Jus is free !!!!!

Jus was in pre-trial detention since July 22, 2015. His trial was on Friday, October 2. He is free now. That is the good news.
German version

On October 2, the hearing had to take place at 2:00 p.m. in the lower regional court in Kerpen. It was shifted because the trial against Jörg Bergstedt , scheduled for 13 p.m., took too long.more in German

Timeline to the best of my knowledge and belief, without any claim to accuracy and completeness.

Trial against Jus

4:17 p.m. Jus enters the hall. Standing ovations.
Questioning on personal data. Domicile: “Planet Earth”.
“What do you earn in your profession?” “Infinitely much love and gratitude.”
4:21 p.m. Reading of the indictment.
16:24 p.m. Statement of Jus. Invisible line in the courtroom. On the one hand fully clothed and well nourished people. On the other hand more than 1 billion people who have been forced to go there. Violence against the climate. Health costs of more than 3 trillion Euros as a result of fossil fuels. State of emergency for the entire world. Militarization of the enforcement of the Court, increasing criminalization, increasing conflicts of interest. The judicial system is suppressing poets, writers, musicians. Heavily is attempted to privatize resources. Climate killer RWE. Warning to all about the realities that affect us all. When he speaks in prison on these topics, he hears “Sieg Heil” in response. Repression by the prison warders – half rations for him, double rations for the fascists. Threat to his security. Every day he has to think of the ancestors who survived Stalag camp only for a short time. Now he gets on in a similar way. However, he does not defend his country, but the world and the forest. If here a false verdict should be passed – he would continue his fight against the ongoing destruction of the environment (audience applause). Warning: history does not repeat exactly, but it rhymes. This time, the state of the earth is irreversible. The verdict is not about me, but about countless future generations. “We do not possess the earth, we only borrowed it from our grandchildren.”

4:35 p.m. A police officer from Cologne. Describes the throwing down of an object from the tower, as far as he had seen it. Identification of the person who almost was hit. Prosecutor enquires. About the second incident he only knew from police radio. The thrown object was assured (don’t know by whom). No knowledge of the whereabouts of “injured party” or thrown object. Distance between the witness and RWE employees 20-30 meters, clear view. Whether other items fell, the witness can not say.
Lawyer enquires: What was the throwing motion like? Reflection.
4:42 p.m. “One could see clearly how an arm went up with the object in the hand. The arm went forward, the object was released.” “The backswing has brought energy.” “The object fell straight down?” “He also can have dropped the object vertically downwards.” “He bent forward before to look down.” “I can not say whether he targeted.” “I only saw one person up there. Later, only one person was evacuated there, so only one person can have been up there.”
The object falls down. Colleague R. goes to the injured party and talks to him. No further questions.
Questions of Jus: “Could it be possible that the police can replace my broken glasses?” Responsible would be the technical unit. Contact person is unknown.
“Why did not I get any medical support for my hand? There were only extra-tightened handcuffs. To date, the nerves of my hand are damaged.”

4:48 p.m. Witness Marcus B., bodyguard from Kerpen.

Translation in progressFrom here on, the translation is made with a software. For a better translation, come back later please

Director of operations of the security company Industrie- und Werkschutz Mundt, active for RWE. Observer on-site. Not directly related to the eviction, which made the police.
“And then?” “Shall I now describe the whole day?” He tells that the police arrived at 9:30 (the alleged lamp litter to have taken place shortly after 9 o’clock). Description of the evacuation situation. The squatters have rioted like a wounded chicken, fireworks, flares. Fire fighters arrived, who extinguished the torches by the use of a wheel loader and fire extinguishers.
On the plateau a not identifiable block was found to whom the man had lured himself. He freed himself repeatedly to continue randalieren. The problem was to get the person unharmed on the earth. Plateau unstable. wheel loader with fork should Vorndran the tower back up (guess). Tower 10 meters from the forest entrance, downhill. Range radlader too low. 10-15 truck with gravel were carted to secure the plateau. The man has chucked a vase from the tower barricade, a very stable vase, at least 50 cm high, 30 cm diameter. Loaders tried to reason to condense. After dropping the vase was reconsidered, should be how to deal with the situation.
“In the morning there is so down popped ne Baule lamp. It landed one meter beside me. I was about 5 meters next to the tower. I was careful because I knew that as often malodorous things are runtergeschmissen. I looked up and saw how the thing came to meet me flown. It may also be runtergepurzelt. I think that however unlikely. A litter I have not seen. Were there still more recessed luminaires or missiles of a similar nature? I did not see. (Questions Judge).
5:00 p.m. Prosecutor demands. Witness continued. A good pitcher could meet him. A moving target is harder to hit than a stationary. I went quickly, as the lamp flew, I have become faster. I’m gone on the same speed. 5-6 meter tower height, 5-6 meters trajectory. Do not know if you wanted to meet me or has deliberately gone specifically to me.<!–
17 p.m. Nachfragen Staatsanwalt. Zeuge ging weiter. Ein guter werfer hätte ihn treffen können. Ein bewegtes Ziel ist schwieriger zu treffen als ein stehendes. Ich bin schnell gegangen, als die Lampe geflogen war, bin ich schneller geworden. Ich bin gleichschnell weitergegangen. 5-6 Meter turmhöhe, 5-6 Meter Flugbahn. Weiß nicht, ob man mich treffen wollte oder bewusst an mir vorbeigezielt hat.–>
5:05 p.m. defenders. , Fast pace jus: You were not involved in the evacuation. What did they have to do within the police line? At what time it happened exactly? Beginning the eviction 9:30, which was to testify between 9:30 and 10. Conflicting. Only the tower should have been unstable, then he should not have been unstable, that things could fall down. About danger of collapse, I can not say anything.<!–
17:05 p.m. verteidiger. . Schnelles Tempo jus: Sie waren nicht an der Räumung beteiligt. Was hatten sie innerhalb der polizeiabsperrung zu tun? Zu welcher Zeit ist das genau passiert? Beginn der Räumung halb 10, das war zwischen halb 10 und 10. Widersprüchliche aussagen. Erst soll der Turm instabil gewesen sein, dann soll er nicht instabil gewesen sein, dass Dinge hätten runterfallen können. Über Einsturzgefahr kann ich nichts sagen.–>
Jus: What has the RWE security to do there when so many were police officers there?
The Security Service was present only in my person.
The person up there has taken a nose and raged. It may be funny, but that was my impression.
RWE destroys massively the environment. The employees of a foreign service guide has 3 children and lives very environmentally conscious (applause), he does not see himself as an environmental destroyer. Jus he does not like to invite for breakfast because he eats meat.
It always switchte between peace, ankettungen, detach and rampage, what runterschmeissen. I was not permanently on site, was once an hour elsewhere.
Some of this litter thrust happened after removal of witnessing the place.
Can it be that it should go drum, to remove things from the tower in order to secure them. As should have been his good bowler.
Observers? We ensure the clearing work and gather information.
Why did you stand in the area? There was a regular output and input. Later, a second access was built. First, who was not present, only the one.
There are no civilians or been let in uninvolved. No one else had access. Excluding RWE employees, police, not civilians.
Jus Where they stood, as alleged, this object was thrown? From the street, saw I was right out below and wanted.
Were they on their way?
On the road I could not walk.
Can you describe the exact place where they were?
Could I do based on photos easily.
Meet the front of the judges place. Viewing a photo. Lamp flew over him.
Witness saw how the vase flew, but not if / how she was thrown.
After throwing the vases excavator driver drove and got out to the street, I have not followed.

5:30 p.m. , after a short pause, witness Schl of RWE.

Had orders to occupy a wheel loader in advance. Was summoned to the tower, am there went. Take care that nothing happens. Around noon truck for stability.
He was 3 days unable to work because of pain in the neck area (after throwing vases).
The person jumped around on the tower and has insulted me. I saw that the object was thrown. That thing hit in the windscreen top center. A jar, I have not seen exactly. Pressed disc, milky. Laminated glass, because nothing is chipped.
Prosecutor. Insult morning at 8. I caught 8, 8:30 to. Insulted I was not all the time. It happened at a quarter past 1.Diagnose: neck muscle overstretching left. Pain I had when I got turned upside down.
Lawyer: After throwing I left the unit and told the police what happened.
He was not even pushed to the tower, maybe those were the gravel truck. Did not understand the insults. Questions. Was it verbal, or perhaps warnings or similar? Could the person have tried to warn her not to bring the tower to overthrow? You might have also made gestures to make the person or ridiculous to show her that she was not interested.
Prosecutor: “Were the gestures then aggressive, or a warning?”

The excavator bucket also served as a platform for police.

5:46 p.m. Jus: “When you to take over orders from RWE, who massively destructs the climate and destroys one of the last forests here, would you not have as recite that you soothe your conscience, that you see every day what we are doing, that you have no prejudice against environmental activists?”<!–
17:46 p.m. Jus. Für RWE Aufträge zu übernehmen, die massiv Klima zerstört und einen der letzten Wälder hier zerstört, müssten Sie da nicht agen, dass sie um ihr gewissen zu beruhigen, dass sie täglich sehen, was wir tun, dass sie kein vorurteil gegen Umweltaktivisten haben?–>
“Everyone should demonstrate as he wants. This should have been done 30 years ago.”

5:48 p.m. Prosecutor. Schilderung the situation during the evacuation. After witnesses the facts stand firm. Guilty of attempted assault in a case of assault consummated in another case, in coincidence with property damage.
In the first case the conditions are not enough to speak of a withdrawal of the act. Whether other projectiles were present, is not to clarify. The witness had gone and would have been more difficult to meet.
Körperverletzungsworwurf vases litter: vase was thrown from a high altitude, composite disc was damaged, considerable force, also by height of the tower and weight of the vase. “The vase would not have been thrown, the backhoe operator had not turned his head and he had not been injured.”
Penalties: penalties for aggravated assault for months 6 10 years. Less serious case is not given here. Border with mortal danger. Quite serious injuries could occur. No criminal record. At trial the punishment can be mitigated. The first litter was the witness not particularly affected. Penalties here 1 month to 7 years 9 months.
What punishment would concretely be adequate?
Pro: To date no criminal record, pre-trial detention for 2 months (with bad experiences).
Cons: dangerousness fact is taken into account.
First case appropriately 6 months, in the second case, 1 year, bearing in mind that in fact held lying possible injuries would have been severe.

In summary, would be a prison sentence of 1 year 2 months. Suspended on probation appropriate. Other acts of this kind are not to be expected. The protest against lignite mining is legitimate, but it should be brought to a peaceful level. Physical health of RWE employees should be guaranteed. That was not the decision maker.
(Interjection: “They are endangering us!”)

Defender: in the end My result will be different from that of the prosecution.
First case. The witness goes on as he has gone before. “Then I would have been able to even meet again.”As you come necessarily to resign. If you can not disprove that there were things that could have the pitcher can throw again. Moving on to 2-3 steps does not alter that fact would have continued to be. There was still ne vase that could be thrown. Cancellation mandatory.

Second case. What was planned? Here comes a felt 50-tonner and knocks which laid the shovel, sand or gravel. Since huge masses are moved. The tower shakes. Testimonies change from“insults”about“warnings”to“panic”. Arrest warned. Come as not against. Pass on that of not falling down.
How to warn someone in such a large, noisy device? He has called, gesturing, after all, he had to throw 8When what ers because hat9 done. The excavator has stable discs that knows even my son who is 5. It was not to be expected that someone could be injured, which was also intended nic. The object has been injured by his dangerousness to the neck? No. Did he tacitly accepted that the person has been violated?
The excavator driver got out quietly, has 10 minutes rumgestanden and talked there. Since many people could throw much. That there was nothing above, is not provable. Again resignation.
Damage to property: §34,35 Criminal Code. If there is danger to life and limb I may defend myself. This is also the way property damage.
Twice someone tried to hurt them. Twice ERS does not pull through. Last chance to save life and limb.
Less serious case: being thrown with the vase against a disc strain on the neck. Classic less serious case. The danger of the vase has nothing to do with the actual injury.

Ecological defense- defense by ecology / ecology.
My client has, prescribed with life and limb, gsundheit and freedom, even if it were gone wrong with his life, the defense of the environment. RWE destroyed, even admits the prosecution.
§34,35. Defense against present dangers, dangers also against ongoing. This danger exists. Maybe she goes away. Or someone else will take care of drum. People like the accused take care of this. What have you actually done then against the climate change?
In the destruction just has ever participated. That was in the 30s 40s too. (Applause).
I apply in all respects acquittal.“,

Last word: Jus
Precedent of a higher good, which allows a small pass to commit to prevent an offense larger. Nuclear power plant in the Czech Republic as an example.
(Here the records end)

7 months suspended on probation for 3 years (Jus should accordingly within the next 3 years not again become delinquent).
The judge follows in full the argument “resignation of fact” in the first accusation. The second was in fact a breach occurred (albeit indirectly), wesewegen one can not speak of“resignation”. One consequence of the argument“property damage from unjustifiable emergency”so everyone could indeed put any cars exempt from punishment in fire, because this indeed polluted the environment. At this point there was zustimmends hoot in the audience.

More (in German): http://www.ksta.de/kerpen/prozesse-um-die-auseinandersetzungen-am-tagebau-hambach-aktivist-soll-von-barrikade-aus-eine-vase-geworfen-haben,15189188,32072014.html

The mood in the audience after the sentence was very good. Jus is now free again. This was long overdue. At an acquittal lacked the judge (who had received a severe reprimand in the first method) Unfortunately the courage. Presumably there are people who would have seen an acquittal as a carte blanche for the activists. Impunity thus continues the regularly exercised by the security forces of violence, while activists always have to reckon with severe penalties. It was recognized on all sides the noble goal of lignite resistance in general and of Jus in particular, the environment, climate and protect the forest that are destroyed by RWE. Whether you will soon see the prosecutor now with a walk in the woods of Michael Zobel, remains doubtful anyway. Well, it did him certainly. Jus is now free, but 2.5 months jail are not without, to hunger strike and many repressions in prison as well as deportation of accruing contact options. Whether the verdict is legally so, or whether Jus will file an appeal, was not to learn. As will go into the land certainly only a few days and nights.

Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *