This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2016, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
In an appeal of his conviction for his role in a 2014 protest ride through Recapture Canyon, San Juan County Commissioner Phil Lyman claims he is a victim of a "modern-day witch hunt" and a "false narrative" suggested by special interest groups that portrayed him as anti-government.
Lyman — a nonattorney who is representing himself — also alleges his trial was tainted because of the friendship between U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby, who presided over it, and the legal director of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA). Although SUWA does not have a legal interest in the case, Lyman has pointed out in a previous filing that the organization urged the government to prosecute him.
"There was no conspiracy against the United States or against the BLM [Bureau of Land Management] to commit any sort of crime or even the appearance of crime," Lyman wrote in a brief filed Monday at the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. "My role was not as an organizer, but as a County Commissioner and key player to whom others looked for direction."
He also insists the protest ride through the archaeologically sensitive Recapture Canyon outside Blanding was not civil disobedience. Instead, Lyman says, it was a way to shed light on the "collusion" between federal agencies and special interest groups, including SUWA, that allegedly had influenced BLM practices detrimental to the community.
And Lyman — who is asking that his conviction be overturned or that he at least get a new trial — insists he reached a consensus with the BLM on how far down the road he could travel without fear of prosecution, and says he stopped exactly at that point.
Eighteen Utah counties, which say they work with federal agencies frequently to solve roads and public land issues, are supporting Lyman's arguments in a friend-of-the-court brief filed Friday.
The brief says a statement by Juan Palma, then the BLM director in Utah, in a May 1, 2014, telephone conversation with Lyman could be construed as consent to stage the protest ride.
According to the brief, Palma said in the taped conversation in reference to the ride, "Nobody is going to get arrested and nobody is going to do all that kind of stuff. We're not going to do that." That statement casts reasonable doubt on whether Lyman operated an ATV in a closed area "knowingly and willfully," the brief says.
The counties also contend a new trial is needed because Shelby waited too long to disqualify himself from the case.
Federal land managers closed areas of the canyon to motorized use in 2007 to protect ancient American Indian sites, an action that many locals say keeps them from the public lands surrounding their community. Demonstrators drove about 50 vehicles into the scenic canyon on May 10, 2014, to protest federal "overreach."
A jury in May 2015 found Lyman and Monte Wells guilty of trespass and conspiracy, both misdemeanors, and acquitted two other local men who rode into the canyon, but played no role in organizing the event. Charges against a fifth man were dropped before trial.
Wells' conspiracy conviction stemmed from his use of social media to promote the ride, although he claims he was reporting as a journalist.
Lyman was sentenced to 10 days in jail and fined $1,000 and Wells was given a five-day sentence and ordered to pay a $500 fine. Both were put on probation for three years and ordered to pay $96,000 in restitution.
Wells, who is the owner and reporter for The Petroglyph, a blog that reports on local issues, also is appealing his conviction at the 10th Circuit and is represented by a lawyer.
Wells' brief, filed May 19, argues the government has violated his First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press by charging him with conspiracy for merely reporting events leading up to the ride.
The two men were sentenced by U.S. District Judge David Nuffer; Shelby recused himself from the case after the verdict but before the sentencing, citing his friendship with SUWA legal director Steve Bloch and his family.
In his 10th Circuit brief, Lyman says many of Shelby's rulings seemed slanted to him, but he had been naive about the behind-the-scenes relationships that might be influencing the judge, who he had assumed was impartial. The brief cites a pretrial ruling by Shelby that declared the road in question had been legally closed by the BLM; Lyman argues that he drove on a portion of the road that was not part of the area closed to off-road vehicle travel.
Lyman also points out that Shelby allowed live tweeting during the trial and that the federal prosecutors would "huddle" during breaks with people from the gallery, including members of the media and Bloch, described as one of the tweeters.
"To consider that Stephen Bloch, for whom Judge Shelby has such fond regard and who was consulting with the attorneys and live tweeting the proceedings, was present in the courtroom and simultaneously publishing admonitions to the court for harsher punishments is troubling," Lyman writes in the brief.
Bloch said in a statement Saturday that Lyman's claims are "ridiculous."
"SUWA was not a party to the criminal case and I did not enter an appearance or otherwise participate in the matter," Bloch said. "Lyman was convicted by a jury of his peers for his action, plain and simple. Given his leadership role in the community Lyman is held to a high standard, one that he clearly failed to meet in this instance."
Twitter: @PamelaMansonSLC