portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting portland metro

forest defense | police / legal

Mike D Holds His Own, in Spite of Everything

After asking if they could only find him guilty of "inconveniencing" the public, rather than annoying or alarming the public, the jury has returned a verdict of guilty.
Mike D has been found guilty of disorderly conduct, but the failure to appear charges have been dismissed because, as the judge stated, "I've had enough of your circus." By "circus," she meant that he was attempting to exercise his rights as an American citizen in the courtroom, rather than kissing judicial ass in awe. The state had deigned to reduce the failure to appear charges to a violation with a $200 fine, but none of us believed he would go for that. In the end, he wanted to maintain his right to a jury trial, which is what brought on the judge's outburst. It all worked out, though, because as I said, the failure to appear charge was dismissed.

As for the DisCon charge, it remains to be seen what will happen. He has been found guilty, but has not yet been sentenced. The state requested that he receive 18 months of probation and 40 hours of community service. Mike D asked what the equivalent time would be, as, "I have no interest in probation." Judge Miller announced at that point that if she gives him probation, he will do probation. She then asked whether he was ready to be sentenced and would waive his right to 48 hours before sentencing. He refused to wave the right. This brought about another outburst from the judge, who pointed out that he would be in jail until Monday then, expecting him to buckle at that word. Clearly, she does not know Mike D. He continued to politely refuse to wave the right. Judge Miller seemed baffled that anyone would put their legal and constitutional rights above convenience, and admonished him to see things her way.

Said Judge Miller, "I know this is in your best interest. Your attorney understands that this is in your best interest. Probably all those people in the back [motioned toward us] recognize this is in your best interest." We all shook our heads to signify that no, we did not agree with her. She dropped her last shreds of composure at this point, and muttered something like, "Well, then...these people need to all be...more informed about...the issues."

In any event, we will find out on Monday what the sentence will be. Mike D also refused to sign a confirmation paper of his Monday court date. Shortly thereafter, he was led away in chains. He smiled calmly while the heavy wooden doors swung shut on him and the sheriffs escorted him away. The judge gave his lawyer 15 minutes to convince him to accept his sentencing today. Fifteen minutes later, the lawyer returned with word that he continued to refuse to accept the kind offer.

This is my short synopsis of today's events. There is more to say about this trial, but I haven't the time and I haven't access to a computer for some time, so hopefully others will pick up where I have left off. Let me just add that my two favorite moments in this 2-day ordeal were as follows:

1. The judge explained to the defense that Mike D and his attorney would not be able to say, during the trial, that the dis con charges were unconstitutional, because it would "imply that he has a right that he does not have." Specifically, she said, he does not have a right to free speech. She then stated that he would not be allowed to use the words "first amendment" or even "free speech," because again, "that would imply that you have a constitutional protection that you do not have." (As if we didn't already know that.)

2. The first witness, Clackamas County Sheriff William Behan, explained that the reason Mike D was singled out was that he was clearly our leader. And, to make things worse, Mike D refused to "call off his people." So, just to remind everyone, we are now Mike D's people.

My least favorite moment was seeing Mike D in chains. His arms and legs were shackled, with chains hanging from his waist, wrists, and ankles. It was really sickening to see. He asked that his arms be unchained in the courtroom so that he could look through his notes and write, but his request was denied. Later, the judge asked that he be unchained, but the 4 sheriffs guarding him refused. They finally offered to unchain one hand so he could write, but would go no further. He was not unchained until several hours later, as the jury was being led in.

Thanks to everyone who showed up to support Mike D. We filled the courtroom, with people in the hallway outside who could not get in. It's great to see so many people willing to show up for something like this. We're going to need this kind of solidarity....

By the way, Homeland Security is profiling everyone who was at Solo. If anyone had any doubts about what the PATRIOT act was really all about, now you know. It was intended to target environmental and political activists. Not that we didn't know that, but it pays to be reminded.
CatWoman strikes again! 21.Oct.2004 17:38

Tony Blair's dog

"Said Judge Miller, "I know this is in your best interest. Your attorney understands that this is in your best interest. Probably all those people in the back [motioned toward us] recognize this is in your best interest." We all shook our heads to signify that no, we did not agree with her. She dropped her last shreds of composure at this point, and muttered something like, "Well, then...these people need to all be...more informed about...the issues.""

Hehehe... ;-D

Thanks for the fascinating report.

48 hours? 21.Oct.2004 19:04


Can someone explain the purpose of the "right to 48 hours before sentencing"? I would think it would be the other way around; one would want to be sentenced promptly. Isn't that part of due process, the right to prompt trial and sentencing?

Two Other Great Moments 21.Oct.2004 20:11

there are no leaders

Thanks, CatWoman, for the wonderful summary and perspective. I'd like to add my two favorite moments from the 2 hours I was there during the second day. I was glad his lawyer fought the battle the way Mike D wanted, and I am truly sorry I could not stay to witness the grand finale.

1) When the lawyer questioned the timber CEO about the different kinds of forests, his used a line I always wanted to use and thought was mine: "How long does it take to grow a thousand-year-old tree?"

2) When the lawyer was describing Mike D lying in front of the SUV, with his head pointed toward the vehicle, he asked the timber CEO if he was frightened. To paraphrase: The timber CEO said, "Yes, I didn't know what he was going to do and I was afraid my car would roll over him." "So your greatest fear was for Mr. McMullin's well being?' "No, I was afraid because I didn't know what he was going to do." "Did you think he was going to explode?"

The lawyer proceeded to dispel the idea that Mike D could have been threatening the CEO with a weapon. The CEO commented that Mike D could have been armed. The lawyer proceeded to ask if that would be an advantageous position for Mike D to have shot him from.

By the way, none of the jurors looked like they had ever heard the term "civil disobedience." If he'd had a true jury of his peers, they would know that there are no leaders.

Too Funny 21.Oct.2004 20:28

An Observer

ne1, Mike's parting words as he left the courtroom was that he wanted to give the judge "48 hours to cool down." Ya just gotta love Mike!

I thought it was funny.......... 21.Oct.2004 20:28

melly moo

I thought it was funny that both days, the lady that was part of the jury, 3rd from the right kept falling asleep. She could not keep her eyes opened. hmmmm......nice that she paid good attention, since she was making a decision based on someone else's life.

48 hours 21.Oct.2004 20:56

a guy

The 48 hours right is just a "misc." right, it is there if you want it. Some people can find a way to make use of it, some can't. It gives people time to make preparations, brace themselves, issue press statements, perhaps try to cut a last-minute deal or something. It is also handy if you want to prove your point (like in this case).

Just like your federal right to a speedy trial, some folks can find use for that, some would rather have more time to prepare, it is just up to the person on trial.

For all of us and the trees 21.Oct.2004 21:37


Mike does the work for all of us and the trees. Mike did good in court today. I'm proud.

in true character 22.Oct.2004 00:27


Disorderly conduct...what kind of sentence might that amount to? Less than 18 months in the joint? would he still get probation? As many times as enforcement must have seen Mike and the way he operates, it's stunning that they would imagine he is the "leader". I think they just imagine he makes a good symbol for the rest of the naieve people in the country, if/when the story hits the news with photos. Visually, he fits the radical terrorist image. That, and they probably hope that slamming him will intimidate the rest of you all. Yeah, I think if he cut his dreds off, he wouldn't be near so interesting to the judicial establishment...I think they love the image so much, they might have fallen for a dummy dressed up to fit the "radical anarchist terrorist/eco-terroist" stereotype, and they would have been jonesin' to mess with it....but you never know...maybe they're smarter than that.

Another Case of American Blind (Deaf and Ignorant) Justice 22.Oct.2004 02:48


The jurors should be ashamed, if they are capable of it. They can't possible be capable of much more.

A few points:

1) Mike D's case hinged on whether his INTENT was to alarm, annoy, or inconvienence the PUBLIC, or whether his INTENT was something else.
- Even though his lawyer botched most everything, any reasonable person could tell that Mike D's intent was to make a statement to the timber thief, Walker (his name), by stopping his vehicle. His intent had nothing to do with alarming, annoying, or inconveinencing the PUBLIC. Anyone could see this. Anyone but a jury full of half-wits duped by the very cunning and somewhat evil deputy DA. There was no criminal act here. If Walker wanted to file a civil case against Mike, that might have some slight merit, but certainly not criminal charges.

2) The case also hinged on whether or not there was a PUBLIC which could be annoyed.
- There was clearly no PUBLIC in this case. Mike D's lawyer botched this part totally also. There was some case law that said that a public could be two or more individuals and some case law that said that a PUBLIC could be any number of individuals, including zero, and that there only needs to the be risk of PUBLIC annoyance, alarm, inconvienence. WHATEVER! In either case, the DA did not state the idea of risk in her pleading, so it wasn't relevant, leaving the applicable case law to be just the two or more stuff. Again, Mike's lawyer fumbles. The bidding in the building is closed to the public and parking lot in which the action took place was closed to the public.

3) Mike D never really had a chance to be charcterized and thus his INTENT was never clear to the jury.
- At first I believed Mike's lawyer that not putting character witnesses on the stand was a bad idea, as that could open the possibility of the prosecution trashing Mike D. But, at this point it is clear that the jury had no idea who or what Mike D is. Mike D and or character witnesses should have been on the stand. There should have been some testimony from Mike's side.

4) Judge Miller let the word "intent" just slip right on by in the jury instructions without even so much as a pause.
- In the end, I don't think the jury had a clue what standard they were suppose to be judging by. I think they're overall lack of inteligence was a factor, but this fact didn't help. They probably just thought that Mike did something wrong and they were suppose to find him guilty in this case. Nevermind the fact that he wasn't guilty of the particular crime of Disorderly Conduct. Perhaps if they had known that the "victim" could have found redress otherwise, it would have changed things. As a side note, two of the jurors had been to PPRC rallies.....no help from the liberals. I part of me hopes it happens to them.

5) Judge Miller seemed very upset by having to be drug through this trial and apparently, in the end, felt upset to be a part of Mike D's circus. But, anyone can see that it is the DA that forced this little circus to continue. They simply could have dropped the bogus charges. The judge was worried about the jurors being held up an hour or two, forgetting that Mike D as been in custody for like a month. What the F*#K?

6) I'm not sure if there is a freedom of speech issue here. BUT, there is DEFINITELY no criminal issue. Mike D was charged with Disorderly Conduct principally for laying down in front of Walker's car, not showing up and speaking (and refusing to leave a general area). That's a problem for Walker and Mike D. to work out. The correct thing to do would have been for the cops to ask Walker if he would like to press some sort of charges related to his person, and stay out of it otherwise. When the cops asked Mike D to get up, he did. He complied with the order.

7) I was more impressed with the judge then anyone, but all in all the clackamas county justice system is joke. I've sat for quite a few cases in a few different places. I'm no expert, but I've seen backwater courtrooms in the deep south that are more proper than this court. Just goes to show.....rednecks everywhere. At least courts in the deep south can tell when the charges are chicken shit and just need to be dismissed.

Mike D really gets an 'A' in my book. His lawyer, the DA, balifs, sherifs, and Jury an 'E'. I'll the throw the judge a 'C', about average....she gave Mike LOTS of room for appeal.

To Salaud 22.Oct.2004 09:25


Thanks for the insightful analysis. It helps me understand what I was hearing in the courtroom. By the way, what is the PPRC?

Yo 22.Oct.2004 09:58

Some Kid

Mike D. deserves what he gets, with his not calling us off and all (snorts). Nehoo, PPRC is the Portland Peaceful Response Coalition, an extremely moderate-left group that holds all those big permitted anti-war protests.

Did anyone calmly and rationally explain that there is no leader, or would that sound too much of anarchism and get cast a shadow of doubt onto anything mike says?

Good for Mike D. 22.Oct.2004 11:37

In solidarity

I don't know what the judge is talking about. Conviction under the Disorderly Conduct statute is probably unconstitutional after the Oregon Supreme court's State v. Ausmus decision.

Also, disorderly conduct is a class B misdemeanor so the most she is permitted to sentence him is 6 months. 18 months probation is bullshit for this offense. I hope Mike D. holds out, appeals the conviction then sues the state for false imprisonment, etc. He'll win much money.

Thanks everyone for attending his trial. I'm sorry I couldn't be there.

Here are the pertinent statutes for those of you who are interested:


* ORS 161.555 states that Misdemeanors are classified for the purpose of sentence into the following categories:
o Class A misdemeanors;
o Class B misdemeanors;
o Class C misdemeanors; and
o Unclassified misdemeanors.
* The particular classification of each misdemeanor defined in the Oregon Criminal Code is expressly designated in the section defining the crime. An offense defined outside this code which, because of the express sentence provided is within the definition of ORS 161.545, shall be considered an unclassified misdemeanor.
o An offense defined by a statute of this state, but without specification as to its classification or as to the penalty authorized upon conviction, shall be considered a Class A misdemeanor.
* ORS 161.615: Sentences for misdemeanors shall be for a definite term. The court shall fix the term of imprisonment within the following maximum limitations:
o For a Class A misdemeanor, 1 year.
o For a Class B misdemeanor, 6 months.
o For a Class C misdemeanor, 30 days.
* ORS 161.635: A sentence to pay a fine for a misdemeanor shall be a sentence to pay an amount, fixed by the court, not exceeding:
o $5,000 for a Class A misdemeanor.
o $2,000 for a Class B misdemeanor.
o $1,000 for a Class C misdemeanor.
o A sentence to pay a fine for an unclassified misdemeanor shall be a sentence to pay an amount, fixed by the court, as provided in the statute defining the crime.
o For an unclassified misdemeanor, as provided in the statute defining the crime.

166.025 Disorderly conduct.

(1) A person commits the crime of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, the person:

(a) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior; or

(b) Makes unreasonable noise; or

(c) Disturbs any lawful assembly of persons without lawful authority; or

(d) Obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic on a public way; or

(e) Congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse; or

(f) Initiates or circulates a report, knowing it to be false, concerning an alleged or impending fire, explosion, crime, catastrophe or other emergency; or

(g) Created a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which the person is not licensed or privileged to do.

(2) Disorderly conduct is a Class B misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 s.220; 1983 c.546 s.5]

Mike D Verdict 22.Oct.2004 17:40

an observer

Your right, Mike D should have been convicted for riot not disorderly conduct spitting on the law enforcement officials, hitting them with plastic bottles filled with an unknown liquid and throwing rocks is not what one would call a peacefull protest. your cause is just, but your method unsound.

an officer who was at the solo sale

What happened to free speech 22.Oct.2004 19:26

An observer

I have been a casual observer of this situation for some time. I am greatful to the Criminal Justice system for resolving this situation in a manner that reflects the outrageous behavior of Mike D. It's about time a judge stood up to these liberal, tree hugging, Nazis, who think only of themselves and not the rest of the world. Get a life people, the tree will grow back. The only injustice that i have seen, is that these poor officers had to spend two days in court, using many of the available financial resources of their various agencies, therby necesitating the cutting of more timber to generate more funds, which has hurt the cause that these morons were fighting for in the first place. God Bless George W. Bush and the right to free speech.

Aparently I spoke too soon, in regards to the freedom of speech issue. I posted this exact comment yesterday, but have since found it deleted from its original post area.

I would agree with one point in your numerous postings. Mike D should have been charged and convicted of riot, instead of disorderly conduct!

I guess Portland Independent Media is only about people who share the same views, and not about true media equality and free speech. Mike D deserved what he got, and your media outlet is a perfect example as to why your organization is not highly regarded or considered a true media outlet.

miss you! 23.Oct.2004 12:25

tessa bird

Thank you for letting me know what has happened and for all the legal information to explain why none of this makes sense. I'm in tears invisioning Mike D. in chains at his waist, hands and feet. Since when has he become a violent person? F**k the police men who did not feel safe removing his chains after the judge asked! I know Mike D. is doing what he believes is best, at least from what he's told me, but it still pains me deeply to know our brother is being treated so horrilbly. And I miss him terribly.

Solidarity 23.Oct.2004 13:17


Solidarity Mike!
What kind of jackass lawyer does Mike have? All the usual activist lawyers are lightyears better than this. Isn't anyone from BLC available for the next hearing?!?

ps: Thanks CatWoman for the excellent report!!

People and Cars Needed 23.Oct.2004 14:10


Is there anyone who plans on attending Mike's sentencing on Monday who has a car and can give a ride to others? At this point we have only one vehicle and need at least one more. If you can - please help get people to the courthouse. We have been leaving the Cascadia Rising Infoshop - 1540 SE Clinton - at 8 AM. Please post on this site if you plan on attending-if you need a ride or if you can provide transportation to the courthouse - 807 Main Street - in beautiful downtown Oregon City.

date/place of incident? 24.Oct.2004 01:28

Shige Toshi

So Mike D was railroaded. When and where did the events happen that resulted in this arrest?

Need a ride 24.Oct.2004 08:47


M D was arrested on July 30, 2002 at the Solo Timber Sale when he stood up and then decided to lay down to protect the forest.
I want to be there on Monday to show support for M D but have no car to get there. Are there going to be more cars? Sounds like the judge might decide to come down hard on him. Important we show up.

can drive 24.Oct.2004 14:39

tessa bird tessabird@comcast.net

I wil be able to drive a couple of folks tomorrow. I'll be there at Cascadia Rising with gawd damn bells on!

Arrest location was Clackamas County Courthouse 27.Oct.2004 02:45

Mike-d.0002b miked.libco@gmail.com

date/place of incident? 24.Oct.2004 01:28
Shige Toshi link

So Mike D was railroaded. When and where did the events happen that resulted in this arrest?


Huh? 27.Oct.2004 09:06


So what happened?

One interesting Thing came out of this trial 27.Oct.2004 12:52


Which is that our lovely Forest Service-attached Patrolman William Lesley Behan has in the last two years been promoted to undercover detective in the Clackamas County narcotics division.

Just one response 23.Nov.2004 09:46

...in case anyone ever gets back to this thread

"an observer" said:

"Your right, Mike D should have been convicted for riot not disorderly conduct spitting on the law enforcement officials, hitting them with plastic bottles filled with an unknown liquid and throwing rocks is not what one would call a peacefull protest. your cause is just, but your method unsound."

This is almost funny, except that it's so frustrating. First, if you acknowledge that the cause is just, how can you serve the wrong side? It's you, officer, and others like you who are not only allowing, but actively participating in the destruction of the very last forests on earth. Thanks, asshole. Thanks for the blind, Nazi "logic."

Second, the part about hitting people with plastic bottles filled with "unknown liquid" and throwing rocks and all that is just utter crap. Interestingly, the judge, at the request of the state, ordered that the videotape of the officers' behavior just after the alleged incident (mike d lying in front of a car) could not be shown to jurors. The state felt it would "prejudice" jurors against the police. I saw that videotape. Guess what it showed! C'mon, guess. If you were there, then you remember that no one threw anything, no one spit. But the police had a riot. With red-faced aggression, they hit, they beat, they deployed pepper spray int he faces of those whose cause you acknowledge was just. I think I saw at least one sheriff with an (ew) erection. Gross.

All that stuff about rock throwing and spitting is often trotted out to justify police violence. (Remember A22?) But it's almost always a lie.

The truth is, we, the planet, and the forests are running out of options. Everything, everything has been tried. People tried voting, they tried going to court, they tried peaceful demonstrations. But there is simply too much money in the timber industry, and too many moron cops protecting the wrong side while beating, arresting and gassing those whose cause is just. See a problem with that? I know I do. Officer, neither your cause nor your methods are defensible, and you know it.