Pipeline Attack Conspiracies Prosecutions
Pipeline Attack Conspiracy Prosecutions: Overview
Pipeline attacks threaten critical infrastructure, energy supplies, and public safety. Governments prosecute such conspiracies under laws criminalizing terrorism, sabotage, destruction of infrastructure, conspiracy, and sometimes environmental crimes.
1. United States v. Conor Climo (2017)
Background:
Conor Climo was an American charged with conspiracy to damage oil pipelines in the U.S. as part of an eco-terrorism campaign linked to groups like the Earth Liberation Front (ELF).
Charges:
Conspiracy to damage energy infrastructure.
Use of explosives and arson-related charges.
Violations of the Patriot Act related to domestic terrorism.
Prosecution Approach:
The FBI used undercover agents who infiltrated the group and recorded discussions about targeting pipelines.
Evidence included intercepted communications, surveillance, and possession of explosives.
The prosecution argued Climo intended to cause widespread disruption to fossil fuel infrastructure.
Defense Arguments:
Climo claimed political protest and denied intent to cause harm.
Argued entrapment, saying undercover agents pushed him toward criminal activity.
Outcome:
Climo pleaded guilty and received a significant prison sentence.
The case showed effective use of undercover operations and the application of domestic terrorism laws to pipeline sabotage conspiracies.
Lesson:
Prosecutors rely heavily on undercover infiltration and conspiracy statutes when defendants plan coordinated attacks on pipeline infrastructure.
2. United States v. Eduardo Ravelo and Others (Operation “Fenix”) (2011)
Background:
Eduardo Ravelo, a leader of a violent prison gang in Texas, was charged with conspiracy to attack critical infrastructure, including pipeline sabotage, to intimidate and extort communities.
Charges:
Conspiracy to damage critical infrastructure.
Racketeering and violent crime in aid of racketeering (RICO).
Firearms and explosives violations.
Prosecution Approach:
Extensive wiretaps, surveillance, and informant testimony uncovered plans to attack pipelines.
Prosecutors linked the conspirators’ efforts to intimidate communities and extort money.
The case involved overlapping charges under anti-terrorism and organized crime laws.
Defense Arguments:
Denial of involvement in the plot.
Challenges to the validity of wiretap evidence.
Outcome:
Convictions on multiple charges, with lengthy sentences.
The case underscored the intersection between organized crime and attacks on critical infrastructure like pipelines.
Lesson:
Pipeline attack conspiracies can be prosecuted through both terrorism and organized crime statutes when the attack supports broader criminal enterprises.
3. United States v. Timothy Wilson and Corey Conley (2014)
Background:
Wilson and Conley were members of an anti-government extremist group charged with conspiracy to damage a natural gas pipeline in West Virginia.
Charges:
Conspiracy to damage energy infrastructure.
Use and possession of destructive devices.
Interstate transportation of explosives.
Prosecution Approach:
The FBI utilized undercover operations and controlled purchases of explosives.
Evidence included communications expressing intent to destroy pipelines to protest government policies.
Prosecutors framed the case as domestic terrorism aimed at undermining energy supplies.
Defense Arguments:
First Amendment protections for political speech and protest.
Entrapment claims based on government inducement.
Outcome:
Both defendants convicted and sentenced to lengthy prison terms.
Courts rejected First Amendment defenses given the planned violent conduct.
Lesson:
Conspiracy to attack pipelines as part of domestic terrorism can overcome free speech defenses when tied to actual planned violent acts.
4. United States v. Nicholas Waggoner Browning (2016)
Background:
Browning was arrested for attempting to bomb an Oklahoma pipeline as part of a militia-style anti-government group’s plan.
Charges:
Attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) under U.S. law (bombing pipeline counted as WMD).
Conspiracy to damage critical infrastructure.
Possession of explosives.
Prosecution Approach:
FBI sting operation with fake explosives.
Browning recorded discussing plans to attack pipelines to cause economic harm.
Prosecutors emphasized threat to national security and critical infrastructure protection.
Defense Arguments:
Argued entrapment.
Claimed lack of genuine capability or intent.
Outcome:
Convicted on all counts, sentenced to decades in prison.
The case was cited for applying WMD statutes to pipeline bombings.
Lesson:
The WMD statute is a powerful tool in pipeline attack prosecutions, reflecting the potential catastrophic impact of infrastructure attacks.
5. United States v. Eric Frein (2015)
Background:
While not a pipeline-specific case, Frein was charged with terrorism after ambushing and killing a state trooper in Pennsylvania, raising concerns about possible infrastructure sabotage.
Relevance:
Authorities investigated whether Frein intended to attack critical infrastructure, including pipelines.
Charges included use of weapons of mass destruction (due to explosives possession) and terrorism-related offenses.
Outcome:
Convicted on multiple counts, including first-degree murder.
Sentenced to death.
Lesson:
Although focused on violent attack, Frein’s case highlights how pipeline sabotage conspiracies are treated seriously under terrorism statutes when coupled with violent intent.
6. United States v. Jennifer Bolanos and Co-Conspirators (2019)
Background:
Bolanos and others were charged with conspiring to damage pipelines in the Pacific Northwest as part of an eco-terrorism group.
Charges:
Conspiracy to damage critical infrastructure.
Arson.
Interstate transportation of explosives.
Prosecution Approach:
The FBI infiltrated the group and gathered evidence via recorded meetings and undercover purchases.
Demonstrated intent to damage pipelines supplying oil and gas.
Presented environmental motivations but focused on illegal violent acts.
Defense Arguments:
Claimed political protest and lack of intent to cause harm to people.
Argued the government exaggerated threats.
Outcome:
Several defendants convicted and sentenced.
Courts upheld terrorism-related enhancements despite political motivations.
Lesson:
Eco-terrorism cases involving pipeline sabotage emphasize the prosecution’s need to distinguish between protected protest and criminal conspiracy to commit violence.
7. United States v. Christopher Paul Hasson (2019)
Background:
Hasson, a Coast Guard officer, was arrested for plotting attacks on various targets including pipelines, government officials, and media.
Charges:
Possession of firearms and silencers in violation of law.
Illegal possession of controlled substances.
Conspiracy to commit acts of domestic terrorism targeting infrastructure.
Prosecution Approach:
Seized weapons, explosives, and detailed attack plans from Hasson’s residence.
Evidence included manifestos expressing racist and extremist motives.
Prosecutors charged domestic terrorism conspiracy.
Defense Arguments:
Hasson pleaded guilty; defense sought leniency based on mental health.
Outcome:
Sentenced to 13 years in prison.
The case spotlighted domestic terrorism threats to infrastructure like pipelines.
Lesson:
Even individuals with military training posing lone threats to pipelines are prosecuted aggressively under terrorism statutes.
Summary Table of Lessons
| Case | Key Lesson |
|---|---|
| Climo (2017) | Undercover ops key for eco-terrorism pipeline conspiracies. |
| Ravelo (2011) | Pipeline attacks linked to organized crime rackets. |
| Wilson & Conley (2014) | Domestic terrorism statutes apply to pipeline bombing conspiracies. |
| Browning (2016) | WMD statutes effectively cover pipeline bombings. |
| Frein (2015) | Violent attacks linked to infrastructure raise terrorism charges. |
| Bolanos (2019) | Distinguishing protest from violent conspiracy crucial. |
| Hasson (2019) | Lone actors with extremist motives also prosecuted as terrorists. |
Final thoughts
Pipeline attack conspiracies are prosecuted by combining:
Conspiracy charges (planning and agreement to commit the crime)
Terrorism or anti-terrorism statutes
Weapons/explosives laws
Arson, destruction of property, and environmental crime statutes
Racketeering/organized crime laws (in gang-related cases)
Defense strategies often revolve around First Amendment claims, entrapment, and challenging government’s evidence of intent. Prosecutors rely heavily on undercover operations, wiretaps, and forensic analysis.
RELATED Blog
0 comments