Tag Archives: Court of Appeals

‘Whale Wars’ returns amid multiple legal entanglements

The seventh season of “Whale Wars” — a three-hour presentation premiering on Friday — follows on the heels of an unresolved contempt-of-court ruling against Sea Shepherd Conservation Society earlier this month.

Sea Shepherd captains (from left) Sid Chakravarty, Peter Hammarstedt and Adam Meyerson during 2014 Operation Relentless Sea Shepherd photo by Eliza Muirhead
Sea Shepherd captains (from left) Sid Chakravarty, Peter Hammarstedt and Adam Meyerson during 2014 Operation Relentless
Sea Shepherd photo by Eliza Muirhead

The new program, to be shown at 5 p.m. and again at 8 p.m. on Animal Planet network, documents the 2013-2014 Antarctic whaling season and the sometimes-violent confrontation between Sea Shepherd and Japanese whalers. Check out the Sneak Preview.

While Sea Shepherd faces some serious court rulings, the Japanese government finds itself in conflict with the International Court of Justice, which concluded that its “scientific” whaling program does not conform to scientific principles — which was the legal justification for the program — so the whaling must stop, at least for now. See Water Ways, March 24, 2014.

Paul Watson, founder of Sea Shepherd, appears to have ticked off the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which first called his group a “pirate” operation in December 2012. The court issued an injunction to keep Sea Shepherd ships at least 500 feet away from the Japanese whaling vessels. (See Water Ways, Feb. 26, 2013.)

In its latest ruling on Dec. 19, the court says Watson and Sea Shepherd’s U.S. board of directors acted contrary to its injunction by shifting their anti-whaling operations over to the related group Sea Shepherd, Australia. In the court’s view, Watson should have done what was necessary to halt the anti-whaling tactics, not find a way to continue them. As Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr. wrote in his findings (PDF 127 kb):

“Sea Shepherd US’s separation strategy effectively nullified our injunction by ensuring that OZT (Operation Zero Tolerance) proceeded unimpeded, in part by using former Sea Shepherd US assets. Sea Shepherd US ceded control over OZT to Sea Shepherd Australia and other Sea Shepherd entities it believed to be beyond the injunction’s reach, knowing these entities were virtually certain to violate the injunction.

“At the same time, Sea Shepherd US continued to provide financial and other support for OZT after the injunction by, among other things, transferring for no consideration a vessel and equipment worth millions of dollars to Sea Shepherd Australia and other entities…

“Rather than instruct its employees to help prevent OZT, Sea Shepherd US effectively shifted these employees to its affiliates’ payrolls to ensure continued participation in a campaign it knew was very likely to result in violations of the injunction…

“Our objective in issuing the injunction was to stop Sea Shepherd from attacking the plaintiffs’ vessels. Sea Shepherd US thwarted that objective by furnishing other Sea Shepherd entities with the means to do what it could not after the issuance of the injunction. It has long been settled law that a person with notice of an injunction may be held in contempt for aiding and abetting a party in violating it.”

These court findings were all related to Operation Zero Tolerance, the Sea Shepherd campaign that ended in March of 2013. The ruling did not address Operation Relentless, which ended in March of 2014 and is the subject of Friday’s “Whale Wars” event. I wonder if Japan will attempt to use the U.S. courts to collect for damages related to the latest conflict.

The International Court of Justice ruling against the Japanese whaling operations seems to have had no effect on how the U.S. Court of Appeals views Sea Shepherd’s actions. Sea Shepherd’s activities were still illegal, the court ruled, and the injunction would still be needed if the whaling were to resume under conditions acceptable to the international court. See “order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss” (PDF 308 kb).

In fact, although whaling was suspended for the 2014-15 season, the Japanese government has submitted a new plan (PDF 2.3 mb) to resume whaling at this time next year. The plan calls for an annual harvest of 333 minke whales — as opposed to the previous plan to take 850 minkes, 50 humpbacks and 50 fin whales. For additional insight on the controversy, read Dennis Normile’s piece in Science Insider, affiliated with Science magazine.

As for the upcoming “Whale Wars” special, a news release from Animal Planet says the action will be as exciting as ever, even with Paul Watson gone from the scene:

“With Captain (Peter) Hammarstedt once again at the helm and tensions with the whalers at an all-time high, this new campaign will likely be the most aggressive and dangerous the Sea Shepherds have faced.”

This episode of “Whale Wars” was produced by Lizard Trading Company, using raw footage filmed by Sea Shepherd crew members. That’s similar to the arrangement for last year’s two-hour special. (See Water Ways, Nov. 7, 2013.)

U.S. court declares Sea Shepherd a ‘pirate’ group

“You don’t need a peg leg or an eye patch,” begins Judge Alex Kozinski, launching into a scathing ruling against Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, which the judge calls a “pirate” organization.

Kozinski, chief judge for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, concluded in a ruling today that U.S. District Judge Richard Jones had made “numerous, serious and obvious errors” when he declined to issue an injunction against Sea Shepherd for its high-seas battle against Japanese whalers.

The three-judge panel ordered that the case be removed from Jones’ jurisdiction and turned over to another Seattle district judge drawn at random.

Meanwhile, the Institute of Cetacean Research — the Japanese whaling organization — continues its effort to get a contempt-of-court citation issued against Sea Shepherd, which has increased its efforts to disrupt Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean.

Sea Shepherd remains under a U.S. Court of Appeals injunction, which requires that the organization’s ships operate safely and stay 500 yards away from the Japanese vessels.

I’ll provide an update on Sea Shepherd’s activities in a separate blog post, but let me first tell you more about Kozinski’s ruling (PDF 238 kb), which finds nothing commendable about any of Sea Shepherd’s actions.

Continue reading

Incoming court justice predicts water will be an issue

Who would have guessed that, throughout the history of our state, a Kitsap County resident has never served as a State Supreme Court justice?

Charlie Wiggins of Bainbridge Island, Washington's next Supreme Court justice
Kitsap Sun photo by Larry Steagall

That’s been true until now, that is, since Bainbridge Island attorney Charlie Wiggins is about to replace Justice Richard Sanders on the state’s high court.

That’s just one tidbit in a fascinating story written about Wiggins by reporter Tristan Baurick in Monday’s Kitsap Sun. In his blog, Bainbridge Conversation, Tristan also revealed how a Kitsap resident years ago became a Supreme Court justice — but only after moving to Tacoma, so he didn’t count.

It’s too early to know how Wiggins’ presence will change the Supreme Court, but most observers expect him to take positions to the left of Sanders, who is generally viewed as either a Libertarian or a staunch conservative.

Tristan quoted Court of Appeals judges who have worked with Wiggins. They said he is well respected in legal circles but remains largely unknown to the public.

Retired judge Elaine Houghton: “He writes eloquent and clearly — something we judges aspire to. His work is well-regarded because he finds the essence of the law and espouses it very easily.”

University of Washington law professor Bill Anderson: “You can’t peg him as an activist or nonactivist judge, or as a liberal or conservative. I don’t think he’ll blaze any trails in any direction. I think he’ll just be a professional judge. Consistent, honorable, objective.”

One thing I found interesting was Wiggins’ predictions about issues that could come before the court in the future. His lists water because of its limited supplies.

“With climate change,” Wiggins told our reporter, “water is just going to be an incredibly precious resource.”

In trying to judge how Wiggins might shift the court, I read several of his articles written for legal publications. For a lawyer, his writing can be engaging, especially when dealing with historical issues. Check out “The Battle for the Tidelands in the Constitutional Convention,” which he wrote for the Washington State Bar Association.