BIDDER 70
BIDDER 70 is Tim DeChristopher’s story. It’s the story of young people fed up with corporate
control of their government, the story of the power of individual choices and their
consequences. It’s the story of a principled young man and the bravery of his commitment to a
livable world.
On December 19, 2008, Tim DeChristopher, aka Bidder 70, derailed the Bush Administration’s
last minute, fraudulent Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Oil and Gas Lease Auction. Tim bid
1.8 million dollars for 22,000 acres surrounding Utah’s pristine National Parks with no intention
to pay or drill and brought the BLM auction to an abrupt halt. One month later, Barack Obama
became president and new Interior Secretary, Salazar, invalidated the entire BLM auction.
Nevertheless, DeChristopher was indicted on two federal felonies with penalties of up to ten
years in prison and $750,000 in fines.
BIDDER 70 follows Tim as he maneuvers legal purgatory, waiting through nine trial
postponements over two years. With the threat of prison looming, DeChristopher steps up his
activism and evolves into a climate justice leader. On February 28, 2011, hundreds of his
supporters demonstrate in the streets of Salt Lake City as Tim’s trial begins. Judge Dee Benson
disallows every defense DeChristopher’s lawyers put forth and Tim is found guilty on both
counts. On July 26, 2011, Tim is sentenced to two years in federal prison, and is taken from
court in chains. In solidarity, his supporters sit down in the busiest intersection in Salt Lake City,
block traffic and trains, and refuse to move. Twenty-six supporters are arrested.
1
BIDDER 70 TOPICS AND QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
PEACEFUL CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE
TIM DECHRISTOPHER
“Look at the consequences of global warming and those disastrous effects that we’re on track
for right now... I mean the idea of our civilization collapsing because all the things that support
us are not going to be able to support us anymore. ... there’s nothing else that’s even in the
same league as that, there’s nothing else that can compare, and so it’s really the prime moral
imperative for our generation and for all the people on the earth right now. ... and so, what is
the price that’s too high to pay to prevent that? What’s the level of sacrifice that’s too great to
insure our survival? For a long time I thought there isn’t anything; there’s nothing that big. ... I
realized after a while that there is a level of sacrifice which is too great and that level is our
humanity. We can’t sacrifice our humanity to save our civilization. And what that means to me
is that in standing up for our future and in standing our ground, we have to be non-violent, that
it has to be peaceful resistance to destruction, that we can’t go to war against those who are
making war against my generation.” (Tim at First Unitarian Church, Salt Lake City, UT, 1/16/2009)
“And so that‘s what drove me to realize that this uprising necessary to resist our own
destruction had to be a peaceful uprising. That it had to be non-violent. We must remain
peaceful in our resistance, because, regardless of how firmly we stand up for our future...
there’ll be challenges so severe that we cannot face them alone. We will have to face them
together in a unified way. And so in defending against those challenges, in preparing for them,
we can’t do it in a violent way that turns us against each other. We can’t do it in a way that
generates hatred. It has to be turning towards each other, not turning against each other. It
has to be a unified uprising that brings us together, as a people, in defense of our own future.”
(Tim, interview at Moab, 2/2009)
GHANDI
Mohandas K. Ghandi: Born in 1869, Ghandi was the preeminent leader of Indian
nationalism in British-ruled India. His tactics drove the British from India. Employing nonviolent civil disobedience, Gandhi led India to independence and inspired movements for nonviolence, civil rights and freedom across the world.
More info: http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-16-3-b-bringing-down-anempire-gandhi-and-civil-disobedience
2
WOMEN’S SUFFRAGE
The struggle to achieve equal rights for women is often thought to have begun, in the Englishspeaking world, with the publication of Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of
Woman (1792). During the 19th century, as male suffrage was gradually extended in many
countries, women became increasingly active in the quest for their own suffrage. Not until 1893,
however, in New Zealand, did women achieve suffrage on the national level. Australia followed
in 1902, but American, British, and Canadian women did not win the same rights until the end of
World War I.
More info: http://teacher.scholastic.com/activities/suffrage/history.htm
http://historyofnonviolence.wiki.lovett.org/Women
MARTIN LUTHER KING JR
During the less than 13 years of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s leadership of
the modern American Civil Rights Movement, from December, 1955 until April 4, 1968, African
Americans achieved more genuine progress toward racial equality in America than the previous
350 years had produced. Dr. King is widely regarded as America’s pre-eminent advocate of
nonviolence and one of the greatest nonviolent leaders in world history.
More info: http://www.thekingcenter.org/about-dr-king
For more on the role of Civil Disobedience in Democracy:
http://www.civilliberties.org/sum98role.html
CLIMATE CHANGE
1. What is Tim’s football metaphor really talking about?
“The way the environmental movement has been for the last 30 years is like a football game.
And there’s some players on the field that are fighting it out but most of the people in the
stadium are up in the stands. Most of them are just cheering, most of them just paid their
money at the door and now they’re just yelling and screaming and waving their big green foam
fingers. And it ‘s not working, our team is getting slaughtered, the refs have been paid off and
there’s no rules, and the other side is playing with dirty tricks. So it’s no longer acceptable for us
3
to stay in the stands; it’s time to rush the field. And it’s time to stop the game. That is our only
path forward.” Tim DeChristopher
2. Discuss the scene in which Tim talks with climate scientist, Terry Root. Why would a
scientist who knows our climate situation is practically irreversible not be completely honest
in her presentation of the current situation?
Transcript of Tim and Terry Root:
Tim:
I remember one of the things I asked you after you told me that, was “How can you not
be telling people that when you give your presentations, because you said it very clearly
to me that we’re screwed?” In your presentation you sort of glossed over that slide.
TR:
I softened it a bit. Yeah.
TD:
Do you still soften it?
TR:
(Terry sighs) It’s a really tough decision, because if I get up and tell what I truly believe,
everybody will walk out and say, “I don’t want to listen to this anymore and go to
Disneyland.” So I’ve got to make sure that I tell them in a way that they don’t go to
Disneyland, that they will be willing to work at some point, maybe not all the way, but
doing something. The other thing is I truly believe that there is hope. If I didn’t believe
that, I wouldn’t be doing this. It’s too hard. I lie awake at night, most nights. It’s really
hard.
3. Do you think that Dr. Root is right not to be completely honest, in order to keep people
from feeling hopeless about the future, or do you think she has a responsibility as a scientist
to offer hard facts? Explain your reasons.
TRIAL
Judge Dee Benson did not allow the three defense strategies the attorneys for Tim
DeChristopher wanted to use. Judge Benson denied the “choice of evils,” “imminent harm,” and
“sufficient causal relationship” defenses.
Defense attorneys Patrick Shea (BLM director under Clinton) and Ron Yengich argued that
DeChristopher would satisfy four legal requirements to prove the defense:
(1) He was faced with a choice of evils and chose the lesser
(2) He acted to prevent imminent harm
(3) He reasonably expected a direct relationship between his action and the harm he wished to
avert
(4) He had no legal alternatives to violating the law. This is a “choice of evils” defense, which
essentially says he committed illegal acts of lesser importance in order to advance a greater
good.
4
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2009/05/21/update-on-defense-strategy-in-the-timdechristopher-monkey-wrench-blm-oil-lease-case/
1. Based on what you learned in the film, was the judge justified in denying these defenses; if
so, why; and if not, why not?
2. Did any of the three defenses have more merit than the others? Explain.
Judge Dee Benson
Judge Dee Benson denied the necessity defense for these reasons:
 On the “choice of evils,” Benson decided “a harm or evil that may or may not occur is
insufficient for purposes of the necessity defense” and “the court agrees with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in that the court does ‘not sit to render
judgments upon the legality of the conduct of the government at the request of any person
who asks us to because he happens to think that what the government doing is wrong. ... To
[do so] would ... put [the court] in the position of usurping the functions that the Constitution
has given to the Congress and to the President.’”
“Accordingly, DeChristopher’s necessity defense fails because he did not face a definite and/or
cognizable choice of two evils.”
 On the “imminent harm” defense, Benson wrote, “The term ‘imminent harm’ connotes a real
emergency or crisis. … Even assuming arguendo that the BLM’s lease sale was ‘evil,’ the
evidence does not support a finding of imminent harm because issuance of the oil and gas
leases offered at the BLM lease sale was not certain to occur.”
 Regarding “sufficient causal relationship,” Benson declared, “DeChristopher attests that he
reasonably anticipated his actions would ‘thwart’ the BLM’s unlawful lease sale, and also avert
its consequential exacerbation of global warming and climate change, and its destruction of
irreplaceable natural and cultural resources. However, DeChristopher fails as a matter of law
to establish that driving the bid price up on some parcels and winning only fourteen of over a
hundred parcels sold could be reasonably anticipated to directly stop the BLM’s ‘unlawful’
lease sale and avoid its purported consequences. Unlike a person demolishing a home to
create a firebreak, DeChristopher’s actions were more akin to placing a small pile of dirt in the
fire’s path. The court finds that DeChristopher’s necessity defense fails because he cannot
establish that his actions would directly bring about the ends he claims to have sought.”
5
Federal prosecutors and U.S. District Judge Dee Benson prohibited the defense, precluding
DeChristopher from presenting evidence that might have supported his argument for necessity
defense. DeChristopher and his attorneys were also forbidden to inform the jury that the lease
auction was deemed unlawful, that DeChristopher had raised sufficient funds for an initial
payment to the BLM (which the BLM refused to accept), or that DeChristopher’s motives were
grounded in moral convictions related to climate change.
http://www.bidder70.org/files/62601_62700/62662/proffer-final.pdf
http://www.arnoldporter.com/resources/documents/DeChristopher%20case.pdf
ACTIVISM TODAY
Bill McKibben:
“I met with students at Northeastern University recently, and they were gung-ho about going
to work on climate change: They’d gone way past their old focus on recycling to start
demanding that the college divest its holdings in fossil fuel companies. They were nerving
themselves up for a real fight; it was fun to see. But once the formal session was over, a
student lingered by the edge to ask me, somewhat timidly, a question...”
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/12/02/mckibben/wBHoYGRaVkSfYjZCQC7WM/story.html
“What you have with the Occupy movement is a criticism of global capitalism and the American
financial system, but also a critique of policing on campus, tuition policy, the way universities
are run,” said Angus Johnston, a historian who teaches at the City University of New York.
“That is certainly resonant with the movements of the ’60s, because student activism of the
1960s connected up major national and global issues and campus policy.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/education/edlife/the-new-student-activism.html?pagewanted=all&_r=01.
6
1. How can we “connect the dots,” as Larry Gibson suggested?
2. What is the value of a film that introduces these issues? How can this film and other
media be a force for important social change?
3. Talk about actions or sacrifices you’d be willing to make to defend a livable world for you
and your children? Why?
CLIMATE JUSTICE
Climate justice is a vision to dissolve and alleviate the unequal burdens created by climate change.
www.actforclimatejustice.org/about/what-is-climate-justice/
Climate Justice is working at the intersections of environmental degradation and the racial, social, and
economic inequities it perpetuates. Worldwide, civilization requires a livable climate. Climate
change causes drought, floods, and resource scarcity, leading to famine, civil unrest, armed
conflict, innocent suffering and government oppression. As the climate falls apart, families,
communities, and lives are falling with it.
Advocacy on behalf of the climate is advocacy on behalf of the billions of people whose lives
depend on a healthy planet. The global climate is interconnected, both environmentally and
socially. Fixing an interconnected world demands interconnected movement; anyone who
believes that all individuals deserve basic human and civil rights should see the climate crisis as
an imminent threat. The climate crisis is an issue that unites us all on a single team, fighting for
the future of humankind.
http://www.peacefuluprising.org/what-is-climate-justice
7
Beyond saving sensitive and pristine wilderness from oil and gas exploitation, Tim is
concerned with “Climate Justice”. Discuss “climate justice” and how climate change impacts
peoples from different parts of the world in varying degrees?
POSTSCRIPT
On January 24, 2013, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the energy industry’s request to
reinstate the 77 land parcels that Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar removed from the BLM oil and
gas lease auction de-railed by Tim DeChristopher on December 19, 2008. As Martin Luther King
Jr. said: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865571427/Court-refuses-to-hear-challenge-to-oil-and-gas-leasesdecision.html?pg=all
http://earthjustice.org/news/press/2013/federal-appeals-court-rejects-energy-industry-s-attempt-toreinstate-drilling-leases-on-doorstep-of-utah-nationa
8