Chief John Moreno Jailed in Mexico

Chief John Moreno Jailed in Mexico

     by Jamie Sechrist

TODOS SANTOS, BCS, MX–Chief John J. Moreno, of the traditional Council of Chiefs at Crow Dog’s Sundance, Rosebud, Lakota Territory, has been jailed in La Paz, Baja California Sur, Mexico, in what looks like an effort to silence the young environmental attorney.

Moreno, lead attorney for local fishermen and the Todos Santos community against a mega-development, here in Todos Santos, was arrested Friday, May 19, using an old and settled land dispute case. The landowner, Joella Corado, an American- Mexican citizen was also jailed.

Moreno has participated with his family in the traditional Lakota Sun Dance Ceremony since he was seven years old.  In 2010, he became a member of the Sundance Chief’s Council and an international representative in Mexico and Europe.  In 2012, he travelled to Italy where he signed, as an Honorary Tribal Member of the Lakota Sicangu Nation, The Perpetual Peace and Friendship Agreement Between the Traditional Council of Chiefs of the Lakota Nation and the Provinces of Florence, Prato, Pistoia, and the Municipality of Vaino – Repubblica Italiana.

Moreno’s personal attorney, working with forensics experts immediately proved that the papers used to justify the arrest were actually forged. Nonetheless, the two remain jailed without bail, awaiting a federal court decision.

Attorney Arturo Rubio Ruiz calls the case a blatant example of the “corruption tainting the Baja California Sur legal system,” and that evidence had been falsified in a manner he called “comically obvious.”  Rubio Ruiz has filed before a federal judge to overturn the state judge’s decision.

The jailing comes on the heels of a 14-chapter lawsuit Moreno filed in February against the mega development known as Tres Santos, a project of The Black Creek Group of Denver, Colorado, and its Mexican subsidiary MIRA. The project has the backing of the state governor, Mendoza Davis, who just prior to the arrests spent a morning with MIRA CEO Javier Barrios.

Meanwhile, the lawsuits Moreno filed in state and federal courts, on behalf of those opposing the development, detail the violations of State and Federal environmental laws and the regional urban development plan.

Immediately upon his arrest, supporters of Moreno filed an “amparo” (protection order) to recognize his spiritual beliefs and cultural heritage under “freedom of worship.”  The “amparo” was necessary to protect Moreno from having his long hair cut and allowed for certain provisions of protection while imprisoned.

The lawsuits filed by Moreno challenge the location of Tres Santos’ boutique beach hotel development at Punta Lobos arguing that that the hotel illegally took over a beach belonging to the fishing cooperative, is in violation of laws pertaining to the federal zone, is on protected fragile dunes, and destroyed vital wetlands. Additionally the development is drawing on the fragile aquifer that supplies the small town’s water, despite having promised to “not use a drop of Todos Santos’ water.”

Soon thereafter, a dossier was leaked to the Moreno family making it clear that Tres Santos’ representatives were researching old files, looking for a line of attack on Moreno. Despite a judgment in Corado’s favor and the closing of the case, it became the excuse for jailing the two.

The development threatens to overwhelm the small town of Todos Santos, nearly tripling its population of 6,000 with construction of 4,472 homes over twenty-five years.

Attorney Arturo Rubio Ruiz calls the case a blatant example of the “corruption tainting the Baja California Sur legal system,” and that evidence had been falsified in a manner he called “comically obvious.” Commented Forensic Investigator Humberto Franco Merlos, “If the Procurador forged documents to arrest Moreno, what will happen when someone we love, or we ourselves, are arrested based on fabricated evidence?”

Protesters have filled El Congreso, fishermen marched in Todos Santos, demonstrations in front of the prison have been non-stop, and over 150 organizations have signed a letter to BSC Governor Carlos Mendoza Davis decrying this “egregious human rights violation.”  The American Consulate is watching Corado’s case and monitoring threats against several other US citizens who have opposed the development.

An on-line petition at change.org online petition has been launched

Run for Freedom – CSU Lory Student Center, Ft Collins, CO followed by run to State Capitol in Denver, Event Page

John Moreno Defense Fund

Joella Corado Website and Defense Fund

Facebook Page for John and Joella

Twitter for John and Joella

Patrimonio is a documentary that is currently in progress that covers the entire struggle with the mega development Tres Santos. Please visit their page

Truth Santos is a website that covers all the aspects of the issues with the development Tres Santos

Baja Sur TV covers live footage and informational releases in regard to the development Tres Santos


Jamie Sechrist is a 40 year old U.S. Citizen that lives in Todos Santos, BCS, MX as a full time resident. She works mostly for non-profit organizations to help with fundraising and promotional efforts. For two years she has been involved with helping the Fishermen of Punta Lobos and the town of Todos Santos to raise awareness of the impacts that Colorado-based Black Creek Capital’s mega development Tres Santos has caused in this small town in Baja California Sur. For these efforts she has earned herself a lawsuit, persecution on social media, defamation in local media, and fled the country in January 2016 for fear of government reprisals. In February 2016 she received a protection order called an amparo which enabled her to return to Mexico without fear of repercussions.

Video from Oct 15, 2015, at Punta Lobos, Jamie Sechrist: https://www.facebook.com/jamie.sechrist/videos/vb.1615008376/10204326181067382/?type=3&theater
Video from Jan 26, 2015 fleeing Mexico:
https://www.facebook.com/jamie.sechrist/videos/vb.1615008376/10204812040853573/?type=3&theater

DAPL Approval Illegal, Judge Finds

DAPL Approval Illegal, Judge Finds

Featured image by Lucas Reynolds. Judge James Boasberg’s 91-page decision says U.S. Army Corps ‘did not adequately consider’ oil spill impacts; no ruling on whether to keep DAPL operational

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers violated the law in its fast-tracked approval of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), a U.S. District Court Judge in Washington D.C. has ruled. Judge James Boasberg said the Corps did not consider key components of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in granting the Lake Oahe easement under the Missouri River when directed to do so by President Donald Trump shortly after his swearing-in.

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, with the Cheyenne River Sioux as interveners, had challenged the approval on the grounds that adequate environmental study had not been conducted. Boasberg agreed on many points, though he did not rule on whether the pipeline should remain operational. It has been carrying oil since June 1.

“Although the Corps substantially complied with NEPA in many areas, the Court agrees that it did not adequately consider the impacts of an oil spill on fishing rights, hunting rights, or environmental justice, or the degree to which the pipeline’s effects are likely to be highly controversial,” Boasberg said in his 91-page decision. “To remedy those violations, the Corps will have to reconsider those sections of its environmental analysis upon remand by the Court. Whether Dakota Access must cease pipeline operations during that remand presents a separate question of the appropriate remedy, which will be the subject of further briefing.”

A status conference will be held next week, according to the environmental law firm EarthJustice, which is representing the tribes in this case. Energy Transfer Partners, the pipeline’s builders, did not respond to requests for comment by press time.

“This is a major victory for the Tribe and we commend the courts for upholding the law and doing the right thing,” said Standing Rock Sioux Chairman Dave Archambault II in a statement. “The previous administration painstakingly considered the impacts of this pipeline and President Trump hastily dismissed these careful environmental considerations in favor of political and personal interests. We applaud the courts for protecting our laws and regulations from undue political influence, and will ask the Court to shut down pipeline operations immediately. ”

The fight over the 1,172-mile-long pipeline that runs hotly contested through four states has been the source of controversy since it was first proposed. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe became the flashpoint for the issue when thousands of water protectors and hundreds of tribes gathered at camps along the Missouri River over the summer of 2016. They were protesting the routing of the pipeline through treaty lands—especially in light of the fact that it had been rerouted from more affluent Bismarck for the same reason the tribe didn’t want it nearby, because of the danger to drinking water—in a conflict that involved a militarized police force.

“This decision marks an important turning point. Until now, the rights of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe have been disregarded by the builders of the Dakota Access Pipeline and the Trump Administration—prompting a well-deserved global outcry,” said Earthjustice attorney Jan Hasselman in a statement. “The federal courts have stepped in where our political systems have failed to protect the rights of Native communities.”

Landmark Victory for the Ogiek Delivered by the African Court on Human and Peoples Rights

Landmark Victory for the Ogiek Delivered by the African Court on Human and Peoples Rights

Featured image: The Ogiek preparing to receive the African Court’s landmark decision after awaiting close to a decade. Photo: Andrew Songa on twitter @drewfremen

     by  / ECOTERRA Intl. via Intercontinental Cry

The African Court on Human and Peoples Rights, at its 45th session on May 26, 2017 in Arusha, Tanzania, delivered a long-awaited and unanimous judgment against the Kenya government in a case brought before it by the Ogiek Indigenous Peoples.

The African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights had filed the case after the applicant proved consistent violations and the denial of the human and land rights of the Ogiek by the Republic of Kenya.

In November 2009, when the Kenyan Forest Service (KFS) delivered a potentially fatal blow against the Ogiek with the designation of an eviction order in October 2009 against the Ogiek and anyone else within the Mau Forest Complex–the ancestral homeland of the Ogiek–within 30 days, the African Court had issued an order to suspend the implementation of the eviction notice.

In March 2013, the African Court issued additional provisional measures requiring the Kenyan Government to stop any land transactions in the Mau Forest and refrain from taking any action that would harm the case, until a decision had been reached. This order, however, has never been respected by the Kenyan state.

After dismissing the numerous objections of the government of Kenya, the African Court delivered in Arusha a comprehensive judgement and a very clear ruling, read out over almost 2 hours by Hon. Justice Agustino Ramadani, the former President of the African Court.

The court found that the government of the Republic of Kenya illegally evicted members of the Ogiek community from the Mau Forest and has continuously violated the rights of the Ogiek under Articles 1, 2, 8, 14, 17 (2/3), 21 and 22 of the African Charter on Peoples and Human Rights.

The Republic of Kenya given 6 months to implement required remedies

Concerning the demand for reparations and compensation, the Ogiek have 90 days to file an application and the Kenya state has 90 days to respond to the demands. After this period, the African Court will rule on the reparations to be awarded to the Ogiek community and its victims of abusive state power.

The ruling has been widely welcomed as a fair and just decision by the Ogiek and ECOTERRA Intl., an organization that has stood by the Ogiek since 1986, as well as other important supporters including Friends of Peoples close to Nature (fPcN-interCultural), Minority Rights International and CEMIRIDE.

This article was originally published by ECOTERRA Intl. It has been edited for Intercontinental Cry under a Creative Commons Non-Commercial Share-Alike License.
African Court to Deliver Landmark Judgment on Ogiek Community Land Rights Case Against Kenyan Government

African Court to Deliver Landmark Judgment on Ogiek Community Land Rights Case Against Kenyan Government

     by Minority Rights Group International

The African Court on Human and Peoples Rights, at its 45th session on 26 May 2017 in Arusha, will deliver a long-awaited judgment on a case brought before it, by the Ogiek indigenous peoples against the Kenyan government, for consistent violations and denial of their land rights.

‘This case is of fundamental importance for indigenous peoples in Africa, and particularly in the context of the continent-wide conflicts we are seeing between communities, sparked by pressures over land and resources,‘ says Lucy Claridge, Minority Rights Group International’s (MRG) Legal Director. ‘Ultimately the Court will be ruling on the crucial role of indigenous peoples in the conservation of land and natural resources, and consequently, the mitigation of climate change in a region currently ravaged by drought and famine.’

The Ogiek, 35, 000 of whom are the victims in this landmark case, live in the Mau Forest Complex in the Rift Valley of Kenya. They are one of the last remaining forest-dwelling communities and among the most marginalised indigenous peoples in Kenya. They allege eight violations of their rights to life, property, natural resources, development, religion and culture by the Kenyan government under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, to which Kenya is a signatory.

This is the first time the African Court, in operation since 2006, will rule on an indigenous peoples’ rights case and is by far the largest ever case brought before the Court. It was originally lodged with the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, but was referred for the first time in history to the Court on the basis that it evinces serious and mass human rights violations. MRG, Ogiek Peoples’ Development Program (OPDP) and CEMIRIDE were the three original Complainants before the African Commission.

‘This judgment will be a huge milestone for the Ogiek community. We are optimistic that it will be positive, and crucially, that it will be respected by the Kenyan government, including implementation, so that Ogiek can feel complete and enjoy all the basic rights like every other Kenyan,’ says Daniel Kobei, Executive Director of OPDP.

The case was heard by the Court in November 2014. MRG delivered an oral intervention on behalf of the original Complainants, whilst two Ogiek community members and other expert witnesses gave testimony. MRG supported 25 Ogiek community members to attend the hearing, and supported a further 40 to view the hearing in Kenya via a live stream from the Court.

In March 2013, the African Court issued a provisional measures order requiring the Kenyan Government to stop land transactions in the Mau Forest and refrain from taking any action which would harm the case, until it had reached a decision. This order unfortunately has not been respected.

For decades the Ogiek have been routinely subjected to arbitrary forced evictions from their ancestral land in the Mau Forest by the government, without consultation or compensation. This has had a detrimental impact on the pursuit of their traditional lifestyle, religious and cultural life, access to natural resources and their very existence as an indigenous people. The Ogiek have a spiritual, emotional and economic attachment to the forest. They rely on it for food, shelter and identity.

Learn more

For more information please contact:

Lucy Claridge, MRG Legal Director (English, French)
M: +44 (0) 7866 741922

E: lucy.claridge@mrgmail.org

Kanyinke Sena, MRG Kenya Advocacy Officer (English, Swahili)

M: +254 725288402

E: kanyinke.sena@mrgmail.org

Daniel Kobei, Ogiek Peoples’ Development Program Executive Director (English, Swahili)
M: +254 722433757
T: +254 512213803
E: dkobei@yahoo.com / opdp@ogiekpeoples.org

Lawsuit Targets Trump’s Border Wall, Enforcement Program

     by Center for Biological Diversity

TUCSON, Ariz.— The Center for Biological Diversity and Congressman Raúl M. Grijalva, who serves as ranking member of the House Committee on Natural Resources, today sued the Trump administration over the proposed border wall and other border security measures, calling on federal agencies to conduct an in-depth investigation of the proposal’s environmental impacts.

Today’s suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, is the first targeting the Trump administration’s plan to vastly expand and militarize the U.S.-Mexico border, including construction of a “great wall.”

“Trump’s border wall will divide and destroy the incredible communities and wild landscapes along the border,” said Kierán Suckling, the Center’s executive director.

“Endangered species like jaguars and ocelots don’t observe international boundaries and should not be sacrificed for unnecessary border militarization. Their survival and recovery depends on being able to move long distances across the landscape and repopulate places on both sides of the border where they’ve lived for thousands of years.”

The lawsuit seeks to require the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection to prepare a supplemental “programmatic environmental impact statement” for the U.S.-Mexico border enforcement program.

The program includes Trump’s proposed wall as well as road construction, off-road vehicle patrols, installation of high-intensity lighting, construction of base camps and checkpoints, and other activities. These actions significantly impact the borderlands environment stretching from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico, which is home to millions of people, endangered species like jaguars and Mexican gray wolves, and protected federal lands like Big Bend National Park and Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument.

“American environmental laws are some of the oldest and strongest in the world, and they should apply to the borderlands just as they do everywhere else,” Grijalva said. “These laws exist to protect the health and well-being of our people, our wildlife, and the places they live. Trump’s wall — and his fanatical approach to our southern border — will do little more than perpetuate human suffering while irrevocably damaging our public lands and the wildlife that depend on them.”

Congressman Grijalva’s district is the largest Congressional district in Arizona and includes approximately 300 miles of the U.S./Mexico border.

If successful, today’s lawsuit would require the Trump administration to undertake a comprehensive review of the social, economic and environmental costs of the border wall.

Background
The National Environmental Policy Act requires that federal agencies conduct environmental review of a major federal action or program that significantly affects the quality of the human environment.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service — the precursor to the Department of Homeland Security — last updated the “programmatic environmental impact statement” for the U.S.-Mexico border enforcement program in 2001. That review identified the potential impacts of border enforcement operations, including limited border wall construction, on wildlife and endangered species in particular as a significant issue.  The 2001 analysis was intended to be effective for five years but has never been updated.

In the 16 years since, the U.S.-Mexico border enforcement program and associated environmental impacts have expanded well beyond the predictions of that document, with deployment of thousands of new border agents, construction of hundreds of miles of border walls and fences, construction and reconstruction of thousands of miles of roads, installation of base camps and other military and security infrastructure, among numerous other actions.

During that same time, scientific understanding of the impacts of border walls and other border enforcement activities on wildlife and endangered species including jaguars, ocelots, Mexican gray wolves and cactus ferruginous pygmy owls has advanced significantly. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has also designated “critical habitat” under the Endangered Species Act within 50 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border for more than 25 species since the outdated 2001 analysis was prepared.

Meanwhile, the number of undocumented migrants moving through the southwestern borderlands is at a historic low, and the border is more secure than it’s ever been.