbitrarily or capriciously by granting the certificate of need unsupported by substantial evidence. Because we afford an agency no deference if its findings are arbitrary and capricious or unsupported by substantial evidence, I would reverse the PUC’s order granting Enbridge a certificate of need.
Judge Reyes’ Dissent on MN Court of Appeals case challenging PUC approval of Enbridge’s Line 3 Replacement project

When the picture is this easy to see, why is it Enbridge seems to be able to continue their progress?

When all roads point to corrupt collusion on many fronts within the State government, it’s hard to see any other reason. Healing Minnesota Stories also wrote on the obvious failings at the PUC… Revisiting the PUC’s tortured logic to approve Line 3 regardless of treaty rights violations.

Want to know more about this brilliant and brave Justice?

Among his recognitions, Minnesota Lawyer named Judge Reyes as one of the “Top Ten Minnesota Attorneys of the Year” in 2001, one of the “Attorneys of the Year” in 2012, 2016, and 2017, and as a recipient of the inaugural “Diversity & Inclusion Award” in 2017. In 2012 and 2013, Poder Magazine named him as one of the 100 Most Influential Hispanics in America.
Judge Reyes received the Ohtli Award in 2016, the highest award given out by the Mexican government to a non-Mexican citizen. He received the “HNBA Latino Judge of the Year Award” in 2018. And in 2019, Judge Reyes received the “MHBA Courage in Leadership Award” and the ABA 2019 “Spirit of Excellence Award.”
Judge Peter M. Reyes, Jr.

Thank goodness for the brave ones. Judge Reyes, you have my heart.

Appointed to the Court of Appeals by Governor Mark Dayton, April 7, 2014. Elected in 2016. Current term expires January 2023.
William Mitchell College of Law, Juris Doctor, cum laude (1997)
University of St. Thomas, Bachelor of Arts, Major: Chemistry, Minor: Biology

MN Judicial Branch Bio

You and PUC Commissioner Schuerger seem in need of more brave ones in the Minnesota government to join you. I hope they do. Perhaps whistle-blowers in State agencies were awaiting the logic of your reasoning? Will we see the Department of Commerce again pursue the case. It seems unlikely in the horrific Walz administration which he continues to fill with corporation-friendly and environmentally ignorant appointments.

Meanwhile, the PUC is now screwing over landowners as well as Tribes in Minnesota? Sounds like Enbridge used the same $10/foot figure to fuck over Canadians too! Yet the PUC doesn’t agree landowners are getting hosed…
Basically, Enbridge is giving landowners a pittance (1% of the cost of removal) if they agree to keep the old pipeline in place…but doesn’t sound like many of them understood the bargaining power they had with Enbridge.
A story with a long history here in MN… Enbridge selling lies. And getting away with it.
Makes one wonder if Enbridge is the only one making out in these deals…
I mean, what’s in it for the PUC to continue fucking us all over like this?

And still, many are calling for support along the Enbridge Corridor. Indigenous leaders continue to ask for a stop to this project which violates Treaty Rights and ignores the voices of Sovereign Nations, whose territories are affected by this unnecessary pipeline.

Dawn Goodwin’s voice was soft but forceful as she spoke into the camera: “I’m calling on you, Joe Biden, to uphold our treaties, because they are the supreme law of the land.”
‘We will not stop’: pipeline opponents ready for America’s biggest environmental fight Guardian

As drought ravages Northern Minnesota, we wait for rain, and a return to sensible judgement in our state government.

Special thanks to RISE Coalition, White Earth Reservation, Indigenous Environmental Network, seekjoy, Healing MN Stories, and the many others helping to spread the truth about this unnecessary Tar Sands pipeline… as the oil industry dies.

A Message from RISE Coalition

14 Monday Jun 2021

Posted by JamiG4 in Preventing Line 3

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Clearwater County, Dawn Goodwin, Enbridge, Gaagigeyaashiik, Line 3, Mississippi River Valley, RISE Coalition

Prayer is a Freedom Guaranteed by the First Amendment. Today’s blog is dedicated to Camp Firelight and their ongoing ceremony to protect all the life in this place from the dangers of Enbridge’s Relocation and Expansion Tar Sands Pipeline Project.

Today at Firelight camp where we are peacefully asserting our treaty rights by occupying space and holding ceremony, we received this eviction notice from Enbridge.
RISE Coalition rejects Enbridge’s empty trespass claims, stands on treaty rights. For the past week, Anishinaabe band members have exercised their treaty rights and peacefully occupied a site on the Mississippi headwaters where Enbridge plans to drill its Line 3 pipeline under the river. They have been joined by many non-Indigenous allies who are invited guests.
Today, Enbridge issued a letter alleging that a ”certain group of people” is trespassing on its pipeline easement and demanded that we depart the premises.
We respectfully decline.
We are not a “certain group of people,” but members of various bands of Anishinaabe people with constitutionally guaranteed rights to hunt, fish and gather on lands that we ceded to the United States government.
Throughout the multi-year Enbridge Line 3 review process, Enbridge and the state of Minnesota have remained willfully ignorant of our rights established under the treaties of 1837, 1854 and 1855. Our treaty rights are the supreme law of the land, according to Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. These take precedent over any state-approved easement or trespass laws.
We dispute many of the assertions in Enbridge’s June 12 letter.
Enbridge continues to call this a “replacement project.” It is not. It is a new and larger pipeline along a new route. That’s not a replacement.
Enbridge’s letter states that “trespassers claimed to be present on the site to conduct religious ceremonies.” It was not a claim but a fact. The ceremony is ongoing. Our people continue to fast and pray for the protection of the water and the land.
Enbridge’s letter said we have “caused significant damage to property and equipment.” This is not true. There was nothing here when we arrived other than a wood plank road that was already carved up by the coming and going of heaving equipment. There was no equipment here to damage.
Enbridge’s letter states that we are “endangering the health and safety of construction workers and the trespassers themselves.” Speaking for ourselves, we do not feel endangered. Nor have we seen any Enbridge workers since we arrived who might be endangered. This is corporate hype to create fear; our presence is peaceful nor are we trespassing.
Truth is, it’s Enbridge and its workers who have endangered the health and safety of our Indigenous peoples. Enbridge began Line 3 construction while the pandemic was still out of control. Indigenous peoples have suffered disproportionately from COVID, yet the state and Enbridge showed little concern.
Further, Indigenous people have repeatedly raised concern about an increase in sex and drug trafficking due to the influx of out-of-state Line 3 construction workers. Enbridge wrote a weak Human Trafficking Prevention Plan and the state rubber stamped it. The state imposed no reporting requirement on sex trafficking arrests, let alone imposed any sanctions on Enbridge for violations. This was callous and irresponsible.
Enbridge’s letter states it has made “multiple overtures” to the trespassers. We are confused by this statement. The June 12 letter was the first communication we received.
Enbridge refers to us as “criminals.” Enbridge is the criminal. It’s been cited multiple times for safety violations. It’s responsible for the 2010 crude oil spill in Michigan’s Kalamazoo River that took several years and $1.2 billion to clean up.
In the most recent outrage, Enbridge is seeking to mess with more of our clean water. It originally asked the state for a permit allowing it to dewater 510 million gallons of water for construction. On Friday, it amended its request to 5 billion gallons of water, or ten times the original amount. And this during a state drought.
Enbridge and the state of Minnesota have repeatedly failed to respect our treaty rights, our lands, and our water.
We wait with great anticipation to hear the decision on a major lawsuit before the Minnesota Court of Appeals challenging Line 3 permits. We will have more to say tomorrow.
RISE, Resilient Indigenous Sisters Engaging, includes women Leech Lake, Fond du Lac and White Earth, who came together to Stop Line 3.
Gaagigeyaashiik Dawn Goodwin, speaking for Firelight Camp and RISE Coalition June 13, 2021

Credit: Seekjoy video linked below 6-13-21

Seekjoy video of the above response from Gaagigeyaashiik Dawn Goodwin 6/13/21

In Clearwater County, Sheriff Darin Halverson has been working to keep the law in the Mississippi River Valley and that means he will be enforcing the Constitution. I am hopeful that today, that peace will continue.

Time’s Up for Tar Sands

07 Monday Jun 2021

Posted by JamiG4 in Climate Change, Economics, Preventing Line 3

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Big Oil Dying, Canadian Oil and Gas, Capital Expenditures, Enbridge, fossil fuel industry, Line 3

Today I provide some insights giving more evidence of Enbridge’s unnecessary Line 3 Tar Sands pipeline. At this point, I’m wondering if perhaps even Enbridge execs themselves might appreciate a verdict from the Minnesota Court of Appeal Judges to halt construction. I mean: Quit while you’re behind, boys!!

To begin, Enbridge can’t keep paying 327% of profits to their shareholders in this losing game.

If a company pays out more in dividends than it earned, then the dividend might become unsustainable – hardly an ideal situation. Last year, Enbridge paid out 327% of its profit to shareholders in the form of dividends. This is not sustainable behaviour and requires a closer look on behalf of the purchaser. Yet cash flows are even more important than profits for assessing a dividend, so we need to see if the company generated enough cash to pay its distribution. Enbridge paid out more free cash flow than it generated – 172%, to be precise – last year, which we think is concerningly high. We’re curious about why the company paid out more cash than it generated last year, since this can be one of the early signs that a dividend may be unsustainable.
Cash is slightly more important than profit from a dividend perspective, but given Enbridge’s payouts were not well covered by either earnings or cash flow, we would be concerned about the sustainability of this dividend.”
We Wouldn’t Be Too Quick To Buy Enbridge Inc. (TSE:ENB) Before It Goes Ex-Dividend by Simply Wall Street 2/6/21

It looks like Enbridge is getting ready to fuck over not just Minnesota, but likely their shareholders too? Maybe that’s why they’re suing Minnesota for back taxes? To help pay those shareholder dividends?

Looking at the industry, Canadian oil and gas extraction is circling the drain.

Capital expenditures (capex) for the Canadian oil and gas extraction industry have dropped a massive 73% since 2014. While this data includes tar sands as well as other conventional and offshore expenses, by far the largest sector in this industry is the tar sands. This indicates no need for a new tar sands pipeline.

As these expenditures include not just those for new projects but also ongoing maintenance costs, the substantial decrease indicates a likelihood of little to no capital spent on new Tar Sands projects in 2020. #NoNeed4Line3

As the global oil industry declines, some speculate new project capex will fall and cash available for maintenance may also fall, but not necessarily equally, as uneconomic and marginally economic companies would likely be those most likely to cut corners. [This dynamic may in part explain the Superior refinery explosion and its delayed reconstruction?]

So why is Enbridge pushing Line 3 and a new tunnel project for Line 5?

Some of the more humorous responses to this question include recognition of Enbridge management as unable to see their own future doom (bury your head in the sand theory) or curb their own incessant greed (making money as you doom children to a horrific future theory) both of which are based on the inane belief in perpetual growth and a fear of what will happen without it.

Meanwhile, Chevron is looking to drop their Canadian oil sands like a hot potato…

Chevron CEO Mike Wirth signaled he would consider selling its 20% stake in a Canadian oil sands mine as its faces investor pressure to do more to curb emissions and fight climate change. …
“We’re not in the kind of fire-sale mentality,” Wirth said. “But if we got what we think is fair value for an asset like that, we’ve been willing to transact on things that are of that scale and kind of relative importance in the portfolio.”
Oil sands are among the most challenged energy assets because of the volume of emissions created when producing crude from mines and from underground wells that require steam injection.
Facing increased pressure to cut carbon emissions, multiple international oil companies including Royal Dutch Shell Plc and ConocoPhillips have divested of their Canadian oil sands holdings in recent years.
Those pressures have only intensified in the past week. Chevron shareholders voted on May 26 in favor of a climate proposal to include emissions from customers’ burning of fuels in future reduction targets, against the wishes of the board.”
Chevron open to sale of Canadian oil sands stake to meet green goals by Robert Tuttle 6/3/21

Speaking of going against the wishes of the board… Exxon just got two unwanted activist seats on their new board. And some are saying the fossil fuels biz is in big trouble.

Things are looking decidedly murky at a granular level, with environmental activists taking advantage of the clean energy momentum and major policy changes by the world’s governments to turn the screw on Big Oil.
But what happens when you zoom out and look at the bigger picture—Entire nations that depend on oil to power their economies. How will economies that are heavily dependent on oil exports cope with the shift to low-carbon fuels?
In 2019, 40 countries across the globe exported crude worth $1 billion or more, with some like Iraq depending on oil sales to finance upwards of 90% of their budgets. Fossil fuel-dependent economies represent almost one-third of the world’s population and are responsible for a fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions.
And now the International Energy Agency (IEA) has warned that pursuing net-zero emissions target is likely to be catastrophic for many oil exporters. …
Global oil and gas companies cut their capex by a staggering 34% in 2020 in response to shrinking demand and investors growing wary of persistently poor returns by the sector.”
Rapid Energy Transition Could Doom Oil Exporting Countries by Alex Kimani 6/1/21

In an earlier piece, Kimani noted:

For the first time ever, the world’s largest investment banks are backing renewable energy investments more than their fossil fuel brethren.
According to Bloomberg data covering almost 140 financial-service institutions worldwide, at least $203 billion in bonds and loans have gone into renewable projects through May 14, compared with $189 billion to businesses focused on hydrocarbons.
That marks the first time in the history of modern fossil fuels that such a shift is occurring.”
Is The IEA Report A Tipping Point For Oil Investing? 5/20/21

We must admit much of the issue is because there isn’t enough oversight of the powers that be, or outcry against those forces not being accountable to the people… which I reported on last week with the Jessica Intermill piece. Though the outcry seems to be rising as we see today a Treaty People’s Gathering bringing many to the Corridor to express their opposition to this dumb idea.

Meanwhile, we still await a verdict from the Minnesota Court of Appeals on the challenge to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission approving the project without a true demand forecast and while the Environmental Impact Statement remained clearly inadequate to show the impacts of a spill into Lake Superior (previously remanded by the MN Court of Appeals).

It would seem that verdict might be favorable, based on the comments and questions from Judges Jesson, Reyes, and Kirk. Judge Jesson mentioned that the data on Need appeared to look like a Supply forecast, not a Demand forecast (law requires a Demand forecast). While Judge Reyes questioned if Enbridge created a situation of foregone conclusion that there would be no impact on Lake Superior by picking a site (Little Otter Creek) about 30 miles from the Lake… and only allowing 24 hours for the analysis. I mean, if the water has to travel at more than 60 miles/hour to get to Superior… you gotta admit, Reyes has a good point!

Given the state of the dying Tar Sands industry, alongside increasing pressure on the oil industry as a whole, and the lack of financial viability of Enbridge as determined by the State of Michigan years ago, the State of Minnesota ought to be happy to have the project stopped and Enbridge forced to return the landscape to what it was.

Well, happy may be a bad word… as there is no way to return thousands of decades old trees to the clearcut corridor. There is no way to remove the scars to the land that killed thousands of beings as Enbridge dug through wetlands. But perhaps happy to put the bill on Enbridge instead of us taxpayers to clean up their pipeline mess as the industry goes the way of the buggy whip?

Awaiting a Reprieve…

31 Monday May 2021

Posted by JamiG4 in Citizenship, Climate Change, Human Extinction, Local Reporting, Preventing Line 3

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Jessica Intermill, Line 3, MN PUC, Treaty People Gathering

If you ever wondered what it’s like, to live as an abutter to the Line 3 project in Northern Minnesota, here’s my take.

It feels every day as if I awaken on Death Row awaiting an answer. However, the answer is not for my own execution nor for something quick and (hopefully) painless.

No, the waiting I have is to see if we will be given a reprieve to the continued building of a Tar Sands Pipeline at the End of the World.

There was an injection of hope in a recent piece by Jessica Intermill entitled “When the Public Interest Isn’t: Minnesota’s approval of a new Line 3“. This week, I’ll dive into her piece and a bit of other good news.

Published in Bench & Bar of Minnesota, the official publication of the Minnesota State Bar Association, the piece lays out exactly how the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission FAILED to heed the public voice – even stifled it to the greatest degree it could, despite huge public outcry on the Line 3 project’s risks.

This is only Part 1 in a 2-part series so I anxiously await the second half of her critique. From the article: “This is the first installment of a two-part article exploring structural bias and racism within the law in the context of the Line 3 oil pipeline expansion. Part 1 examines the agency approval process and the role of the public in that process. Part 2 explores the racialized impact of that facially neutral approval in the context of Minnesota’s legal history.“

Enbridge has a history of trouble with their pipelines – from the Alberta Clipper (here’s a more detailed piece) to the current long-time opposition on Line 3. [Not to mention all those pesky spills…]

Now, it seems the entire world may be pushing back as we see global decisions in opposition to the continuation of Big Oil’s consumption of our carbon budget. And that could spur their many opponents across the U.S., especially across the Northern Midwest as Enbridge faces pushback from Minnesota through Wisconsin to Michigan. Citizens are speaking up across the region… on a national platform.

The tides seem to be turning as, just this past week, we saw Exxon get slapped with reality…

Market reality has finally collided with the most important U.S. energy company. Yesterday, Exxon Mobil shareholders elected at least two of the dissident directors proposed by the activist hedge fund Engine No. 1. Investors have lost patience with the basic business assumption that oil and gas will rule forever. But investor confidence in corporate boards is eroding on other contentious public policies issues as well. Boards should take note.
Exxon’s Shareholder Revolt Is a Warning for Boards Everywhere by Heidi Welsh 5-27-21

…and Royal Dutch Shell lose their case in the Netherlands.

Royal Dutch Shell PLC must slash its greenhouse gas emissions 45% by 2030 from 2019 levels, The Hague District Court ruled in a decision that could reverberate around the world.
“This is a turning point in history,” Roger Cox, a lawyer for the nonprofit Friends of the Earth Netherlands, said in a statement after the decision. “This case is unique because it is the first time a judge has ordered a large polluting corporation to comply with the Paris Climate Agreement. This ruling may also have major consequences for other big polluters.”
Court Orders Shell to Slash Emissions in Historic Ruling By Maxine Joselow, E&E News on May 27, 2021

Among the most far-reaching aspects of this ruling is the court’s order for how Shell must account for its emissions, …(taking) account of what are known in climate parlance as Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions. Shell must consider the emissions of its parent company, all its global subsidiaries, all its suppliers, and all its customers across the entire chain of its enterprise everywhere that it operates throughout the globe.
That would include, for example, the climate-harming emissions released when it … builds a pipeline… and when its consumers burn its gasoline in their cars, trucks, or airplanes. When every one of these sources is considered, the court said, Shell’s global emissions must decline by nearly 50 percent over 2019 levels in just nine years. …
The ruling will also likely increase the risk calculation that investors, policymakers, financiers, and others apply to fossil-fuel activities… The individual responsibility component, argues lawyer Roger Cox, may also increase the likelihood that individual corporate executives and board members are held liable for a company’s harmful activities, further increasing the risks associated with fossil fuels.
Others see a clear pathway to U.S. climate litigation. Calling the court’s decision “earth-shaking”, Kathy Mulvey of the Union of Concerned Scientists notes… The essence of the Dutch court’s ruling, she says, is that “if you dig it up and sell it and profit from it, you’re responsible for it.”
Dr. Geoffrey Supran, research fellow at Harvard University, agrees. In an email, he called the “individual responsibility” aspect of the ruling “a game-changer,” which “legally and rhetorically inverts Big Oil’s decades-long propaganda campaign” to switch responsibility for the climate crisis from themselves to individual consumers.
“It is precisely this sort of corporate accountability, for the climate damages caused by Big Oil’s products, that dozens of cities, counties, and states are seeking in U.S. climate litigation. So, in my view, this Shell verdict provides powerful precedent,” Supran argues.
The Shell case now joins a burgeoning international body of law conferring the basic and fundamental human right to survive the climate crisis and hold fossil-fuel companies accountable for causing it. Critical to this broad and increasingly successful movement was the decades-long struggle of Indigenous peoples to secure the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which confirms rights not only to their lands but also the natural resources found on and within it.
A Court Ruled Shell Is Liable for Its Contributions to Climate Change. What Happens Now? by Antonia Juhasz 5/27/21

So let’s hope those globally turning tides will bring us a verdict soon that stop the Line 3 project from any further devastation. I’m especially concerned as we see evidence of high Covid cases in Alberta pipeliners and we watch anxiously as the India variant makes its way around the world. That, however, is a topic for another day.

The Intermill piece rekindles hope that at least some in the Minnesota judiciary comprehend the reasons why the Enbridge project is such a gross negligence of the public. She opens with an overview of perhaps the most horrific of days in this process – the “gun to our head” day, as is how the Minnesota Public Utilities Commissioners explained their fear causing them to support granting Enbridge’s order.

Jessica then goes on to explain the history of the Public Utilities Commission:

Since its beginning, the PUC’s predecessor agencies prioritized expansion of cheap utilities—often over public opposition.
One of the earliest “public interests” that Minnesota courts identified was railroad expansion. That interest was so strong that it displaced otherwise ordinary landowner remedies like ejectment.⁹
The PUC traces its origin to this interest. Its ancestral predecessor was established by 1871 legislation that began with rail safety inspections, but just three years later turned to railroad-rate oversight. An 1885 law continued to focus on rate discrimination without any countervailing concern that utility expansion could undermine other public interests. But even then, contemporary critics noted that expansion of utilities like railroads prioritized the interests of capital over people. A 1907 political cartoon showed railroad baron J. J. Hill demur at the “timid creature” while the railroad industry knocked “the public” off its feet.
The PUC’s interest in utilities – Jessica Intermill 5/26/21

In turning to Line 3, Intermill notes several reasons for denying the project including, 1) the greenhouse gas concerns for the project, 2) the infringement on Indigenous population in Minnesota, and 3) even the Minnesota Department of Commerce’s own opposition to the project, which concluded:

“in light of the serious risks and effects on the natural and socioeconomic environments of the existing Line 3 and the limited benefit that the existing Line 3 provides to Minnesota refineries, it is reasonable to conclude that Minnesota would be better off if Enbridge proposed to cease operations of the existing Line 3, without any new pipeline being built.”
Minnesota Department of Commerce opinion 9/11/2017

Not only did the PUC FAIL to recognize the Department of Commerce (currently suing the PUC in the Minnesota Court of Appeals, alongside other opposition parties), they also failed to heed the Administrative Law Judge assigned to oversee and review the public input on the project.

[The ALJ] conducted 16 hearings across the state attended by about 5,500 people, building a record of public comment from 724 speakers that was over 2,600 pages long. In each city, she held separate hearings in the afternoons and evenings to accommodate the schedules of people who work both days and nights. After the three-month process, she completed a 300-plus-page report that included more than 40 pages summarizing public comments concerning the new Line 3. …
“The importance of these economic benefits to northern Minnesota are not insubstantial,” the ALJ found, but rather “would exist with respect to any infrastructure project of this magnitude.”¹⁶ Thinking past Line 3 to build a renewable-energy infrastructure with union-protected prevailing-wage jobs would satisfy the public interest in economic development and water quality. But only Line 3 was on the table.
Of 72,249 written public comments submitted, 68,244 opposed a new Line 3.¹⁷ The ALJ recommended against Enbridge’s request because it did not “minimize[] the impacts on human settlement, the natural environment, the economics within the route, the State’s natural resources, and the cumulative potential effects of future pipeline construction.” She favored a “true replacement” in the existing trench.
The public’s interest in Line 3 – Jessica Intermill 5/26/21 (my emphasis)

While ALJ O’Reilly noted there was public interest in construction, it didn’t equal an endorsement of Line 3. YES, people up here are desperate for jobs but could we get some for the 21st century instead of the 19th? It’s time to END investment in the energy of the past, especially as more investment there simply hastens our demise!

Jessica next explains how the PUC denied the public a voice, as had previously been done historically in rural Minnesota.

The PUC’s embedded bias toward utility expansion has long blinded it to the interests of any larger public. In the 1970s, electrical co-ops sought to build a 430-mile-long high-voltage line through 476 farm properties in west-central Minnesota. Powerline opposition, described in scholarship by the late U.S. Sen. Paul Wellstone, was broad.¹⁹

The law was, conceivably, in the farmers’ favor. The 1971 Minnesota Environmental Rights Act applied to the project and declared the state’s policy “to promote efforts that will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of human beings[.]”²⁰ A law requiring that the agency’s power plant and transmission siting decisions consider and “comport with the public interest” also applied to the project.²¹
More than 60 percent of all Minnesotans and 70 percent of rural Minnesotans opposed the line.²² The Minnesota Energy Agency, the agency then designated to review applications for certificates of need, approved it anyway.
So it was for the new Line 3.
…The PUC staff took (the ALJ’s) 400-page report and ground it—and 55 other documents—into 46 pages of “staff briefing papers” that recommended granting Enbridge the certificate of need and its preferred expansion route.²³
The staff briefing did not include any discussion of the extensive public comment on the case. But it did note that “the Commission need not engage in the exercise of reviewing the ALJ Report” itself since “[t]he Commission traditionally leaves it to staff to ensure that the final written order identifies the parts of an ALJ Report that have been adopted, with or without modification, and the parts [that] have not been adopted.”²⁴
That filtered record moved forward to the five PUC commissioners who sat on the dais in June 2018 to decide whether to grant the certificate of need and route permit.
The PUC’s interest in the public – Jessica Intermill 5/26/21 (my emphasis)

While the PUC voted 5-0 that day in favor, their oppression of the public voice was more than clear:

The PUC, despite large public interest, failed to secure a large-enough venue, “leaving only around 70 “general admission” seats for the public who had submitted tens of thousands of comments.”
These seats, available on a first-come, first-serve basis, required earlier and earlier arrivals for anyone interested in securing one. [You can guess who this favors… those of means and those paid to be there.]
Rules for the seats were ever-changing with some allowing restroom breaks, while, for others, a restroom break meant forfeiting your seat.
The prohibitions on water bottles for these meetings, “which would often stretch for hours and sometimes the whole day”, were especially frustrating. [And remind one of newly enacted (though not likely to stand constitutional review?) voter laws in Georgia that prohibit one from bringing water or food to those in line awaiting a chance to vote. I’m sensing a pattern…]
Of notable interest was the fact that Enbridge was allowed 10 tickets while to “Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians and White Earth Nation—two different parties, both of whom the ALJ had allowed to intervene to defend their separate interests—a total of five tickets to share between the two.”
As the public clamored to be let into the meeting, “seats reserved for the parties went unoccupied.”

Though the public didn’t really have a voice anyway. In fact, the attendance enforcement by the PUC got so bad that at one point the intervening parties could not get into the meeting themselves!

After opening statements, though, the commissioners directed the hearing, posing their own questions to the parties they wanted to hear from, and making their own statements into the record. The public could not comment at the hearing and parties could not rebut or cross-examine the testimony of other parties. …
Tensions escalated when, at PUC staff direction, St. Paul police removed two individuals with party badges from the building “because they were holding more than one ticket at a time.”³⁰ Here too, the “rule” purportedly violated was not contained in any notice. PUC staff nonetheless refused to let the party representatives return.
Unsure who to contact to get their clients back into the building, the affected parties docketed a letter addressing the commissioners they appeared before.³¹ When the chair reopened the meeting the following day, she acknowledged the filing but said the commission would not address it because it was not the subject of the hearing. One intervenor responded with “an irregular oral objection[.]”³² When the chair began to call the docket, counsel for the Sierra Club interrupted, pleading, “I am in this room as a contract attorney without a client.”³³ The meeting recessed.
The PUC’s interest in the public – Jessica Intermill 5/26/21

Throughout all this time and up unto this unanimous decision, the public had still NEVER HAD THE DIRECT RIGHT OF CONFRONTING THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSIONERS.

The fight was not over. In fact, it was becoming clearer all the time how egregious the Public Utilities Commission had been in dismissing the public.

Minnesota’s Office of the Legislative Auditor issued a report detailing the PUC’s public-participation processes in general, and the Line 3 processes in particular.³⁹ It wasn’t pretty. …
The legislative auditor concluded its report with a punch list of concrete recommendations to improve the PUC’s public-participation process.⁴²
Reviewing courts, too, must also be alert to biases that can hide behind, and skew, agency decisionmaking. “PUC officials told [the legislative auditor] the Line 3 case was an anomaly and that the agency’s practices, which they believe generally work well, should not be judged on this one case alone.”⁴³ Various courts, though, are reviewing this case.⁴⁴ A self-confessed anomaly can all too easily cross into an abuse of discretion.
Last year, the PUC revisited its approval of Line 3 to consider a revised EIS. It held the first—and only—public hearing that allowed citizens to speak directly to the commissioners about whether to approve Line 3. Again, most public commenters opposed the project.”
Toward a broader public interest – by Jessica Intermill 5/26/21 (my emphasis)

FINALLY! The public was given a voice. And once they were given that voice, CHANGE HAPPENED.

The Public Utilities Commission’s vote this time was NOT Unanimous. While he stood alone, Commissioner Matt Schuerger HAD listened to the people… and likely read more of the record that newest Commissioner Valerie Means claimed to have read – though she claimed to have read the whole thing! [FFS]

Commissioner Schuerger voted against Line 3 three times, concluding that the revised EIS was inadequate, that Enbridge had not proven its case for a certificate of need, and that Enbridge’s preferred route was not in Minnesota’s interest.”
Our Friend Commissioner Matt Schuerger!!

We’ll see what Ms. Intermill brings with Part 2. Meanwhile…

Advocacy groups have also requested intervention from the Biden administration to prevent construction from moving forward.
“We’ve tried everything up to this point, now we’re calling on the people to stand with us because the process failed us,” said Dawn Goodwin, co-founder of the Resilient Indigenous Sisters Engaging (RISE) coalition and a member of the Indigenous Environmental Network. “We’ve discovered that the process was never made to work in our favor. … We’ve called on people to come and stand and learn what it means to be treaty people.”
Protests expected in northern Minnesota as Enbridge presses to complete Line 3 by Dana Ferguson 5/28/21

Perhaps you will find your voice? Maybe you will answer Gaagigeyaashiik’s call and join the Treaty People’s Gathering June 5th through 8th?

It’s gonna take more than just a few of us… to bring the change needed to save our species.

[Though I’d argue perhaps we aren’t worth saving… if this is how we manage things.]

Army Corps of Engineers Apathy and DAPL Avarice

24 Monday May 2021

Posted by JamiG4 in Racism, Saving the Earth, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Boasberg, Cheyenne River, DAPL, Pipeline, Sioux Tribes, Standing Rock

Today’s blog is my layman’s summary of my reading of the recent decision by Judge Boasberg denying the Standing Rock and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribes’ joint request for injunction to shut down the Dakota Access pipeline. It’s a complicated and interesting read and I’ve done my best to summarize what his Order says.

And it’s not exactly bad news!! Just, sadly, more evidence of how our Courts are not geared to make decisions that common sense would dictate. Boasberg seems to give damning testimony to the irresponsible actions of the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), which I found to salve the wounds of his lawful refusal for relief to the Tribes.

I start with his Opinion, which I recommend reading in full. This guy writes with a concise beauty that I enjoyed reading. [Note that the page numbers all reference the 5-21-21 Order, unless otherwise noted.]

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Just like the Dakota Access Pipeline, which meanders over hill and dale before carrying its crude oil underneath Lake Oahe — a large reservoir on the Missouri River between North and South Dakota — the current litigation has wound its way through myriad twists and turns. Last year, in a hard-earned victory for the American Indian Tribe Plaintiffs whose reservations lie nearby, this Court found that Defendant U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE] had violated federal law by failing to produce an Environmental Impact Statement before granting Defendant-Intervenor Dakota Access, LLP an easement to run the pipeline under Lake Oahe. The Court subsequently vacated that easement and ordered the pipeline emptied of oil until the Corps could complete the federally mandated EIS.
Wasting no time, both Dakota Access and the Government promptly appealed to the D.C. Circuit. In a partial win for the Tribes, the Court of Appeals affirmed the two central elements of this Court’s rulings — specifically, that the Corps should have prepared an EIS and that the easement was properly vacated in the interim. The Circuit thus confirmed that the pipeline was, in legal speak, an unlawful encroachment on federal land.
It was there, however, that the Tribes ran out of luck. Prior to the cessation of any oil flow, the Circuit stayed and eventually reversed the aspect of this Court’s order shutting down the pipeline, reasoning that it had not made the necessary findings for what was essentially injunctive relief. In other words, although vacatur of the easement rendered the pipeline an encroachment on federal property, vacatur could not itself bring about the stoppage of oil. For that to occur, the Court of Appeals clarified, this Court needed to conduct an additional, distinct inquiry, a component of which requires the Tribes to demonstrate that — among other things — they will likely suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an order closing the pipeline.
As a result, for all of the headlines and controversy that this litigation has spawned, its tangible consequences for the pipeline itself have been few. Even though this Court vacated the easement for DAPL to cross beneath Lake Oahe, and even though the D.C. Circuit affirmed such vacatur, the pipeline has maintained operations as if none of these developments had occurred. Those seeking an explanation for the persistence of this surprising state of affairs over the past ten-odd months need look no further than the Defendant in this case: the Corps.
Ever since this Court’s vacatur order in July 2020, and across two presidential administrations, the Corps has conspicuously declined to adopt a conclusive position regarding the pipeline’s continued operation, despite repeated prodding from this Court and the Court of Appeals to do so. On the one hand, the agency has refrained from exercising its enforcement powers to halt Dakota Access’s use of the pipeline, notwithstanding its status as an unlawful encroachment. At the same time, however, neither has the Corps affirmatively authorized the pipeline’s occupation of the area underneath Lake Oahe per the process contemplated in its internal procedures. Its chosen course has instead been — and continues to be — one of inaction. Such indecision, it is important to note, does not stem from a lack of time. Nor from a lack of attention. Whatever the reason, the practical consequences of the Corps’ stasis on this question of heightened political controversy are manifest: the continued flow of oil through a pipeline that lacks the necessary federal authorization to cross a key waterway of agricultural, industrial, and religious importance to several Indian Tribes.
Those Tribes thus find themselves forced to return to this Court to seek what they have so far been unable to obtain from the Government: an order halting pipeline operations until the Corps completes its new EIS. Before the Court may grant them such relief, however, binding caselaw requires that the Tribes make an evidentiary showing far beyond anything the Corps needs to itself shut down DAPL. As previously mentioned, they must demonstrate a likelihood of irreparable injury from the action they seek to enjoin — to wit, the pipeline’s operation. For the reasons articulated in this Opinion, Plaintiffs have not cleared that daunting hurdle.
The Court acknowledges the Tribes’ plight, as well as their understandable frustration with a political process in which they all too often seem to come up just short. If they are to win their desired relief, however, it must come from that process, as judges may travel only as far as the law takes them and no further. Here, the law is clear, and it instructs that the Court deny Plaintiffs’ request for an injunction.
Judge Boasberg Order 5-21-21

The decision by the USACE, that an EIS was not necessary for this project, all the Courts agree was a violation of NEPA. The Courts also agree that the Dakota Access pipeline is currently operating upon an illegal easement. So what went wrong? The historical review of the case is laid out clearly.

Judge Boasberg ordered the pipeline to be vacated within 30 days while the issue was remanded:

“Although it acknowledged that “at least some immediate harm to the North Dakota oil industry should be expected from a DAPL shutdown,” the Court determined that the “seriousness of the Corps’ NEPA error, the impossibility of a simple fix, the fact that Dakota Access did assume much of its economic risk knowingly, and the potential harm each day the pipeline operates” collectively outweighed such negative economic effects.”
Pg 6 Boasberg 5-21-21 Order

Acknowledging that the pipeline now constituted an encroachment, the agency (USACE) explained that its “general policy is to require removal of encroachments and restoration of the premises.” … That outcome was not inevitable, though, as another option available to the Corps — called an “outgrant” — would authorize Dakota Access to use the government-controlled property as it did prior to vacatur, thus effectively issuing it another easement. As the agency admitted, however, that process was subject to the strictures of NEPA, the very statute under which this Court had ordered the preparation of an EIS before any such easement could be granted.
The Corps additionally maintained — without citing any authority — that it was under no obligation “to take any particular action to cure an encroachment within a specified time period” or even “to ultimately cure the encroachment at all.” … It estimated that it would make an “initial decision” as to a potential enforcement action against the pipeline by early October 2020, though it emphasized that it retained the “enforcement discretion to adapt its enforcement recommendations based on new information” at any time.”
Pg 7 Boasberg 5-21-21 Order

The judge goes on to discuss the absurdity of the USACE response to these concerns. His utter frustration and disbelief with this USACE situation seems to rage from the page. He cries out against the audacity of the USACE in their dereliction of duty. He notes, “October, meanwhile, came and went without any word from the Corps regarding its promised “initial decision” as to a potential enforcement action.” (Page 8)

On January 26, 2021, the DC Circuit Court “affirmed this Court’s top-line conclusions that: 1) the Corps’ decision not to prepare an EIS violated NEPA, and 2) the easement should be vacated pending such statement’s completion.” (Page 9)

The DC Circuit held that the Corps violated the National Environmental Policy Act (EPA) by issuing an easement allowing the Dakota Access Pipeline to transport crude oil through federally owned land at the Lake Oahe crossing site without preparing an environmental impact statement despite substantial criticisms from the Tribes.
The court rejected the Corps’ and Dakota Access’ contention that the district court applied the wrong standard by relying on National Parks Conservation Association v. Semonite, 916 F.3d at 1083, which emphasized the important role played by entities other than the federal government. The court explained that the Tribes’ unique role and their government-to-government relationship with the United States demand that their criticisms be treated with appropriate solicitude. The court concluded that several serious scientific disputes in this case means that the effects of the Corps’ easement decision are likely to be “highly controversial.” The court also noted that, although the risk of a pipeline leak may be low, that risk is sufficient that a person of ordinary prudence would take it into account in reaching a decision to approve the pipeline’s placement, and its potential consequences are therefore properly considered. The court affirmed the district court’s order vacating the easement while the Corps prepares an environmental impact statement. However, the court reversed the district court’s order to the extent it directed that the pipeline be shut down and emptied of oil.
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, No. 20-5197 (D.C. Cir. 2021)

Wow. I was with them until that last line… which I cannot seem to make sense. Their rationalization?

“With or without oil flowing,”accordingly, “the pipeline will remain an encroachment, leaving the precise consequences of vacatur uncertain.” (Page 9)

And, rather than making the simple and agreeable decision to shut down the flow of oil – you know, the stuff that risks a spill… as an empty pipeline does not risk a spill – the DC Circuit Court said, “(Judge Boasberg’s) Court “could not order the pipeline to be shut down without . . . required making the findings necessary for injunctive relief” under the traditional four-factor test.” (Page 9)

While the DC Circuit Court tossed this back to the USACE, they would soon submit a 60-day request for continuance, with the change, in January 2021, to a new administration…

When the long-awaited hearing finally arrived on April 9, 2021, however, the Corps — despite the instruction from both the Court of Appeals and this Court, as well as its own continuance request — had surprisingly little to say about the pipeline’s encroachment status. Indeed, far from issuing the contemplated “prompt[]” determination as to how it would “enforce its property rights,”… the Corps’ decision appeared to be that it would make no decision at all. According to Government counsel, “[T]he Corps is in a [sic] essentially continuous process of evaluating the status of the encroachment and what steps are best to take.” … While the agency would “continue[] monitor[ing]” the pipeline and could “take an enforcement action at any time,” it had “no . . . enforcement action to announce” at present nor any “timeline” for such potential action moving forward. … At one point, the Corps seemed to acknowledge the possibility that it might not even decide how to enforce its property rights prior to completion of the judicially mandated EIS (currently estimated for March 2022).”
Pg 10-11 Boasberg 5-21-21 Order

Well, imagine that. The Army Corps can just lazily do nothing and it doesn’t seem a damn thing we can do?

Judge Boasberg notes that while he “ordered the Corps to clarify its position on whether an injunction should issue. … The agency’s response was less than decisive.” He closes the background section with what I felt was a telling statement: “With this long procedural history in tow, the Court is finally prepared to rule on the Tribes’ request for an injunction.” (Page 11)

Boasberg goes on to explain some of the legal details on a threshold argument and on what is required to prove an irreparable harm. In order to pass that test, a plaintiff must convince the Court:

that it has suffered an irreparable injury;
that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury;
that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted;
that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.

Boasberg further clarifies:

The Supreme Court “has repeatedly held that the basis for injunctive relief in the federal courts has always been irreparable injury and the inadequacy of legal remedies.” (Page 13)
“Because [plaintiff] has made no showing of irreparable injury here, that alone is sufficient for us to conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting [plaintiff’s] request.” (Id.)
“[T]he injury must be both certain and great; it must be actual and not theoretical.” (Id.)
A mere “possibility” of future harm is insufficient. (Page 14)
…a court, rather, requires affirmative “proof” of likelihood and imminence. (Id.)
Additionally, “the movant must show that the alleged harm will directly result from the action which [it] seeks to enjoin.” (Id.)

Three “kinds of injuries, each of which they claim independently qualifies as imminent irreparable harm and entitles them to permanent injunctive relief” were submitted by the Tribes. The Judge deals with the first at length and the others with greater “dispatch”. (Page 15)

Threat of Damaging Oil Spill

Plaintiffs’ principal claim of irreparable injury derives from the threat of an oil spill underneath Lake Oahe. … That reservoir, as previously mentioned, provides the Tribes with water for drinking, industry, and sacred practices. In order
for them to realize any harm from a pipeline leak, however, a series of contingent events must occur: 1) a spill under Lake Oahe; 2) of sufficiently large size; 3) the oil from which rises 92 feet from the pipeline to the bottom of the lake; and 4) which cannot be sufficiently mitigated or contained either before or upon entering the lake. See DA Opp. at 11. Simply itemizing that causal chain suggests the fundamental problem with Plaintiffs’ irreparable-harm argument: they have not established, as they must, that any of the chain’s individual components — let alone the feared end result — is “likely,” as opposed to merely “possibl[e].” …Without such showing, of course, they cannot demonstrate the probability of a damaging DAPL spill at Lake Oahe sufficient to warrant injunctive relief.”
Pg 15 Boasberg 5-21-21 Order

Boasberg goes on to review that previous court findings concur that the risk of a spill at this site is low and that, due to the age of the pipeline, the “Plaintiffs’ own experts” agree that the chances for spill were higher at start-up. He also notes that the suggestion of concern at the DAPL proposed expansion to double its throughput is not an imminent concern. (Page 17) Boasberg mentions a prior ruling on a case of similar circumstance: “Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, however, found such assertions insufficient to establish irreparable harm because the plaintiffs ‘have not shown that a damaging oil spill is likely to occur.'” (Page 19) He concludes that, while the filing did “win the Tribes a remand for preparation of an EIS under NEPA on the ground that such issues made the easement approval “highly controversial,” … it does little to establish a likelihood that the Tribes will suffer imminent, irremediable harm at Lake Oahe from the pipeline’s continued operation.” (Page 20) As well, he notes the “Court of Appeals has since made clear that this Court may only order an oil stoppage upon finding that (among other things) the Tribes will likely experience irreparable harm absent such relief. The prior vacatur holding has little relevance to that question.” (Page 21) He notes also:

Although the potential injury may be significant, the Tribe must show that it is probable to occur in the absence of the preliminary injunction it now seeks. . . . This is the burden the law imposes for this form of relief. The Court must faithfully and fairly apply that standard in all cases, regardless of how high the stakes or how worthy the cause.”
Page 22 Boasberg 5-21-21 Order

Over the next few pages of the Order, Boasberg goes on to make clear that the Court is not able on the submitted evidence to determine or calculate the likelihood of an imminent or irreparable spill and that “the law requires the Tribes to make a “clear showing” that such harm is at least “likely” in the absence of an injunction. … All they have shown, rather, is a mere “possibility” of injury — and a fairly minimal one at that. This cannot get them over the hump. No matter the stakes and no matter the cause, courts may not grant the “extraordinary remedy” of an injunction “based only on a possibility of irreparable harm.” (Page 24)

Other Claimed Harms

Apart from the risk of a damaging oil spill, the Tribes assert two other harms that require somewhat less discussion. They maintain that they are irreparably injured by “the ongoing trauma of the government’s refusal to comply with the law,” as well as the “undermining [of] the Tribes’ sovereign governmental role to protect their members and respond to potential disasters.”
Pg 24 Boasberg 5-21-21 Order

While Boasberg finds “Neither tack finds the wind,” it seems to me there could be ample argument for these harms. His case is based on the fact that “The problem with both is simple: they depend on the same remote threat of a pipeline spill that the Court has just found insufficient to constitute irreparable injury.” (Page 24)

While the Tribes arguments focused on arguments based on emotional distress that results from a fear of a spill – which, having a low probability of occurring, cannot justify a reasonable concern in this case. Even when the Tribe “claim that “allowing the pipeline to continue operating despite a serious NEPA violation is part of a pattern” of “‘historic trauma’” experienced by “‘every Tribal member,’” one deriving from the government’s “continued refusal to respect the rights of the Tribes throughout the nation’s history” and its “prioritizing non-Indians” at the expense of Tribal members,” Boasburg argues that this “does not qualify as irreparable harm within the context of this case. … [as it] cannot be meaningfully disentangled from the remote threat of an oil spill at Lake Oahe.” (Page 26-27)

The Court does not deny that shameful past. On the contrary, it fully acknowledges and appreciates the “tragic history of the Great Sioux Nation’s repeated dispossessions at the hands of a hungry and expanding early America,” along with the persistent “threat that new injury will compound old.”
Pg 26 Boasberg 5-21-21 Order

Plaintiffs’ second claimed harm founders for similar reasons as the first. According to the Tribes, “[T]he Corps’ NEPA violations have undermined [their] sovereign governmental role to protect their citizens, respond to disasters, and mitigate harm.” … It soon becomes clear, however, that these governance-based harms are once again derivative of the same speculative spill-risk harms handled above.
Pg 27 Boasberg 5-21-21 Order

One final aspect I find a bit confounding. On page 28, Boasberg notes: “Finally, DAPL itself does not implicate any “loss of sovereignty over Tribal land,” … as the Lake Oahe segment traverses only federal property.” Here I’d argue that ALL LANDS are Tribal lands, though I’m sure there is some legalese that refutes this as well, making my argument illegitimate. [With laws written by the colonizers, those same folks who brought to you deceptive and relentless treaty negotiations, it seems the Tribes are given no option save to declare war on a foreign nation?]

Boasberg redeems himself to me – and places the blame for this situation fully in the hands of the USACE – in this summary of his conclusion that he must deny the relief sought:

It does not reach that conclusion lightly. Fully aware of the unshakable indignities visited upon the Tribes across generations, the Court, as it has throughout this litigation, scrutinizes the record with care. It likewise acknowledges the quandary in which Plaintiffs find themselves and the undeniable frustration that comes with it — namely, having achieved (and successfully defended on appeal) the vacatur of a key pipeline easement, they must now turn around and make an even steeper showing to obtain the injunctive relief necessary to stop the flow of oil.
The Court closes this analysis where it began: with the Corps. Plaintiffs, no doubt, will wish that the Court’s Opinion today had come out differently. Simply by ruling, however, the Court has at least given them something the Corps has not: a decision. Notwithstanding repeated instruction from this Court and the D.C. Circuit to “decide promptly” and “in the first instance” how it “will enforce its property rights” vis-à-vis the pipeline’s encroaching on federal land at Lake Oahe, the Corps has not yet issued any determination on the matter at all — more than ten months since the invalidation of the underlying easement. … Much like the Circuit, this Court presently “ha[s] no occasion to consider” whether, by way of such inaction, the Corps has effectively granted “a de facto outgrant without engaging in the NEPA analysis that the Corps concedes such an action requires.” Id. For now, it suffices to note that by ducking the controversy surrounding the Oahe crossing, the Corps actively tolerates DAPL’s continued operation underneath a key federal waterway that it lacks the necessary authorization to traverse. That, of course, is a political decision outside this Court’s area of inquiry. Whether the Corps formally acknowledges such decision or not, this is the outcome it now owns.”
Pg 29 Boasberg 5-21-21 Order

So we can all cross our fingers and hope for the best!

I should include also, the Judge’s mention of the Tribes’ request for clarification on the 408 Permit “(which the Tribes now maintain “indisputably relied on the invalidated environmental assessment” and thus cannot stand.”) (Page 30) In this instance, the Tribes failed “to explain why vacatur of the Section 408 permit would yield that result, as a “Section 408 permit, rather — much like the MLA easement — simply denotes the Corps’ approval of Dakota Access’s plans to site the pipeline on federal property,” and potential vacatur of said permit also would not bring a shutdown of operations. (Page 30-31)

It’s clear to me that the Judge seems to believe the US Army Corps of Engineers has violated NEPA, however, as the DC District Court ordered against the shut down of the line and that his court had no capacity to do so without proof of imminent and irreparable harms, which he could not do with the information provided, his hands are tied.

I truly believe it broke his heart to write this Order.

There is still a possible option. President Biden could ask the USACE to uphold their Treaty responsibilities and do what is right, honor the voices of the Native Peoples asking for relief. Give them relief, if only until the Corps can complete the EIS. It’s the right thing to do.

In Early February, 33 Democrats wrote to Biden, urging him to close down the pipeline, stopping it from transporting crude oil between North Dakota and Illinois.
“By shutting down this illegal pipeline, you can continue to show your administration values the environment and the rights of Indigenous communities more than the profits of outdated fossil fuel industries,” they wrote….
In a statement, the Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN) focused on Biden’s infrastructure proposal, claiming that it has a “major oversight: it neither acknowledges nor strengthens tribal sovereignty.”
“Congress and the Biden administration must know that recovery cannot take place until Tribal nations are the ones making the decisions about projects that impact their peoples and their lands,” IEN stated.
The future of the Dakota Access Pipeline hangs in the balance (photo credit)

Coronaruption Part Deux

17 Monday May 2021

Posted by JamiG4 in Coronavirus, Saving the Earth

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Breakthrough, Breakthrough case, CDC, Covid, COVID-19, P1, P1.617.2, SARS-CoV-2, vaccinated, Vaccine, variants

The CDC updated their Breakthrough Case Data as of 5/10/21… giving a HUGE a drop from their 4/26 report of 9245 breakthrough infections to only 1359 cases!! How, you ask?

Well, one reason is that the CDC chose to CHANGE how they count a vaccinated person as a positive Case… They must show positivity by 28 CT vs. 35 CT for unvaccinated people… AND the CDC are now ONLY reporting those folks who are hospitalized or die from Coronavirus after being vaccinated.

So, viola! We makea a buncha cases a-go away, yah?!? [BTW, this sounds so good when I use my shitty French… and then Italian accents to say it – with a huge batch of sarcasm thrown in! Just seemed appropriate to throw in a little Mario and Luigi… for this video game we call life.]

While the number at the top is down, the death and infection numbers for May 10th showed a HUGE increase in the number of people dying and being hospitalized after vaccination. We saw a 36% increase the number of hospitalized and a 68% increase in the number of dead. Even though the figures are NOW only for 65+, instead of previously reported 60 year-old and up vaccinated folks. Hmmm….

So next time they update, it could be even scarier? (You can read how this compares the jumps this week to those previously reported.)

Yet they’re still (media, politicians, late night hosts, big pharma, your aunt Mary) all pushing vaccines as the cure all? I mean, if it means we don’t need masks anymore, it’s for sure a cure, right!?! Even if not enough of us have the vaccines for herd immunity? It’s like science is a non-thing these days…

I continue to stress:

Wearing a Mask prevents the level of infection that enters your body if you are exposed to SARS-CoV-2. Whether you’re unvaccinated OR… vaccinated and feeling bulletproof – if you run into the B117 or P1 or B1.617.2, or whatever other variant that might arise, you’re gonna have less chance for a BIG EXPOSURE (which, spoiler alert, is what helps the virus take you into a hospital or casket).
Jamism – Mid-May, 2021 (actually, it’s been a long-time quote… just updated for the various new strains here)

Mask Up, Motherfuckers. PLEASE.

If we do… then we can cull the unscientific from our midst and possibly get a chance at saving the planet for human habitation? 🤫[Shhhhh…]

It’s just a thought…

5/18/21 update: as usual, a day later, Chris says it far better than me.

A silent spring?

06 Tuesday Apr 2021

Posted by JamiG4 in Anti-Consumerism, Citizenship, Climate Change, Community, Coronavirus, Happiness in Life, Human Extinction, Preventing Line 3

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Inequality, reciprocity

With all the Enbridge work in the wetlands behind our home, we’ve been concerned about how our many relatives have been affected.

We watched as the trees were clearcut with speed.

We witnessed the lumber matting thudding into place to create a road behind our home closer than the road in front of our home.

We watched as the dozers ran over the land cutting the scrub remaining from the slaughter and the grabbers snatched up the dead, piling them into giant brush piles to burn and pollute the air.

We listened to the fires crackling in the woods for hours, filling the Mississippi River Valley, and the scenic drive along County 2 from US Highway 2 to Itasca State Park, with smoke.

Now we wait. To hear the frogs return. To listen to the sandhills breeding in the water-rich land.

More than just the Enbridge destruction of recent weeks is affecting whether or not we’ll hear sandhills return to our swamp.

This time of year, the yard is typically full of water with our little man-made pondlet overflowing into the yard. The melting of winter usually disappears our little pond into a lakelet that has remained in recent years until May or June.

This year, the small plastic pond liner is the only thing holding any water. Looks like severe drought is in order as we watch ditches, usually flowing steady, trickle by along the county road out front… another product of the changing climate, in large part brought by the fossil fuel industry that Enbridge serves.

So quiet in the swamp.

We did hear a few sandhills flying over in the last week, but the throng we typically hear has not yet populated our backyard wetlands. We’ve heard nothing of the peepers. All I can think is that the dozers crushed them all in their hibernation.

Time will tell if we’ve gone too far to save ourselves.

Do we not realize… if the birds and insects disappear, eventually we will too?

How long can we keep up the charade of living as if reciprocity to the land is something with which we need not concern ourselves?

Have we actually bypassed all our opportunities to save the planet on which we reside… for our own long-term habitation?

What will the pandemic, and emerging drought, bring for the humans of the USA in 2021?

We watch as the rich gather up their stock market returns of 60-70%, remembering days when an 8% ROI was a good thing. We wonder how they can feel happy about money made in a system of so much corruption.

Meanwhile, homeless encampments – the only option for many who are now over year from their last paying job – are overrun with bulldozers as police remove the unwanted residents. Similar to how we eradicated the mosquitoes, mice, beaver, fox, wolf… who interfered with OUR management of the land?

How soon until that revolution I’ve been predicting for decades becomes a reality? How soon until so many feel they have no option but to process through their frustration and overwhelm with suicide? Or homicide?

As mass shootings continue… and people mindlessly travel without considering COVID risks… and many hope for the world to “go back to normal”, I believe we will never again go back to where we were before 2020.

And I wonder if we will continue to spiral down the drain to our own extinction… or if we will find many and myriad small communities gathering to help each other as we weather this largest storm we’ve ever seen coming at us.

I hope for love to win. For us to come together and feed, clothe, protect those not provided as much in our unequal system of sharing of the resources we have. For those who win most to realize this doesn’t bring happiness… when so many suffer for our winning. For all of us to find the goal of our common happiness and security as the most worthy of them all.

Retired at 45

~ My thoughts… in case you wondered.

Category Archives: Saving the Earth

Exhausted

Do No Harm?

What do we REALLY KNOW about Covid Vaccines… and other Treatments?

MN Court of Appeals as Bedazzled as the PUC?

Appointed to the Court of Appeals by Governor Mark Dayton, April 7, 2014. Elected in 2016. Current term expires January 2023.
William Mitchell College of Law, Juris Doctor, cum laude (1997)
University of St. Thomas, Bachelor of Arts, Major: Chemistry, Minor: Biology

Special thanks to RISE Coalition, White Earth Reservation, Indigenous Environmental Network, seekjoy, Healing MN Stories, and the many others helping to spread the truth about this unnecessary Tar Sands pipeline… as the oil industry dies.

A Message from RISE Coalition

Time’s Up for Tar Sands

Awaiting a Reprieve…

Army Corps of Engineers Apathy and DAPL Avarice

Threat of Damaging Oil Spill

Other Claimed Harms

Coronaruption Part Deux

A silent spring?

Appointed to the Court of Appeals by Governor Mark Dayton, April 7, 2014. Elected in 2016. Current term expires January 2023.William Mitchell College of Law, Juris Doctor, cum laude (1997)University of St. Thomas, Bachelor of Arts, Major: Chemistry, Minor: Biology

Special thanks to RISE Coalition, White Earth Reservation, Indigenous Environmental Network, seekjoy, Healing MN Stories, and the many others helping to spread the truth about this unnecessary Tar Sands pipeline… as the oil industry dies.

Threat of Damaging Oil Spill

Other Claimed Harms

Appointed to the Court of Appeals by Governor Mark Dayton, April 7, 2014. Elected in 2016. Current term expires January 2023.
William Mitchell College of Law, Juris Doctor, cum laude (1997)
University of St. Thomas, Bachelor of Arts, Major: Chemistry, Minor: Biology