Becky Johnson: One Woman Talking

Teens prefer marijuana to alcohol, cocaine, tobacco

2011-12-18T07:59:00.000-08:00

Photo courtesy of Lloyd Shearer

NOTE TO READER: The following drug war screed by the editorial board of the Santa Cruz Sentinel fails to report the obvious: area teens PREFER to use marijuana rather than tobacco, alcohol, or cocaine. This is good news. Tobacco is credited with killing 44o,000 Americans each year. Alcoholism (which directly kills 23,199 each year) not only is detrimental to developing brains, but causes addiction, car accidents, and family strife. The fact that cocaine use has dropped in the USA is also good news for us and bad news for South American drug cartels. Likewise, with a healthy marijuana economy right here in California, those cartels are robbed of profits as well. So what is the bad news? This also speaks well of our young people that they can read through the drug war propaganda and reject that which is not true. Marijuana does not cause drivers to get into car accidents and for users to wake up the next morning with no memory of what happened the night before. Yes marijuana is slightly addictive. Less so than coffee or chocolate but more so than anchovies. And they allow students and teachers alike to drink coffee or eat chocolate on campus. And stronger pot is not the danger the writer claims it is. People smoke a lot less of the stronger pot to get the same effect. And when they smoke too much, their brains shut off the marijuana receptors. Too bad our brains don't have similar alcohol receptors.

So why the hypocrisy? Could it be that the SENTINEL is the mouthpiece for the police who have not yet gotten the message: We in Santa Cruz don't want people arrested for possession or use of marijuana. It is said that no jury of 12 in Santa Cruz will convict a person for mere possession or use of marijuana. So why is the SENTINEL so behind the times? With pharmaceutical use way up, the "drug war" has become public policy driving private corporate profits by policing herbal "competition" out of business.

---- Becky Johnson, Editor

from: SANTA CRUZ SENTINEL

FOUND ONLINE HERE.

As We See It: Confronting teen drug use

Posted: 12/16/2011 01:30:03 AM PST

The rest of the nation appears to be catching up to Santa Cruz County in one unfortunate aspect: marijuana use among teens.

According to a new government report released this week, one in 15 high school students in the U.S. smokes pot on a near-daily basis.

Near daily.

Not only is that a startling figure, it also reflects what appears to be the highest use since the druggy 1970s, and goes against other substance abuse trends showing use of alcohol, cocaine and even cigarettes declining in the same population.

And here's another way to consider the drug use data: If the numbers are true, then one in 15 high school students is either already addicted or well on the way to becoming addicted to increasingly potent marijuana.

Oh, but pot isn't addicting, runs the counter-argument. And, in purely physiological terms, that might be true, at least not like heroin is addicting.

Psychologically, however, it's all too true.

We bring up Santa Cruz County because marijuana and alcohol use have been significantly higher among high-schoolers in this community than among peers statewide.

In the latest national figures, about 25 percent of high-schoolers reported using marijuana. In Santa Cruz County, however, 30 percent of 11th-graders reported they had used marijuana, compared to 20 percent of 11th-graders statewide. More than 40 percent of local 11th-graders also reported drinking alcohol.

Correspondingly, the acceptance among Santa Cruz County adults of marijuana for recreational use, while declining slightly over the past two years, remains high -- about half of all adults surveyed still find it acceptable. The acceptance rate is higher among white and North County adults than in the primarily Latino South County.

The medical marijuana movement also is prevalent in Santa Cruz County and has burgeoned throughout the state. Federal drug authorities say they believe the uptick in teen pot use is partially due to the increasing prevalence of medical marijuana, which is available in dispensaries regulated in this community by local governments.

According to an inpatient director at the Betty Ford Center in Rancho Mirage, it's also not uncommon for young adults who enter the center because of substance abuse or addiction issues to show up with medical marijuana cards.

The message in recent years that has gone out to young people is that marijuana is good medicine. And while that's true for some seriously ill people, the prevalence of medical pot cards only drives this point home.

The teen survey also showed that teens are also influenced by their parents. It might seem to many parents that young people don't pay attention to them, but that really isn't true. If parents aren't bothered by their son or daughter smoking pot -- or if they smoke marijuana themselves somewhat regularly -- then guess what? It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the teens who were smoking pot even more prevalently 30 years ago are today's parents.

Since there are fewer drug prevention resources available today than just a few years ago with government funding in a free-fall downward, that means parents are the primary adult figures who can speak into their teens' lives about what chronic drug use does to a person's mental, physical and spiritual life.

The question is, do they really believe that's true? Do you?

Occupy Santa Cruz' encampment crushed by SCPD

2011-12-10T11:09:00.000-08:00

A homeless woman refuses to leave her home and must be carted away by Santa Cruz police.
Photo courtesy of Dan Coyro, Santa Cruz Sentinel December 8, 2011

December 10, 2011

by Becky Johnson

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- The last two days of the Occupy Santa Cruz encampment in San Lorenzo Park were marked by confusion, high tempers, and a flurry of activity as bike carts and grim-faced people carried gear, bags, and even furniture out of the park. Some vowed they weren't going anywhere, and 31 tents still remained after the 5PM deadline on December 7th.

The photo of Vice-Chief Steve Clark smirking from behind the glass of the courthouse as he counted down the minutes to coordinating the activities between his force and Scotts Valley Police, Capitola Police, Watsonville Police, Santa Cruz County Sheriff's, State Park Rangers and UCSC police along with First Alarm security agents to crush the camp belied the cruel pleasure he took as he waited for the police onslaught which would ruin the homes of homeless people and curtail their dissent.

Officers in riot gear and an officer with a pepper-ball gun. Dec 8 2011 Photo courtesy of Bradley Stuart

If what the sheriffs and police are doing is so lawful, upright, and reasonable, why do they come like a thief in the night to steal tents, bedding, and to cite people for sleeping? Does their naked use of brutal police power not make a good visual for the citizenry?

Don Lane, and the Santa Cruz City Council all deserve defamation for the entire way they handled this. The FIRST thing they did was to meet in secret, put an item on their closed litigation session agenda as an "emergency" item, and vote to spend tens of thousands of dollars by assigning City Attorney John Barisone (who IS one of the 1%) with the task of filing an injunction against the camp in court---a place where they have had unprecedented success in the past. But then Occupy Santa Cruz filed a motion to move consideration of the injunction to Federal Court.

One of the protesters is arrested for "delaying or obstructing a police officer" and booked into Santa Cruz County Jail under $25,000 bail. Photo by Bradley Stuart Dec 8 2011

No problem. Step in Czarina of Parks & Rec, Dannettee Shoemaker. SHE could file an administrative order to remove "a public nuisance" pre-empting the now-Federal injunction. Except, that under Chapter 4.16 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code, she needed to first file a notice of abatement, give the parties time to either respond or abate the nuisance, and, also include sections of the code which are being violated. Also required under the City's nuisance abatement code, is to give notice of how the order can be appealed. She did none of these.

Instead, she used the summary portion of the code. Such code is for hazards which, according to the written instructions on use of this "hurry up" form of hazard removal, require that "an imminent threat to life" would exist if the nuisance were allowed to continue unabated.

Except that Dannettee issued the order on November 30th but didn't bother to deliver the first notice until the evening of December 4th. If the threat was so "imminent" why did she take so much time?

When Occupy Santa Cruz again met the City in court (this time in the chambers of Judge Timothy Volkmann) all of these arguments were made. But Volkmann, without really explaining why, rubberstamped Shoemaker's order.

The encampment lasted each night from October 8th until December 7th. At its height, 109 tents were pitched there and on County property. An average of 200 people found shelter, safety, food, medical help, and community there, many who were unhoused. Three porto-potties were ultimately utilized representing 75 people each.

Assuming 2 people per tent, OSC provided an estimated 200 people with shelter for 61 nights or 12,200 shelter-nights in social-service-speak. That's more than the Homeless Services Center will provide at the National Guard Armory all this winter.

Mayor Ryan Coonerty never fails to disappoint. His last act as Mayor was to preside over a massive and costly police operation to crush both dissent and the encampment. He is now responsible for displacing up to 225 people into the bushes, beneath bridges, and behind dumpsters in the downtown area. His police force have seized tents, bedding, food, medicine, personal possessions, along with cooking utensils, tools, electronic equipment, musical instruments, and clothing. Basically anything they couldn't physically carry away was left behind to be ridiculed by Santa Cruz Polices spokesperson, Zach Friend as "Eight tons of garbage."

In the Santa Cruz Sentinel, Mayor Ryan Coonerty said "We just can't have this continued impact on parks, especially when every other group abides by the restrictions on park use. We've tried to balance their protest with the impacts to the park, but now the impacts to the park are significant enough that they need to find another form of protest."

Of course "every other group" is the AIDS BIKE-A-THON which pays the City a large amount of money to use one of our parks for two days, tents a-plenty. THEY also provide porto-potties for the campers. For a group of homeless people to get the permits required would be prohibitively expensive by design. Neither Coonerty nor any other member of the Santa Cruz City Council want a legal campground for homeless people to open anywhere within the City limits.

So the City has bypassed its own legal process to crush a campground which housed 200 people, and seized tents, sleeping bags, and warm clothing from a bunch of homeless people claiming that if they DIDN'T do this, "an imminent threat to life" would exist. When you deprive homeless people of shelter and blankets, are you not CREATING an "imminent threat to life" for those people? I guess we can be thankful they didn't use tear gas and concussion grenades.

Xmas Carols for Anarchists

2011-12-07T07:37:00.000-08:00

by Becky Johnson and Robert Norse

I've had a request to reprint the HUFF XMAS SONGBOOK with lyrics MOSTLY by Robert Norse with a few other HUFFies adding some lines. Protesters at Occupy Santa Cruz plan some Xmas Caroling in the days to come, so start practicing!!!

THE TWELVE DAYS OF OCCUPATION

Thanks to Josh Koleszar and Occupy Omaha!

(click HERE to hear it on youtube)

On the first day of protest, the haters said to us
Why don't you just get a job?
On the 2nd day of protest the haters said to us
You dirty hippies, why don't you just get a job?
On the 3rd day of protest, the haters said "What are you saying?"You dirty hippies, why don't you just get a job?
On the 4th day of protest the haters said to us "You're a pain to be here""What are you saying?"You dirty hippies, why don't you just get a job?
On the 5th day of protest the haters said to us "Occupy my ass!""You're a pain to be here""What are you saying?"You dirty hippies, why don't you just get a job?

On the 6th day of protest the haters said to us "Wall Street's not the problem"
On the 7th day of protest the haters said to us "Have you formed a goal yet?"
On the 8th day of protest the haters said to us"Who is in charge here?"
On the 9th day of protest the haters said to us "Pay some fucking taxes!"
On the 10th day of protest the haters said to us " Mooching little whiners"
On the 11th day of protest the haters said to us "Hypocrites with I-phones"
On the 12th day of protest the haters said to us "Just wait till winter."

On the LAST day of protest, the haters said to us "I can't believe it actually worked."

SGT HARMS IS COMING DOWNTOWN

You better not sit, you better not beg,
you better not chalk, or drink from a keg,
Sgt. Harms is coming downtown!

He's making a list, he's checking it twice
poor folks are naughty and rich folks are nice
Sgt Harms is coming downtown!

He knows if you have warrants
He knows who are the bums
He knows if you play hacky-sack
or feed the birds bread crumbs

You better just shop,'cause nothings for free.
You better be white and have an I.D.
Sgt Harms is coming Downtown!

You better not sleep, nor linger too long
nor dare to sit down while singing this song...
Sgt. Harms is coming downtown!

He knows if you're suspicious
Or hanging out while poor,
Don't beg a dime after dark downtown
You'll get tickets by the score!

The benches are gone
Get out of the parks
Don't sit in your car
Be gone after dark
Sgt. Harms is coming Downtown!

God Bless ye Merry Gentlemen

God Bless ye Merry Gentlemen
but not in Santa Cruz!
Mayor Rotkin has a Sleeping Ban
he'll cite you if you snooze
and if you're warm beneath your quilts
your blankets you shall lose
Bad tidings, not comfort or joy,
comfort or joy
Bad tidings NOT comfort or joy

The sidewalks are for business use, so don't delay or sit!
We've friendly cops with ticket books, three hundred bucks a hit.
They'll show up fast in squads of three as fast as you can spit.

Sad tidings, not comfort or joy, comfort or joy!
Sad tidings, not comfort of joy.

Yet this was made for all of us and not just for the rich
Watch out for "hosts" who prowl the street all smiling as they snitch.
And if you're mad, then just be glad, you know which way is which.

Mad tidings, not comfort or joy comfort or joy,
Mad tidings not comfort or joy.

In Santa Cruz we often fight for peace throughout the world
Discrimination isn't us, just keep your bedroll furl'd
Progressive politics with anti-poor laws here are swirled

Bad tidings, not comfort or joy, comfort or joy
Bad tidings, not comfort or joy

OH COME ALL YE SHOPPERS

Oh come all ye shoppers
with creditcards and checkbooks
and bank cards and bills and coins and
lay-away accounts
Come and buy new stuff
although you don't need it
Because you must have it
Because you must have it
Because you must have it and
right now!

AWAY ON VACATION

Away on Vacation leaving homeless outdoors,
Says Mayor Don Lane "No Sleep for the poor"
For thousands of homeless it's a crime just to sleep
the police will harass you in your car on the street

We love all our homeless
they even get mail
but sit, beg, or sleep and they'll wind up in jail
It's Christmas time now, time to buy lots of stuff
Your pain frightens shoppers, so the cops will get tough

JOY TO THE WORLD
(Its time to shop)

Joy to the world
its time to shop
and spend our dough
Downtown!
To buy the little baubles,
the cups, the shirts, the models
Don't waste your coins on the poor
They'll only drink some more
and clutter the windowsills
around your store.

Revenue climbs
as Christmas nears
and cops,
for shops,
make way!
Arrest the poor and homeless,
musicians who are toneless
Don't let the young sit down
Don't need their kind around,
Reprove them, remove them from
our bum-free town!

Spend all your cash!
Ignore the poor.
Perhaps they'll disappear.
They're dirty and they're lazy,
They're leeches and they're crazy.
Remove them from our sight!
Into the deepening night,
This Christmas our streets will
all be Clean and White!

SILENT NIGHT
(frozen night)

Silent Night
Frozen night
Vagrants stay
out of sight.
Sleeping's illegal
No shelter's around
Officer Seilly says
"Get out of town!"
For we don't want you
'round here,
For we don't want you
'round here.

Judges convict
homeless each day
for simple acts
like work and play.
Using a bathroom
should not be a crime
But if you ask someone
for a dime,
Then they'll throw you in jail,
then you are thrown into jail.

PACK THE MALL
(with Food Not Bombers)

Pack the Mall
with Food Not Bombers
Fa la la la la la la la la
Serve good food to all the comers
Fa la la la la la la la la
Fight to keep all free food legal
Fa la la la la la la la la
Spare some justice for the feeble
Fa la la la la la la la la

Pack the halls with
citizen fury
Fa la la la la la la la la
Time to get on every jury
Fa la la la la la la la la
For your rights are slipping
backwards,
Fa la la la la la la la la la
The Mayor's leading us
backasswards
Fa la la la la la la la la

Pack the mall with
Hopscotch chalkers
Fa la la la la la la la la
Frisbees, bubbles, balls
and hawkers,
Fa la la la la la la la la
Sit, and beg, and even lie down
Fa la la la la la la la la
Break a law to show its
Your town
Fa la la la la la la la la

Chief Vogel's Letter: Reading between the Lines

2011-12-05T06:00:00.000-08:00

By Becky Johnson

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- The Santa Cruz Police Department has issued a press release written by Chief Kevin Vogel. Unlike smarmy SCPD Spokesman, Zach Friend, Vogel makes no bones about where he stands. However, Vogel may not realize a number of issues that are at play. So to re-educate the Chief (who I think is a good man), I present his statement with my imbedded comments. You can read the statement without comments on the Santa Cruz Police Blog Website found here.

POLICE CHIEF KEVIN VOGEL WRITES:

75 River Street - Takeover Has Ended

On late Saturday night, after over 72 hours of difficult negotiations, Occupy Santa Cruz ended their takeover of a vacant bank building at 75 River Street. Our goal was to have a peaceful resolution to this illegal and unproductive action and we were successful in that endeavor. Thankfully, the group was able to show the maturity that had been lacking in the first three days of the takeover.

Police violently tackle a man to the ground near 75 River Street minutes after it was occupied by Autonomous Anonymous Photo courtesy of Bradley Stuart

BECKY: Negotiations were made "difficult" when SCPD publicly named police negotiators as suspects, and when police violently tackled a man to the ground for POSSIBLY trying to move some orange traffic cones and seized his camera and cellphone. Nor did this action end because of police pressure or because the group developed "maturity." It ended because the protesters felt they'd proven their point. They consensed that there was no need to fight tear gas, riot cops, and taser guns if a peaceful, strategic exit could avoid that.

It is our intent to work with the District Attorney's Office to identify those that are responsible and hold them accountable for the trespass. In addition, we will be reviewing the costs associated with the takeover to see if there is any way we can recoup some of the public funds that were spent during the last few days. Clearly, as chief, I would prefer our resources be dedicated to more pressing issues than people that blatantly disregard reason, property rights and common sense.

BECKY: So the only damages were the costs police ran up all by themselves in their mostly ineffective response to the building takeover? Trespassing on an empty property left behind by an absentee landlord. Is that who the SCPD thinks we should be spending limited resources protecting? Apparently so.

I can't make it clearer that no one has a First Amendment right to break into someone's property, commit acts of felony vandalism and ignore the law. Their actions were senseless and childish and diverted our limited resources. In addition, it placed our officers in needless danger; something that I find completely unbelievable.

BECKY: There is no 1st amendment right to enter a boarded up building. No one BROKE in. Police have yet to name what 'vandalism' was committed. And the LAW which Vogel seems so concerned about protects a predatory lender's abandoned property over proper use of a community asset, and uses public money to do so. In this case, the LAW serves the 1% and the enforcers are paid for by the 99%. And calling an action that befuddled, confused, and outstepped the cops "childish" is just name-calling from a poor loser.

We had worked hard to develop a Plan B to protect people and property and were fortunate that we were able to end this through the skilled work of our negotiators.

BECKY: The exit had NOTHING to do with SCPD negotiators, skilled or otherwise. The demonstrators consensed to end the occupation voluntarily and peacefully.

It was difficult, especially given the lack of a central figure in the group to negotiate and their initial greeting of expletives and slurs about police; not exactly the best basis for friendly negotiation.

BECKY: The group picked people to address the press and to liason with the police, so I don't buy that the problem was "who" to talk to. Police were chastised for setting up road blocks and snarling the evening commute and for tackling a protester and seizing his camera.

Within hours, they stopped answering phone calls on the cell phone we provided and continually provided us with unreasonable desires and no time horizon for vacating a space they had no right to be in. The sense of entitlement and disregard for the law is appalling.

BECKY: Wells Fargo's sense of entitlement and disregard for the community of Santa Cruz is appalling. In addition to predatory loans and foreclosures, they had left this perfectly usable building located on prime real estate downtown empty, unused, and taking up space. Furthermore, it is owned by an absentee landlord.

To say the least, it detracts from whatever their initial message was to have such an escalation of action. Some were quoted in media outlets showing their willingness to be arrested and their lack of interest in negotiation. Others were shown harassing the media or police that were there to speak to them. No longer can we trust that their intentions are purely political protest or other reasonably protected First Amendment actions.

BECKY: The actions, though a technical violation of the law, was completely political, a valid protest against Wells Fargo and Bank of America who were located on each side, and a protest against withholding a valuable building from any productive use for over three years with the apparent blessing of police, politicians, and the Downtown Association.

We witnessed anarchists, like those involved in the May Day riots, openly participating in the initial takeover and saw some quoted that were willing to face any sort of police action in order to defend their "right" to illegal takeover of the building.

BECKY: This action had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the May Day riot. The only thing in common is SOME people wore dark clothing, and SOME people wore masks on their faces. In the May Day riot, $100,000 in damage was committed. In 75 River Street, police found a funny smell when they entered.

We cannot thank the community enough for their support during this time and their calls of encouragement of how we handled the takeover. I personally share the frustrations of many that this was a completely unacceptable and over the top way to garner attention to their vague cause. I plan to continue the conversation about these issues with the community in the coming week.

BECKY: Of course the CALLS he is talking about were coming from merchants, property owners, banks, and the Downtown Association. Nor was the cause "vague." Clearly 75 River Street takeover highlighted the blighted nature of the building and showed the slavish response of the SCPD to their masters, the MAJOR property owners (the 1%). Not vague at all, and the SCPD slipped right into it.

As always, if you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

Kevin Vogel
Chief of Police

Posted by Santa Cruz Police at 12:33 AM

75 River Street "Repurposed"

2011-12-02T05:08:00.000-08:00

The Shareholders Meeting inside 75 River St. Photo courtesy of Bradley Stuart

by Becky Johnson

Santa Cruz, CA. --- On Wednesday, a splinter group roughly formed out of Occupy Santa Cruz, occupied a vacant building that years ago housed Coast Commercial Bank. The building at 75 River St. has been sitting empty ever since, providing no services to the public, no jobs for citizens, and no tax revenue to the City. In fact, a forensic accounting will most likely reveal that the empty property is providing a tax write-off to the owner to the tune of the full rent of its last tenant every month.

Furthermore, The City of Santa Cruz has a whole agency to deal with blighted properties, the Redevelopment Agency, which has failed to even address this property. 75 River Street is located directly in the center of our commercial district, sharing a lot line with our downtown post office. The fact that such a building should remain for YEARS without a tenant or business in the center of the community is a testament to the unchecked practices of the 1% (and WELLS FARGO certainly is included in that coddled 1%). Local property owner, Peter Cook laments the taking of “private property” falsely claiming that his property may be next. But unless Cook has property sitting unrented and unused in the middle of our community for years and years, he has nothing to fear.

Add that many in our community would love to rent that building and use it for a business, an organization, or for a community asset, but cannot due to the astronomically high rents charged. Meanwhile, the empty building sits year after year, taking up valuable space, and contributing NOTHING to our community.

Why haven’t our City leaders stepped in earlier and stopped this practice? And is it REALLY the proper use of public safety resources to act as the private security guards for a blighted building that the owners have been allowed to sit fallow for YEARS? These are clear signs that Vice-Mayor Don Lane, the SCPD, and the DTA are really hawkers for continuing to enrich the 1% at the expense of our community by defending the owners of properties like 75 River Street. No private party should be allowed to let their property sit for years at at time, not providing any jobs for our citizens, any tax revenue for the City, or any services for the public. Kudos to the occupiers for pointing out this wrongful policy in action.

If Lane is for real, he'd be promoting a new ordinance to fine such property owners until they get the message that owning property implies responsibility for that property by using it, not moth-balling it.

Cease activity constituting lodging

2011-11-12T11:06:00.000-08:00

This notice was handed to me by Lt. Amy Christie of the Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office in the predawn hours when 20 sheriff's demanded protesters at Occupy Santa Cruz remove several tents and a dome structure. Photo courtesy of Auntie Imperial November 12, 2011

What if that "activity" which "constitutes lodging" is the same activity a people use when peaceably assembled to seek redress of government grievances?

by Becky Johnson

November 12, 2011

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- It is 5:40AM on a Saturday morning, and I have arrived at the Santa Cruz County Courthouse to find a Sheriff's raid in progress. Deputies are loading deflated tents into waiting sheriff's vehicles while sleepy-looking Occupy Santa Cruz protesters carry on a myriad of conversations with a dozen different deputies. Supervised and directed by Lt. Amy Christie, the sheriff's deputies were making videotapes of the area, conversing with the protesters, loading tents into police vehicles, and handing out notices.

"My tent was taken, " one thin, scared young woman told me. I could see her shivering.

"They made me drag my tent to the curb," another man told me as I surveyed a wreck of wet blankets, tarps, personal belongings, and a deflated tent all piled up in the gutter. Another woman pointed to a tent she'd placed on top of her vehicle.

"They told me to take it down, but I refused. I told them 'It's my property and I'm not going to take it down."

" Who is in charge here?" I asked, as a Sheriff's deputy pointed to his commander.
"Lt. Christie is in charge, " he told me.

I found her and immediately began to question exactly what it was she thought she was doing there.

"Is it illegal to camp here? According to the County Camping ordinance, is it illegal? You know it's not."

"What are the elements of 'lodging' that you see here, Lt. Christie?"
" We're done. You're illegally lodging here, " she told me. "I'm going to give you this and ask you to walk away from me." She handed me a piece of paper that had the letterhead for the County of Santa Cruz on it.
"I'm not lodging here," I said. "Yeah, you are," she insisted with robot-like speech.

This was not the first raid on Occupy Santa Cruz but the first one where I was able to witness some the actions of the deputies firsthand. In the raid on November 3rd and 4th, 1 man, Felix Krull, was physically arrested and 3 people were cited. Krull was jailed for five days for not having I. D. and released without charges. On November 5th,Chris Doyon was cited by Sgt. Esther Beckman while 7 others were cited under the now-infamous PC 647 (e) on November 11th.

The section is found under the "Disorderly Conduct" section of the California Penal Code. However, the only people I witnessed "disturbing the peace" in the predawn hours were the sheriff's! No one was arrested or cited, but police did seize two tents as "unclaimed property" as protesters followed them back to the basement of the County Building with chants of "We're the 99% You're the 99%!" I'm not sure that applies to Lt. Amy Christie. SHE may be one of the 1%.
She certainly SERVES the interests of the 1%.

Looking at the new "Lodging" notice, I can see that this version is decidedly different than the last version. Not only has the County letterhead been added, but much of the language appears to specifically apply to Occupy Santa Cruz including outlawing of "domes whether covered or not". Since the doors to the courthouse on the north side of the building have been closed to the public for a decade, the area is, in no way, obstructing or interfering with any of the normal business conducted in the Courthouse or the County Building.

The first line, however is wrong. It says "This property is owned by the County of Santa Cruz." Technically, it is the citizens of Santa Cruz County which collectively "own" Santa Cruz County public property. And the Courthouse itself is owned collectively by the citizenry of the State of California, being State land. Clearly this land is not "owned" by County CEO, Susan Mauriello, however, if HER signature were on the document, along with the date and time of the warning, it MIGHT have some legal sway.

The next difference I noticed was this: "All of these structures must be removed or.... they will be removed for you and stored safely for pick up by the owners." THAT's new!

Perhaps the County Counsel has been reading up on the Kincaid Decision in Fresno where the City was forced to pay the claims of dozens of homeless people who'd had their property confiscated and destroyed by Fresno Police? Or perhaps the Sheriffs have simply become more humane and eschew destroying survival sleeping gear and tents from poor people?

There is just no way on God's Green Earth that PC 647 (e) can be Constitutional. How can a person be ARRESTED and JAILED for not having a motel receipt? It's vague, overbroad, ANND selectively enforced. The notice Amy Christie handed me this morning says "You are being requested to cease activity constituting lodging." Here we go again.

What IS "activity constituting lodging?" DA Sara Dabkowski in January of 2011 said "To 'lodge' somewhere, it's common knowledge. To lodge, live, stay the night, where they don't have permission." Yet on May 4th 2011, Judge John Gallagher told a jury that "to lodge means to settle or live in a place, that may include sleeping." Judge Rebecca Connolly also found PC 647 (e) to be Constitutional. She faced Public Defender Mark Garver who said " if "lodging" can be defined as someone who stands, sits, or publicly assembles in a protest, it can be used to disperse that protest. I am challenging this ordinance on its face as well as as applied."

So "settling in" or "living in a place" is an arrestable crime? Where have we heard that language used before?

Council's behind the scenes machinations typical of the 1%ers

2011-11-11T00:29:00.000-08:00

Robert Norse raises his arm in a mock, fascist salute to Mayor Ryan Coonerty for sending police to remove another man for speaking out at a City Council meeting on November 8, 2011. Photo by Alex Darocy

by Becky Johnson

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- On Thursday, November 10th, City Attorney John Barisone filed an injunction against Occupy Santa Cruz in an ex parte hearing before Judge Timothy Volkmann. No one from OSC attended the closed hearing, due to the court doors being locked.

Nevermind that members of OSC had petitioned both Councilmember Don Lane and Councilmember Tony Madrigal to place an item on the City Council agenda to support Occupy Santa Cruz (or perhaps to set the parameters for OSC). Both indicated that they would consider doing this. They did not follow through, and two city council meetings passed with the only mention of OSC at the oral communications section and raised by members of the public only.

All this changed on Tuesday, November 8th, when the City Council met during its usual closed session where litigation and personnel matters are discussed. While the council is required by the Brown Act to place all items discussed on the City Council agenda, the OSC item was NOT on the agenda. However, once in the meeting, at least 5 city councilmembers voted to place an "emergency" item on the agenda: seeking an injunction against the encampment located in San Lorenzo Park. It strains credulity, that they did not have time to notice the item to deal with the 32 day old encampment.

All of this explains what happened Tuesday a few hours later during the oral communications period when most of those who spoke supported Occupation Santa Cruz. Mayor Ryan Coonerty, who has permanently shortened oral communications from three minutes to two minutes even further shortened the speech of the public to ONE MINUTE each. ("Less speech is better speech"--Ryan Coonerty March 2005)

One of these speakers was Former Mayor Celia Scott who began by questioning City investment funds for those that support enriching the 1%. She was unable to finish her statement, attempted to speak beyond the 1 minute Mayor Coonerty allowed, only to be shut down.

As soon as oral communications had ended, Vice-Mayor Don Lane began a 6 minute speech in which he first apologized to members of the public claiming that councilmembers "can't take actions on items presented in oral communications." Of course he concealed that the council had already voted to "take action" by moving to shut down the camp in court during a secret city council session earlier that day.

Robert Norse, from the audience interjected "Open the bathrooms!" indicating that Lane COULD authorize the opening of the public bathrooms in San Lorenzo Park on a 24 hour basis to serve the 200 or so campers in the park, whether the item was brought up in oral communications or not. Mayor Ryan Coonerty then warned Norse for his interjection, and when a 2nd person repeated "Open the bathrooms!" from the audience, Coonerty directed the FOUR police officers in the Council chambers to find and eject the person who had spoken in violation of their 'rules of decorum.' It was at this point, that Norse stepped forward and gave a "Nazi" salute in reaction to Coonerty's repressive use of police force to suppress speech. Few believed that if the man had shouted "Go Ryan!" the police would have been invoked.

Lane then crossed into giving his own opinions about the Occupy Santa Cruz encampment in San Lorenzo park, remarks that, according to their own process, should have been made by Lane during his ONE MINUTE of oral communications. He offered his "personal reactions" claiming "we do have a city park that is genuinely being damaged."

At this point another man shouted "Liar!" and the council reacted with great offense, head-shaking and tutting about the need for a "civil process."

For his part, City Attorney John Barisone saw another chance to bill the City for ANOTHER questionable injunction. He has filed injunctions in the past against a homeless couple for sleeping around downtown too much and against a HUFF Koffee Klatch at the Mayor's office in a lobbying effort to get the Sleeping Ban on the City Council agenda. Whether he wins or loses these injunctions, HE gets paid.

Lane reported that he 'd been at 3 General Assembly meetings and one committee meeting but "the guy never called me back." Despite these claims, Lane said he had "no idea" how to communicate with OSC, apparently not staying long enough to learn how to get on the stack. He also never learned how to get the key for the porto-potty and reported that when he had visited "it was locked."

"The park is important to the City" and that "the City has no interest in limiting your freedom of speech." He said the City issued a permit so it could "use the park in an appropriate way." He ended with "the park is not being protected at the status quo."

Then Mayor Ryan Coonerty gave his own "personal responses" by addressing the point former Mayor Celia Scott had tried to address calling for the City to examine its own financial holdings in relationship to enriching the 1%. Coonerty, in a self-serving, deflecting comment claimed that their practices were "cutting edge." Then he lectured the members of the public saying that the City "is challenged to balance all of the interests of the different park goers" when one group uses a small portion of the park for its own purposes.

"We don't issue permits to dampen your freedom of speech, we just must make sure we have full access for everyone to these public spaces."

Note that the City which claims their purpose is to "make sure we have full access for everyone to these public spaces" has criminalized BEING in the park after dark, with a dog, and if you smoke, exacting heavy fines for each offense, but allows its own city workers unfettered access to the park 24/7. They water the grass heavily so that even during the day, its not possible to set a blanket on the grass and lie down, even during droughts.

Of course the REAL issue the Mayor and City Council have with the OSC encampment in San Lorenzo Park is that homeless people have apparently, mostly peacefully joined OSC and have swelled its numbers beyond 200 people. Simultaneously, greenbelts and parks are experiencing fewer illegal campers, and OSC seems to be handling both litter removal and public hygiene despite City Manager Martine Bernal's abject refusal to open the public bathroom in the park on a 24 hour basis. Meanwhile, the positive effect on homeless campers who've joined OSC is evident.

"Before OSC, I slept maybe two or three hours each night," a homeless man nicknamed "Purps" told me. "For the last month I've slept ten hours each night."

Lockheed Fire smoke considered

2011-08-07T13:55:00.000-07:00

The Lockheed Fire as seen from Swift Street and Highway One
Photo courtesy of Rob Knight

Can we justify our persecution of tobacco smokers by claiming justification as a health hazard?

By Becky Johnson
August 7, 2011

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- On October 8th, 2009, the City of Santa Cruz' 'Smoking Pollution Control ordinance' went into effect. Pushed by Vice-Mayor Ryan Coonerty and City Councilmember, Don Lane, the ban outlawed smoking in wide swaths of public and private property throughout the City. The reasons given were for health reasons and because of tobacco litter.

While smoking tobacco and marijuana were explicitly banned, not all forms of air pollution were addressed. In fact, most weren't.

Air pollution in the City of Santa Cruz contains the smoke produced from automobiles, trucks, refrigeration units, industry, home gas heaters, cooking fumes from homes and restaurants, smoke from backyard barbeques, fireplaces, woodstoves, particle burners, candles, incense, outgassing from particle board, new carpeting, paints, lacquers, air fresheners, hairspray, cleaning fluids as well as dust kicked up in the wind. And what about that gas vapor we smell as we fill our gas tanks? In California alone, this totals 15,811 gallons a day or roughly the equivalence of two tanker truckfulls.

The average car driven in Santa Cruz produces 0.849 lbs of carbon emissions per average US passenger vehicle mile driven. Compared to a pack of cigarettes, this is the equivalent air pollution of 13.6 packs of cigarettes per mile. All of this exhaust goes into our atmosphere where everyone breathes it.

Yet only the smoke from individuals burning small amounts of tobacco or cannabis for personal use have been criminalized.

Consider this: The Lockheed fire burned 7,817 acres between Aug 12 - Aug 23 2009 in N. Santa Cruz County. It's origin has been shrouded in mystery but many believe that law enforcement accidentally started it by trying to burn down a remote marijuana garden. The irony of this cannot be overstated.

Mostly forested lands in the Swanton and Big Creek watershed burned. For 11 days smoke filled the county, choking residents and making everyone miserable. According to the EPA standard, (average fuel loading for woodland fires in California) the Lockheed fire generated 18 tons per acre of air pollution.

140,706 TONS of particulate matter were lofted into the sky and various dilutions of smoke drifted the northern half of the county for 11 days, affecting people out of doors and indoors as well.

The City of Santa Cruz has 60,000 people.

Let's say that 20% of them smoke. Let's say they smoke 1 pack a day.

1 pack a day = 30.5 per month = 366 packs per YEAR
366 packs of cigarettes = 22.87 lbs.

So one smoker in one year produces a potential of 22.87 lbs of air pollution. 12,000 smokers in Santa Cruz for 1 year produce a maximum of 274440 lbs or 137.22 tons per year.

Our citizenry were miserable for days by being exposed to the smoke from that ONE fire. Maybe some asthmatics died then. I don't know. But in order to produce the same amount of air pollution the Lockheed fire produced, all the tobacco smokers in the City of Santa Cruz would have to smoke for 1,025 YEARS.

And this was just the smoke from ONE fire.

No, the Santa Cruz Smoking Ban is not about protection from a 'health hazard' or because of tobacco littering. A public education campaign would take care of that. The ban is about banning people who smoke cigarettes from areas where shoppers and tourists congregate. And its about banning poor and homeless people, since police can pick and choose who they decide to issue a citation to. I'd bet dollars to donuts that more poor and homeless people have been warned and cited than tourists or shoppers.

Still way too many left out in the cold

2011-08-06T09:28:00.000-07:00

Homeless Census documents a rise in newly homeless, vehicularly housed as well as a return to former numbers

by Becky Johnson
August 6, 2011

Santa Cruz, CA. -- The 2011 Homeless Census and Survey for Santa Cruz County is out. The Santa Cruz Sentinel chose to highlight "a 22 percent increase in numbers" from 2009. But since the 2009 census was done in January whereas the 2007 census was done in late March, I didn't believe there ever was a drop in the homeless population.

In 2011, enumerators counted 2,771 homeless individuals in Santa Cruz County in one day. Authors claim that these numbers indicate that during the course of the year, 9041 will experience homelessness in Santa Cruz County. And if anyone thought we were anywhere near having enough shelter for them, the numbers indicate otherwise.

We see an enumeration of all conceivable shelter options available on January 25, 2011 on page 3 of the Executive summary.

378 emergency shelter spaces were identified.
268 transitional shelter spaces

So we have a total of 646 shelter spaces in use for the ENTIRE county leaving an enumerated 2,125 street count shut out of those spaces on that night. And on January 25th, we have our maximum shelter options available. But many of these shelters are only open in winter. So fewer spaces exist eight months of the year. Numerically this works out to shelter for 23% of those counted. But we know that these point-in-time counts are undercounts. Every last one.

And they state so. According to the report, "This count should be considered conservative since it is well known that even with the most thorough methodology, many homeless individuals stay in locations where they cannot be seen or counted by enumeration teams."

Those who were temporarily crashing on a friend's couch were not counted. Those who were living inside of an abandoned structure were not counted. Those who became homeless after January 25th were not counted. Those who were too deep into the woods when the count happened were not counted. In fact, laws like the camping ordinance and the anti-lodging law have the effect of causing homeless people to remain as invisible as possible in order to avoid a citation. So the gap between those without shelter and the number of shelter spaces available is much greater than reported. Past studies have put it at about 6% in summer.

According to the survey of 498 individuals who self-reported that they were homeless, 22% were found to be living in vehicles. 37% were camping out somewhere. Job loss was the highest reason given for becoming homeless (125 respondents). 63% said they had a disabling condition. 28% said they had been homeless for 3 years or more indicating a continued rise in chronic homelessness.

One of the biggest surprises was the number of people experiencing homelessness for the first time: 52% of the respondents said they were experiencing homelessness for the very first time, which was a 6% rise from 2009.

24% of the women were victims of domestic violence. 38% said they were experiencing a substance abuse problem. 11% identified themselves as veterans. They also reported that 65% of the population is on some form of government service, with Food Stamps (42%) being the most common form of aid. However 35% reported receiving no government aid at all.

So we know that the number of people experiencing homelessness remains high, that it is disproportionately male (67%), and that most people homeless in Santa Cruz County last had housing in Santa Cruz County (67%).

This information was gleaned from the Executive Summary. When I've read the entire report, I'll post an update.

The executive summary can be viewed online here.

Peace Camp 2010 defendant, Art Bishoff sentenced to 47 hours community service

2011-07-29T14:01:00.000-07:00

An unknown man sleeps at the Santa Cruz County Courthouse as part of Peace Camp 2010 on August 29, 2010. Photo by Becky Johnson

by Becky Johnson
July 29, 2011

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- Art Bishoff is doing better these days. Last summer, he was homeless and jobless and sleeping on the streets. Today he is housed (barely) and works 70 -80 hours a week at minimum wage. Last summer he was arrested as part of Peace Camp 2010 to protest Sleeping Bans. Today, he appeared before Judge John Gallagher to be sentenced for "illegal lodging," a misdemeanor offense.

Now two other defendants, Gary Johnson and Ed Frey, had been sentenced on June 10th to 6 months in jail and $50,000 bail when they refused 400 hours of community service and 3 years of probation for Sleeping as part of a protest against Sleeping bans. Both Johnson and Frey are currently out on bail pending appeal when Gallagher reconsidered bail and reduced it to $110. Apparently that was the bail schedule for PC 647 (e) all along.

DA Sara Dabkowski only slightly modified her demands. She asked for 300 hours of community service and 3 years probation. Attorney, and co-defendant, Ed Frey asked for a reduction "Since Mr. Bishoff is already working 70 to 80 hours a week." Gallagher sentenced him to 30 hours of community service and a combination of fees and fines adding up to $170.

"How much do you earn each month?" Gallagher asked in order to assess whether a fee reduction was in order.

"I just earn minimum wage," he replied.

Gallagher then modified the sentence to 47 hours and cleared him of the $170 fee. He charged him with 1 year probation and ordered him to not "Sleep/camp/or lodge in front of City Hall or here in front of the courthouse."

Then Gallagher gave a little speech. To Ed Frey he said, "Your people caused hundreds of hours of law enforcement dollars to be spent and others were impacted by having to view the scene. I don't need to hear any more evidence since I witnessed days and days of trial and testimony." To Mr. Bishoff he said, "I'm sentencing you differentially, Mr. Bishoff, because you were one of the few people in this protest who were not homeless-by-choice."

He praised Art's success in getting both housing and employment, seeming to show that those who violate PC 647 (e) and then somehow justify their lives after the fact to Gallagher are rewarded with a vastly reduced sentence. Gallagher also seemed to say that those who remain homeless are their "by choice" though no evidence or testimony to that effect was even raised at trial.

And are people REALLY homeless by choice? Who would leave a nice comfy home to go live on a sidewalk? All data show that the number one cause of homelessness is lack of money. And the number one reason for lack of money is the gap between the wages paid for employment and the cost of housing. Santa Cruz County has one the highest cost of housing in the country, which is hardly a "choice" homeless people make.

Yet Gallagher used this as an opportunity to lambast those who remain unemployed in an economy with an 11.5% unemployment rate or unhoused in a very high rental market by distinguishing Arthur Bishoff from "the rest."

"Congratulations on your job and on being a working member of the community."

Why can't we house the 1% of us who are in need?

2011-07-28T12:26:00.000-07:00

by Becky Johnson
July 28, 2011

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- It's homeless census time! The United Way of Santa Cruz County along with the Community Action Board released their findings on Thursday and a subsequent SENTINEL article screamed of a "22% increase in homelessness in Santa Cruz County since 2009." I highly doubt that. I don't believe there ever was a significant dip in the numbers, although homelessness in Santa Cruz, which hosts literally millions of tourists every year, does fluctuate in numbers, but remains somewhere between 1% and 3% of the general population. This year, with 2771 enumerated, and a population in 2010 of 262,382, puts our homeless population at slightly more than 1% of the population.

My question for the citizenry is this: why can't a County and City as wealthy as Santa Cruz take care of the 1% of its citizenry who have no roof to live under?

What is it about us that we will throw money away arresting and jailing these people for sleeping or covering themselves with a blanket when we know this will only increase their alienation, desperation, and isolation? These current public policies only DEEPEN homelessness.

What follows is the SENTINEL editorial which does not raise any alarms (calls it "offering insight"), and fails to point out the obvious disparity between available shelter and the verified number of people experiencing homelessness. Even worse, attempts to blame the victim by claiming that the response to one question "shows" that homeless people became/continue to be homeless because of drugs or alcohol rather than the disparity between wages and the cost of housing. I cannot forget the politicians and business owners who shouted the loudest when a grassroots committee tried to raise the minimum wage in the City of Santa Cruz. They are more responsible than anyone for these high numbers.

---Becky Johnson , Editor

SANTA CRUZ SENTINEL EDITORIAL

As We See It: Homeless survey offers insight

Posted: 07/28/2011 01:30:56 AM PDT

FOUND ONLINE HERE.

A few missed paychecks.

For some families and individuals in Santa Cruz County, that's all that stands between a roof over their heads and an uncertain existence -- a month couch-surfing with friends, maybe a week in the car, then a shelter or camping out in some out-of-the-way spot.

The most recent look at homelessness in Santa Cruz County -- a count and survey conducted by the United Way of Santa Cruz County and the nonprofit research firm Applied Survey Research -- shows that the homeless population in Santa Cruz County has jumped 22 percent in two years. There were an estimated 2,771 individuals without homes in the county in January, according to the homeless census. The tally in 2009, the last time a count was taken, was 2,265.

The major causes, the report concludes, are what you would expect: a sputtering economy in which many people are being jettisoned from once stable jobs coupled with increasing local rents. As homes prices fall, and more people purchase homes to live in, rents on those remaining rentals inch up.

But homelessness is complicated, and attributing it solely to hard economic times does not fully explain what is a vexing community problem. That's part of the value of the census and survey.

It's not just one number -- or one conclusion. The report looks at many things -- the ages of the homeless, where they come from, the benefits they use, the problems that landed them on the street. It offers interesting glimpses into the problem.

Among them:

Numbers can be deceiving. This year's homeless figure is 2,771; the number is based on a count by about 50 volunteers who fanned out countywide to places the homeless are known to gather. But experts then extrapolate those point-in-time numbers and conclude there are actually closer to 9,000 people homeless in the county at any given time.

Addiction plays a role. Sixty-three percent of the roughly 500 people surveyed reported having disabling conditions. The most-cited condition [38 percent] was alcohol and drug abuse, followed by depression and other chronic health problems.

Few would argue the homeless have it hard on the streets, but the numbers are alarming. According to the federal government, the average life expectancy of an American is 78 years. The average life expectancy for someone without permanent housing is between 42 and 52 years.

The majority [65 percent] of those surveyed receive some sort of government assistance, with food stamps overwhelmingly the assistance used most.

Contrary to what you see in the online comments on most any Sentinel story on homelessness, the majority of those on the streets are not out-of-county residents who came to the area to take advantage of local services. Sixty-seven percent of survey respondents indicated they were already living here when they became homeless.

Homeless parents are like most all parents, fighting to do right by their kids. Ninety six percent of homeless parents with school-age kids in tow had those kids in school.

Young adults look to be increasingly affected. There were 99 young people without shelter in 2011 compared with 34 in 2009.

There can be a legacy of homelessness. The data showed 23 percent of homeless youth reported at least one parent was or had been homeless.

Homelessness was up in all cities in the county except for Watsonville, which saw a slight decrease from 561 people to 530.

Santa Cruz had the highest number with 1,070, up 169 from 2009. Scotts Valley went from no homeless to 13.

While the jump in homelessness in the past two years is disappointing, homelessness in the county is still down from a count of 3,371 in 2005.

The biannual census is required for the county to receive $1.7 million in federal homeless-assistance funding annually. But another important facet is its ability to change the debate around the local homeless problem.

It reminds people that there are many roads to the street, that it's unfair -- impossible actually -- to stereotype the homeless. They're young, they're old, with kids and without. Maybe they're struggling with addiction or suddenly jobless. Maybe it was just a few missed paychecks

Song-Crime verdict sustained by Santa Cruz Appeals Court

2011-07-21T19:02:00.000-07:00

by Becky Johnson

July 21, 2011

Scene of the Crime: the Free Speech zone underneath Sean Reilly's window on Pacific Ave in front of Bookshop Santa Cruz, owned by Mayor Ryan Coonerty's sister.

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- The only wrinkle is that there were only two judges. Otherwise, all was the same as before. In the Robert Norse/Robert Facer 'Song-Crime' appeal, a Santa Cruz County Superior Court appeals panel sustained their conviction last September for having sung a few songs on Pacific Ave. on January 6th, 2010. And, in a carbon-copy rationalization, they insisted the defendants had sung "for four hours straight" on a public sidewalk in downtown Santa Cruz.

"Commissioner Basket concluded that the length of the protest, the fixed location, an electronic organ, a drum, a guitar over a period of 4 hours constituted unreasonably disturbing noise," Judge Paul Burdick offered as proof of his decision. The problem was, we didn't sing for four hours. In fact, we sang on and off for a little over an hour at an event we had announced in advance would last two hours. Nor did any other witness testify that we sang that long, that we were too loud or too annoying. In fact, Commissioner Basket had to have ruled that the sole witness--the citizen complainant cum "witness" Sean Reilly was the ONLY reliable witness. For seven eye-witnesses testified that no one from our group even got to the location until 1:30PM and that no one even began to sing until 1:45PM.

Baskett must have ruled that the 7 witnesses testimony in court under penalty of perjury was unreliable. For at an appeals hearing, only testimony by the winning party is considered.

However, Baskett did not entirely discount the testimony of the eyewitnesses who claimed to have been in a meeting several blocks away until 12:30PM--one and a half hours AFTER Reilly claimed he heard "the same group singing," at the fixed location.

Baskett used this "evidence" of a prior meeting where we included in our planning, a plan to include music as part of the protest, to convict Robert Facer. For Facer never sang a word on January 6th but was convicted of "unreasonably disturbing noise,"according to Baskett, for engaging in a conspiracy to create an unreasonably disturbing noise when she alleged that we PLANNED to disturb the staff at Bookshop Santa Cruz---a conclusion she made up wholly since no one on either side testified to that claim.

Judge Paul Marigonda concurred with Burdick's preliminary decision but eagerly agreed to certify a further appeal to a higher court--unusual in infraction cases.

Attorney Ed Frey, representing Robert Facer argued that the statute in question needed to satisfy two tests. "Brown established for all political protests, that unless the speech presents a clear and present danger of immediate violence or the protest is intended solely to disturb, that the speech cannot be abridged. Neither of those conditions were met by this protest. So how do you get around the first amendment?"

Burdick explained why his ruling was reasonable. "I believe Brown involved a protest on a University campus," he ventured. "Here, people were occupying space in a commercial business district, and people's conduct could interfere with people coming and going, and since their were apartments upstairs, people attempting to peacefully enjoy their homes."

Ed Frey challenged Burdick's claim. "I don't see anything in here saying it's on a college campus. What if the protest were set up on a vacant lot next to the University? Are you saying that their 1st amendment rights wouldn't apply there?

"Streets and parks have been places where we traditionally peaceably assemble, where we communicate out thoughts, since ancient times. And in this case, the defendants were in the Free Speech Zone on a public sidewalk. If they couldn't practice their 1st amendment rights there, where could they?"

Too bad Judge Ariadne Symons, not present due to a sudden family emergency, wasn't there to tell us we "could sing in a park."

"As for the complaining witness, Ed argued, "Sean Reilly lived at that location for four years. He knew what to expect when he goes home. Are you saying that a single citizen can veto the 1st amendment?"

"One person can make a difference," Judge Paul Marigonda piously retorted.

Sean Reilly takes a break from one of many hearings outside of Commissioner Baskett's court as he testifies against four people for singing. Photo by Becky Johnson

"As to determination of credibility, the trial court judge had to determine was that witness reasonable. There is nothing on the record to say Mr. Reilly's testimony was not reliable."

"Commissioner Baskett heard all the evidence," Judge Paul Marigonda added.

"All your arguments are well taken including details from the conviction of Becky Johnson," Burdick continued. "The court found a person has the right to be free from being disturbed in their home. Courts must do a balancing act and determine if sufficient evidence exists of a violation occurring."

Despite this rule, Ed Frey addressed the defense sworn testimony. "This court seems to be depending in part at least on the length of time the music was played. Every one of the defendants testified they sang an hour and a quarter at most."

"We can't address any facts in dispute, " Burdick apologized.

"But these facts are not in dispute, Frey concluded. "The witness, Sean Reilly testified that he did not look out the window until 2 PM. This is not a fact in dispute. The City has not proven its case and this conviction should be overturned."

Robert Norse, appearing pro per, introduced himself as "a writer and an activist." Norse who is not an attorney addressed the finding that singing is not a necessary component to speech.

"It would seem that the court finds that singing anywhere at any time could be outlawed, and that would tend to disallow singing on all occasions. This ruling affects not only us, but all performers, activists, musicians and the audiences we interact with --and it is the law that is at issue. Which act provides a violation? I didn't know. Ms. Johnson didn't know. And when we asked Officer Schoenfield repeatedly, SHE didn't know or couldn't tell us."

Then Norse addressed the first part of the ordinance. The section which addressed unreasonably disturbing noises between 10PM and 8AM. Norse pointed out that THIS section of the municipal code does address residents and sleeping quarters. So why were the defendants convicted for what might have been a violation of the after 10PM ordinance?

Burdick assured Norse that they 'd already read and considered all written arguments. And that the time had expired. "Does a day sleeper have a reasonable expectation of privacy?"

City's 'Nazi salute' appeal beyond absurd

2011-07-20T09:40:00.000-07:00

NOTE TO READER: I wanted to repost Pete Nichols' op-ed when it came out in late June, but other events sidelined me. So here it is, still timely with the Supreme Court supposedly considering whether to listen to the City's appeal of the 14 - 0 decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the Robert Norse "Nazi" Salute Case. They will issue their decision in September as to which cases they will hear. I want to add that I don't believe I have ever had any contact with Mr. Nichols, and no one from the Norse legal team was contacted prior to this op-ed piece. Apparently, Mr. Nichols was just moved enough by the issue to write and submit this piece. ---Becky Johnson, Ed.

Peter Nichols: City's 'Nazi salute' appeal beyond absurd

SANTA CRUZ SENTINEL June 19, 2011

FOUND ONLINE HERE.

Hard to believe, but the city of Santa Cruz is actually appealing its Robert Norse Nazi-salute case to the highest court in the land. There it was, in black and white, "City files Supreme Court appeal" Sentinel, June 10, 2011.

City leaders have already flushed $150,000 down the drain defending a First Amendment lawsuit challenging a mayoral action that was questionable at best. Choosing to spend more money on a highly specialized read: expensive Washington, D.C., attorney in the face of overwhelming doubts the court will even consider the case is throwing good money after bad.

The city argues that Norse's Nazi salute during the March 12, 2002, council meeting was a "hate gesture." The petition declares, "... broad protections of the First Amendment do not extend to hate gestures [that disrupt proceedings] made during a city council meeting." Richard Ruda, the attorney, described the gesture as "insulting and very offensive" and suggested that the offended have the right to evict the offender.

In the context of a governance protest, however, it's a stretch to claim a Nazi salute is a hate gesture and very offensive. Insulting to council members, perhaps, since it suggests that they aren't operating democratically. But that's all in the eye of the beholder, and as a mocking gesture, it warrants full protection.

Fortunately for those of us who weren't present, there's a five-minute video on Google Search: nazi+salute+2002. After one protesting citizen is asked to leave, Mayor Christopher Krohn insists that another person -- expecting to address the council -- sit down, also under threat of removal. As she leaves the podium, Norse can be seen on the sidelines raising his left arm in the direction of the council. A real Nazi salute would have been far more demonstrative with the right arm. It was a silent gesture, lasting about a second and barely noticed. It was Nazi salute light. For the next 10 seconds the meeting continued orderly. The salute was not disruptive.

The disruption began when Councilman Tim Fitzmaurice, who saw the gesture, over-reacted, expressed objection and insisted Norse be removed from the chamber. Mayor Krohn, who hadn't noticed, asked Norse to leave. Norse objected briefly before being led away in handcuffs. That prompted the filing of his First Amendment lawsuit.

It's unknown what happened before the video begins. Since it was taped at the end of a public comments period, Fitzmaurice may have grown tired of the complaints or simply fed up with Norse's persistent criticism. That's not uncommon with elected officials who lack the patience to deal with the cumbersome nature of democracy e.g., having to listen to people complain.

Local governing bodies often deal with disruptions. But skilled facilitators, sensitive to the public's needs, rarely have difficulties keeping order. One thing's clear, however: Had Fitzmaurice simply ignored the gesture, nobody would have given it another thought. And that is what should have happened.

So now, the City Council is asking the likes of Alito, Scalia, Roberts, and Justice Clarence Thomas, of all people, to intervene on their behalf because they couldn't control a meeting in 2002.

This is not a case about hate speech or about out-of-control meetings. It is about free speech, something Santa Cruz -- of all communities -- should strongly support rather than seek to stifle. Furthermore, this council should not perpetuate the folly of previous councils.

Appealing this matter to the Supreme Court is beyond absurd.

Peter Nichols is a Larkin Valley resident whose all-time favorite city is Santa Cruz.

Mayor Ryan Coonerty's "Minor technical error"

2011-07-16T12:42:00.000-07:00

by Becky Johnson
July 17, 2011

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- Now it's no secret that I am no fan of Mayor Ryan Coonerty. He personally had me banned for life from Bookshop Santa Cruz, falsely accusing me of

Mayor Ryan Coonerty in photo taken at his part-time cashier's job in his Dad's bookstore 2005.

vandalizing their bathrooms. He's a major supporter of the Sleeping Ban. He's cut oral communications at City Council meetings from three minutes to two minutes, and actually crowed that "Less speech is better speech" for members of the public. Of course, HIS time to pontificate has not been reduced one bit.

He's made huge public parking garages and parking lots into "no trespassing' zones just to drive homeless people into the rain when they took shelter there. He's made it illegal to play a flute too near a statue (MC 5.43.020 section d), which has to be one of the most ridiculous, petty, and unconstitutional ordinances passed by the City Council in recent years. And now he's been admonished for ethical violations by the The Fair Political Practices Commission of the State of California for issuing a self-serving mailer at public expense.

Nor does Ryan seem to get it, calling the admonishment for an ethical violation an "honest mistake." City Manager Martine Bernal, also named for the ethical violation was even worse. HE commented that they "may have inadvertantly made a minor technical error." But many citizens thought otherwise.

Former Supervisor, Gary Patton noted the violation on his Facebook Page writing "The mailer is heavy on both boosterism and self-congratulation. Unfortunately, it appears to violate state law, which forbids the use of government funds for the promotion of elected officials." Citizen Gillian Greensite went further and filed a formal complaint. Quoted in the Santa Cruz Sentinel, Greensite said ""Apart from the illegality of the mailer, the use of public funds to send out a self-promotional piece at the same time that they are cutting city staff salaries and making budget cuts to social services seems questionable at best." HUFFies called the mailer a "glossy puff piece mailed at taxpayer expense."

Local attorney, Kate Wells wrote "And Ryan Coonerty is teaching law to our best and brightest at UCSC ??? I agree with Greensite, this was a clear violation of the law, not to mention ethics - not even a close call. I, too, find it hard to believe that Coonerty did not recognize such a basic misuse of taxpayer dollars. Either he is ignorant and should be fired from his teaching job or he is unethical and should be removed from the council."

John Cohen, a local resident wrote "The mailer was a political piece which should not have been paid for with taxpayer money. It was meant to present the City of Santa Cruz and Ryan Coonerty -- who was featured on it -- in a favorable light. In short, it was a political advertisement, not educational material. If anything, Ryan Coonerty and the City got off easy. Next time not so easy."

Nor is the statement by the Mayor the only problem with the mailer.

The reportage is highly selective. And it appears to subtly and not so subtly promote his own networking business, NextSpace, in the section titled "New Era for the SENTINEL Building" with language praising the business as "...a workspace...is now a co-working space, allowing innovators from different fields to mingle and collaborate."

The "Teen Center" piece shamefully rides upon the glam of American Idol local, James Durbin, who used the center before the current council gutted its funding.

The section "Teens Take PRIDE in Santa Cruz" is a puff piece about a single police/youth program that affects an unknown number of teens. It ignores rising rates of violent assault, an unusually high rate for rape, and a growing problem with gang violence.

And It does NOT report that the City has chosen an expensive and unlikely to be successful appeal to the US Supreme Court a 14 - 0 ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. It doesn't include any mention that City Hall has been turned into a "no trespassing" zone for the first time in 145 years or that a protester set fire to the City Attorney's office. It doesn't mention the May 1st Riot of 2010 which caused $100,000 in damage.

And it DIDN'T mention any other member of the Santa Cruz City Council, nor was the language approved by the full council. Of course this is not the first time Mayor Ryan Coonerty has mis-used his office for political pandering.

HERE is the portion of the mailer that violated the rules of the Fair Political Practices Commission:

A Breathtaking Year in Santa Cruz

FOUND ONLINE HERE.

2011 has been a breathtaking year in Santa Cruz. We’ve hosted incredible events: the Giants World Series Trophy tour, our American Idol, James Durbin’s hometown visit, the Sacred Craft Surfboard show downtown and celebrated UCSC’s 45th and Plantronic’s 50th Anniversaries. And we are only half done.

I speak for everyone on the City Council when I say that we would not have it any other way. Our city is extraordinary. Not only are we surrounded by redwoods and waves, but we are a small town with big ambitions — to be a model of environmental awareness; a home to world class teaching and world changing research and a center for businesses, large and small, to innovate and succeed. We are a hub for arts and culture and a place where millions of families visit each year.

In order to ensure that these aspirations are achieved — as well as vital day-to-day services provided — this winter, the City Council developed a strategic plan for the next three years. We committed to these five goals — linked to your left — and 33 ambitious measurable objectives upon which we will report back to the community each and every year. This Annual Report is the initial outline of how we are doing as a city and where we hope to head and how you can be a part of making our community a better place.

To support these goals and objectives, in the coming months the Council will adopt a budget that reduces an $8 million structural deficit while maintaining essential city services. We will develop an ambitious Climate Action Plan that moves us toward sustainability and creates green jobs, advocate that the Coastal Commission approve the Arana Gulch and La Bahia Hotel plans, attract and retain businesses, and continue to focus on public safety challenges.

Please take a moment to read the report linked below in English and in Spanish. Let us know what you think and how you might be able to contribute. It’s going to take all of us collaborating and innovating to succeed. We have done it before, and I have no doubt we will do it again in the imaginative and vibrant way that Santa Cruz does best.

--Mayor Ryan Coonerty

UPDATE: SENTINEL EDITORIAL - HITS & MISSES July 19 2011

RETURN TO SENDER We recently dinged the city of Santa Cruz for spending $15,000 to send out an annual report touting civic accomplishments, while also setting out the city's vision for the future. The flier came out while the city was asking workers for salary and benefit concessions, and during a week the City Council cut the money going to local nonprofits. The mailer, it turns out, also was illegal. The state agency charged with enforcing California's political ethics law last week admonished the city for the mailer, saying it broke rules governing the use of public funds. The flier included a note authored and signed by the mayor, and state law prohibits government agencies from paying for mass mailings that feature elected officials. Mayor Ryan Coonerty, who conceived the flier, called it "an honest mistake," but it's hard for us to understand how this one ever passed a simple smell test. It also was never run by the city attorney. No fines will be assessed, because the city self-reported the violation, but we expect more due diligence from city leaders.

Good Dog / Bad Dog

2011-07-10T11:06:00.000-07:00

Law SHOULD read: No Dirty Beggar's puppies downtown

NOTE TO READER: In the spring of 2010, an article appeared in the SENTINEL that said that the anti-dog ordinance would soon be history. Indeed, the Downtown Association voted overwhelming to seek a change in the ordinance from City Council, and with only 1 dissenting vote, it seemed a shoe-in. What followed was confusion. Dogs appeared, came and went, with little interference. People talked of a suspension of enforcement. But then others, were cited. Now we find out that the May 1st Riot triggered the delay. Way to go, J. M. Brown of the SENTINEL to blame the DTA, SCPD, and City Council's mixed messages and outright screw-up the 'fault' of those 6 guys who broke windows that night.
And as usual, the City leaders are busy trying to figure out if "nice" "clean" "well-behaved" (housed) dogs can be weaned out from those "dirty" "questionable" (unhoused)mutts who may still have their loins intact. To illustrate this, I've changed every cue phrase in RED. If it's highlighted, it refers to a dog that is housed or a dog that is unhoused. See if you can tell which is which.

----Becky Johnson, Ed.

Every dog may have its day: Santa Cruz City Council to consider whether to allow dogs downtown again on trial basis

By J.M. BROWN -- Santa Cruz Sentinel

Posted: 07/09/2011 01:45:06 PM PDT

ARTICLE CAN BE FOUND ONLINE HERE.

Photo: Dogs on Pacific Ave. either unaware

or openly violating the dog ban. Photos by

Dan Coyro of the SENTINEL

SANTA CRUZ - The Jacksons and Kruegers are exactly the kind of customers downtown merchants don't see enough of these days.

Rebekah Jackson and her husband, Archie, came over the hill from San Jose several years ago to visit Santa Cruz with buddies Aimee and Chris Krueger. As the two couples often do on weekend get-aways, they brought their dogs - a 4-year-old Yorkiepoo named Odie and Capo, a 7-year-old German shepherd whose name means "captain" in Italian.

They piled out of their vehicle downtown only to see a sign warning them dogs weren't allowed.

"We just got back in our car and left," Archie Jackson said on a recent Saturday afternoon, while having lunch with his wife and friends at PortaBella, a Mediterranean bistro on Carmel's Ocean Avenue.

In Carmel, dogs are not just allowed downtown, they're embraced with very few reported incidents. Several other regional shopping areas, Capitola Village, Los Gatos, Pacific Grove and Santana Row in San Jose, also welcome dogs.

At the request of merchants who believe they're missing out on a huge market, the Santa Cruz City Council on Tuesday will consider temporarily overturning a 35-year rule banning pooches on Pacific Avenue. And it's apparent there are more than enough votes to make it happen.

During a three-month trial, licensed and vaccinated dogs would be allowed on Pacific Avenue and several feeder streets during daylight hours as long as they're leashed, attended at all times, cleaned up after and not used in panhandling. If passed, the revised ordinance would go into effect within 30 days and be made permanent after Nov. 30 unless the council changed its mind or tweaked the rules after the test period.

The city must still work out how and where to place waste collection bags downtown and how much that might cost. City officials estimate the cost will be minimal, but dog advocates are already vowing to help.

"I think the economic benefits to our downtown merchants will be most welcome," said Councilman Tony Madrigal, who owns a miniature dachshund named Shortie and is one of three council members proposing the rule change. "My hope is that by allowing dogs on a trial basis, more people will feel welcome to come downtown with their pets, many of whom they consider part of the family."

Although the Santa Cruz Downtown Association board voted unanimously this spring to pursue a change in the city's dog ordinance, not all merchants agree it's a good idea.

Opponents fear some dog handlers won't pick up waste or control their animals. Others worry panhandlers will take on dogs when asking for spare change, a problem authorities have faced when warning people about dogs downtown only to hear dubious claims that the dog is a service animal.

Although he is the owner of three chihuahuas, Rick Tedrow, a salesman at Stephan's Fine Jewelry, is concerned permitting dogs will increase the number of transients who hang out downtown. He doesn't mind well-groomed dogs coming in the store, but overall, he said, "It would not be a great place for dogs."

A LONG TIME COMING

The city banned dogs on the Pacific Garden Mall in 1976 and side streets several years later after numerous complaints about out-of-control dogs and neglected waste.

But three decades later, amid a consensus that dog owners are generally more responsible now, the Downtown Association board voted in March 2010 to ask the council to loosen the rules.

However, a May 2010 riot that left numerous downtown businesses with broken windows, graffiti-covered walls and other damage, pushed the issue to the back burner. At the time, the city had other big problems to deal with, including a spike in gang-related violence, a mounting budget deficit, and persistent problems with aggressive panhandling and other problems on Pacific Avenue.

Linnaea Holgers James, owner of Artisans Gallery, cast the board's sole dissenting vote on dogs last year. She said there were too many distractions to add another controversial element.

But a year later, after the city has stationed First Alarm security guards downtown, James said the "climate has improved" and she changed her vote. Although she is still concerned dogs could lead to bad behavior at a time when many merchants are still struggling in a bad economy, she believes the numerous restrictions proposed by the city should minimize problems.

Since news of the Downtown Association's push to allow dogs again, the Downtown Management Corp., which oversees the Downtown Host Program, reported a 7 percent increase dog-related contacts made by its hospitality crews - up to 1,922 in 2010 from 1,792 in 2009.

And the Police Department is on track to issue as many dog-related citations this year as last. In 2010, the department issued 77 tickets for people having dogs on Pacific Avenue, and so far this year, they have given out 35.

Yeyen Gunawan, owner of La Vie Pure Food Collective, risks getting tickets by walking Louie, her 3-year-old black yorkie terrier mix, for short stints on Pacific Avenue. She hopes the rules about cleaning up and controlling dogs will work during the trial period, but said, "If it fails, it's back to the people."

TRIAL PERIOD KEY

Council members say a trial period is key to giving dogs a chance downtown.

Councilwoman Katherine Beiers said a number of constituents raised safety concerns with her when the Downtown Association first looked to change the rules. But this time around, she said only a handful of residents have contacted her.

As a frequent jogger who lives near the dog-popular West Cliff Drive, Beiers is worried about how canines will mix downtown. While she hasn't made up her mind, she appreciates that there is a trial period proposed.

"I've never been excited about having dogs back on Pacific Avenue," she said, adding that, "half of the people don't clean up after their dogs" on West Cliff Drive.

Mayor Ryan Coonerty and Councilwoman Hilary Bryant are in favor of the proposal, having submitted it for consideration along with Madrigal. That leaves Vice Mayor Don Lane and Councilmembers David Terrazas and Lynn Robinson, all of whom have dogs at home.

Councilman David Terrazas plans to support the trial, saying, "Anything we can try to make our downtown visitor-friendly. It gives us a chance to look at the impact of revisiting the rules and having the opportunity to weigh in on things moving forward."

Vice Mayor Don Lane agreed, saying, "It's worth us trying to make this work. There are some details I want to discuss about enforcement, but the general idea is a good one."

EFFECT ON BUSINESS

There's no exact way to track how dogs affect economic and safety conditions in downtown shopping areas, but anecdotally the experience is positive.

Csaba Ajan, managing partner of PortaBella in Carmel, estimated 20 percent of his business stems from customers accompanied by dogs. They are allowed on the back or front patios, and are often brought water bowls by the wait staff.

Only twice in 16 years does he remember a problem arising - one from a customer complaint, another when a dog urinated.

"Your council needs a canine education," he said with a grin.

His customers, the Jacksons and Kruegers of San Jose, said they would visit Santa Cruz more often if they could bring their dogs. When the friends go wine tasting or seek out the beach, they are apt to take longer trips if the dogs are with them.

"It costs us a lot of money in the long run when we have to find somewhere for boarding," said Rebekah Jackson.

Aimee Krueger, who recently gave birth to twins Noah and Elijah, said she isn't worried about fights or other problems walking her dog in commercial areas.

"You get an idea when the owner has control of the dog," she said. "If there is a problem, I just go to the other side of the street."

Judy Huyck, owner of Chefworks on Santa Cruz's Pacific Avenue, brings her Shetland sheepdogs, Millie and Aleigh, to work everyday and they are often fawned over by customers.

"There are a lot of people who don't shop downtown because they can't bring their dogs," she said. "They go to Los Gatos and Carmel."

But some critics say comparisons with Carmel and Los Gatos are unfair - that as small, upscale towns, they don't face the same amount of transients hanging out and asking for money, sometimes accompanied by dogs.

But San Luis Obispo, which at 45,000 in population is more similarly sized to Santa Cruz, is a college town with a vibe closer to downtown Santa Cruz. San Luis Obispo requires dogs be leashed downtown, but the city hasn't had problems with behavior or waste that might inspire a ban.

"If we ever were to raise that - and no one has brought that up - we think there would be quite an outcry," said Doug Davidson, acting directing of community development. "They have always been allowed."

Susan Marshall of Carmel visited Pacific Avenue with friend Diane Parks of Watsonville last month, but without their dogs. They said their companions, an Australian shepherd named Bodhi and an airedale named Tess, would get too worked up by all the hustle and bustle.

Although Parks said allowing dogs downtown "makes it a more friendly place," she repeated concerns about panhandlers using dogs and was happy to hear the city's proposed restrictions would outlaw it.

Huyck said she doesn't believe allowing dogs on Pacific Avenue will actually attract more transients with dogs.

"I think it's only going to make it more fair," she said.

HEALTH AND SAFETY

Melanie Sobel, general manager of Santa Cruz County Animal Shelter, said she also supports the city's proposal, as long as dogs are licensed, under control and on leashes.

"The more dogs get socialized, the better behaved they are," she said.

The agency requires all dogs in the county older than 4 months be licensed, vaccinated against rabies, and spayed or neutered. But Sobel said the number of dogs licensed, just under 8,000 in 2010, is only 14 percent of the estimated number of dogs countywide last year, which was 54,010.

Despite the tickets issued, Police Chief Kevin Vogel said officers treat dogs as a low priority in terms of overall downtown safety, saying the rules put police in an awkward position of telling tourists and residents to put their dogs away. He said he doesn't foresee any major problems allowing dogs back.

"The success or failure hinges on dog owners themselves," he said. "It's worth giving it a try."

Whitney Wilde, founder of the social group Woofers and Walkers, agrees dogs won't present a health or safety risk She plans to offer the city 5,000 biodegradable waste collection bags to place downtown if the measure is approved.

"If you think you are going to have all of these wild dogs downtown, you're not," said Wilde, who has a 90-pound Belgian malinois. "It's going to be people who enjoy being with their dog and taking the dog places on a regular basis."

Unattended urine and feces are the biggest worry for Andrea Paradise, manager of Petroglyph. She said she is fine with dogs, but, "If I saw that owners weren't cleaning up after them, I might have a different opinion."

IF YOU GO

SANTA CRUZ CITY COUNCIL

WHAT: Discussion of proposed suspension of downtown dog ban for three-month trial period

WHEN: 7 p.m. Tuesday

WHERE: Council chamber, 809 Center St.

PROPOSED DOG ORDINANCE

The Santa Cruz City Council on Tuesday will consider temporarily suspending a long-standing ban on dogs on Pacific Avenue and feeder streets with the following provisions:

n The ban will be lifted for a three-month trial period for the downtown area bounded by Water, Laurel, Cedar and Front streets, and including the Town Clock and Scope Park.

n Dogs must be tethered to a leash that is 3 to 5 feet long, and dogs are restricted to one per leash.

n Dogs must be under the control of their owner.

n Dogs may not be left unattended or tied up outside; any dog left unattended may be taken immediately by police or animal services authorities.

n Dogs may not be in the company of more than two other dogs.

n Dogs will be allowed only from sunrise to sunset.

n Dogs must display collar tags demonstrating they have been licensed and vaccinated against rabies as required by the county.

n Panhandling with a dog is not allowed.

n Violation of the rules may result in a citation, and any subsequent violation committed within 48 hours will constitute a misdemeanor.

n Rule change would not affect dog ban in effect on some beaches and the Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf.

n If approved, the ban will be lifted in 30 days and, unless the council reverses the suspension before Nov. 30, dogs will be permanently allowed.

SOURCE: City of Santa Cruz

Why I don't support the Gaza Flotilla

2011-07-07T00:33:00.000-07:00

by Becky Johnson

July 7 2011

Photo: Women In Black picket Israel in the Gardens in San Francisco 201

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- On July 4th, I joined a small group of anti-war activists at a busy intersection with signs, flags, and banners. Sherry Conable, Louis Lafortune, and Steve Pleich were there. There were WILPF'ers. There were Raging Grannies. And there were the

Women In Black. As someone who dedicated my life to world peace at age 14, normally I would be donning black garb, wearing a hat with a black veil, and standing somberly with the WIB against those who would turn our children into cannon fodder, but I'm not. For WIB has been imbued with what can only be called anti-semitism and a rabid hatred of Israel.

And on that street corner, several Santa Cruz area residents showed up with signs supporting the Gaza Flotilla, currently chained in a Greek harbor under "house" arrest. I do not support the Flotilla.

A similar flotilla last year ended in violent tragedy when the Israeli government intercepted and boarded the Turkish vessel, the Mavi Marmara, only to be met by a mob of 100 men armed with guns, clubs, knives, slingshots and chains. Some peace activists! Nine persons perished in this action.

If I had planned an action and nine people died, the last thing I'd do is plan a similar action, but, that is exactly what the Free Gaza Movement, organizer Paul Larudee, and Greta Berlin did.

I don't support the Flotilla because the State of Israel has a right to protect itself from the Hamas government of Gaza which is in a state of war against Israel, is planning future attacks against Israeli citizens, and uses weapons smuggled into Gaza directly against innocent civilians.

"If you oppose foreign aid to Israel, why don't you also oppose foreign aid to Egypt?" I asked. No one even knew that Egypt GETS foreign aid!

A member of the U.S. Boat to Gaza campaign was handing out flyers urging people to contact Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, Kim Richter of Overseas American Citizens Services, and the Greek Desk of the U.S. State Dept. to urge the release of Captain Klusmire of 'The Audacity of Hope' currently chained to the dock in a Greek harbor.

A hairy, bearded young man in a tie-dye shirt held a "Free the Gaza Flotilla!" sign.

And me without my "Free Gaza from Hamas!" sign. What could I do? I decided to ask a few questions of these "experts" on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

What about Hamas? I demanded. "They threw their rival Palestinians off of a roof!"
The young man wasn't really sure who "Hamas" was and he had never heard of one political faction throwing members of another faction off the roof of a building.

"Imagine if one of the Israeli political parties threw members of another party off of a roof? Your people would be shouting from the hilltops about the brutality! Yet when Hamas throws Fatah off a roof, you don't even hear about it."

"You don't support the Flotilla?" an older woman gasped, and eyed me down. "Why not?"

"The last time they did this nine people died. It's a bad action. People shouldn't die because of an anti-war protest. I hold Paul Larudee personally responsible for those deaths."

"The whole action is a provocation. They are provoking the Israeli military to intercede. It's one big photo-op. I call it the 'Ship of Fools.' The woman, obviously heavily invested in the evil of the Israeli government, protested. "But we're just peaceful activists bringing humanitarian aid."

"Those Turkish participants weren't peaceful. They attacked the IDF with clubs and knives."

"I saw the video but I couldn't tell what was happening," the young man ventured.

Photo: A Gaza vegetable market displays its wares, in direct contrast to claims of "starvation."

"And, there is no starvation in Gaza. And there's no 'Seige of Gaza' either. The Egyptian border's been open for months.

"It's had some closures," the woman insisted.

"What about the 'Karine A?' I asked. The young man drew a blank but the older woman winced.
"Google it. It's spelled K-A-R-I-N-E and letter "A". DON'T take my word for it. While Yassir Arafat was supposedly negotiating a peace treaty, he was smuggling in arms on a ship called the "Karine A." That's why there's a sea blockade. Because the Palestinians smuggle in munitions and instantly turn around and use them against Israeli civilians.

"But what about the 22 days of bombing in 2009? Isn't that collective punishment?"he insisted.
"What about the 10,000 rockets shot over the fence in Gaza into behind-the-green-line sovereign Israel at innocent civilians? Isn't THAT collective punishment?" I countered.

"And Gaza isn't 'Occupied'. Israel ceded it to the Palestinian Authority in 2005. You DO remember that don't you? When Israel uprooted 10,000 JEWS and gave the land permanently to the Palestinians. Oh, and they burned down 24 synagogues in ONE DAY too!"

At this, the woman harumphed and walked away.

Photo: A Gaza shul is burned by a mob of Palestinians celebrating the retreating Jewish people of Gaza in September 2005.

But the young man persisted. "But they are OCCUPYING another peoples' land," he insisted.
"How do you figure? Israel took over the land in the 1967 war. You remember, the Six-Day War?"

The man vaguely nodded, but I couldn't be sure he knew what I was talking about. "Well, in 1967, Israel took over the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, Gaza and the Sinai Peninsula in what the UN determined to be a defensive war. They COULD have just annexed it directly, but they thought that later on, when cooler heads prevailed, the land would become the Islamic State of Palestine. THAT is how Israel came to OCCUPY the land. They maintained military authority over it, but they didn't annex it."

It looked like a light bulb went on in the young man's head, so I continued.

"Israel then built schools, hospitals, brought electricity to the West Bank, built sewer systems and 6 Universities for the Palestinians. No one has built more housing for the Palestinians than the Israelis themselves." The young man eyed me with great skepticism.

"But the settlements," he protested, "They're illegal."

"How do you figure? Before the land belonged to Israel, it belonged to Great Britain."

"Great Britain!" he protested. "What the hell does Britain have to do with Palestine?"
"Well, they OWNED it. It's history man!

"As long as the settlements don't displace any Palestinian population, they are not illegal. And they were all built on vacant land." I didn't even get to tell him that before Israel conquered the region in 1967 that Egypt had illegally occupied Gaza and that Jordan had illegally occupied the West Bank. But he'd already suffered information overload.

In the end, I parted amicably with the young man. Not so much the older, WIB'er.
It's lonely being right sometimes.

Gary Johnson freed on bail

2011-06-28T12:21:00.000-07:00

GREAT NEWS! I just heard that Gary Johnson was released yesterday afternoon from the Rountree Minimum Security Facility in Watsonville, Ca. where he was serving a 6 month sentence for the "crime" of sleeping as part of a protest against the Sleeping Ban in the City of Santa Cruz. His attorney and co-defendant, Ed Frey, was freed Friday, June 24th when Judge John Gallagher reduced his bail from $50,000 to $110. Gary, in addition to 5 days in jail prior to sentencing, was incarcerated from June 10th until June 27th, or for a total of 22 days for the "crime" of sleeping. Here is Gary's e-mail to me. --- Becky Johnson- ed

Gary Johnson sleeps non-obstructively August 28, 2010 on the downtown sidewalk outside of City Hall after the City pronounced "no trespassing" restrictions on public property during Peace Camp 2010, a protest against Santa Cruz' Sleeping Ban. Photo by Becky Johnson

Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 15:07:13 -0700
> From: walkabouting ( at ) yahoo.com
> Subject: Breaking news...
> To: walkabouting (at) yahoo.com
>
> Breaking news...
>
> I JUST got out on bail (pending Appeal), from (eventually Minimum) Medium Security Jail in Watsonville (aka The Farm).
>
> S#228822
>
> After about two weeks, held in Santa Cruz County Jail (across from the Santa Cruz county Courthouse),
> I was recently transfered to the Watsonville Jail (currently released on bail, pending appeal).
>
> Next Santa Cruz Court appearance is August 1st, 1:30pm, room 2, I think.
>
> If the Appeal(s) fail, I'm back in for 180 days (180 - trivia).
>
> And now I can finally shout about the entire fucking thing, without worrying about influencing the jury. Website pending, probably via the SC library, tomorrow.
>
> Meanwhile, back at the (pending appeal) daily walks between the public libraries and meals...
>
> --
> G (pending appeal)

Ed Frey: Putting his body on the line

2011-06-25T12:02:00.000-07:00

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: I'm always suspicious of those who say we "want to get ourselves arrested" because I've never tried to get arrested in my life. That doesn't mean rigid adherence to petty ordinances and rules, especially so if there is no apparent victim. I seriously doubt ED ' wanted' to get arrested. But it had come to the point where civil disobedience of the law was what was called for. Indeed, when Arun Ghandi visited the Resource Center for Nonviolence years earlier, he had predicted that ONLY civil disobedience of the Sleeping Ban would change the law. And ED DID openly violate MC 6.36.010 a, of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code which outlaws sleeping at night between 11PM and 8:30AM, known as the "Sleeping Ban." Had he been found guilty of violating this ordinance, the worst punishment he would face, under law, would have been 8 hours of Community service and no jail time at all. Instead, on June 10th, ED was sentenced to 6 MONTHS in JAIL for refusing 400 hours of community service, with bail set at $50,000. Below is Curtis Cartier's interview published last August. But a few corrections are in order. Peace Camp 2010 was NOT 24/7. It was between 8PM and 8AM at the courthouse steps and at City Hall. And ED towed a porta-potty there each night and took it away during the morning. I was not convicted of "disturbing the peace (a misdemeanor)" but of "unreasonably disturbing noise(an infraction)" which you can read about HERE. Nor has Cartier even mentioned the available legal shelter in Santa Cruz serves 10% at best of those experiencing homelessness. Nor was Frey's effort in vain. --- Becky Johnson, ed

Improbable Cause

Why would a lawyer try to get himself arrested?

By Curtis Cartier

Metro Santa Cruz

August 25, 2010

Article found online here.

SEE: http://www.metrosantacruz.com/metro-santa-cruz/08.25.10/currents-1034.html

DAMN. I don't know if the cops are gonna show," says Ed Frey, looking left to right down Center Street and pulling his tattered blue sleeping bag snug. It's midnight at Peace Camp 2010 and the 70-year-old activist lawyer is on the steps of City Hall with a dozen homeless people and supporters for Day 44 of an ongoing protest against Santa Cruz's ban on camping within city limits. Perched in a fold-out chair, wearing wrinkled khaki pants and the same faded orange sweater he had on 10 days earlier when he was arrested for sleeping outside the Santa Cruz County building, Frey, who founded and organized the 24/7 protest, fits right in with his flock of rebels and malcontents.

His prospects for arrest may be disappointing, but with his finances bottoming out, he admits that avoiding jail this time may be a blessing. "I got a call today from an interested client," he says. "He really needs to be represented in court and I'd hate to have to say, 'Sorry, can't do it. I got arrested for sleeping in public and violating the camping ban. Again.'"

The fact that Frey, a bar-certified, Berkeley-educated criminal defense attorney, is at the public nexus of town in willful disobedience of the law is no surprise given his history. This is a man who brags about having sold marijuana from his law office and once nailing 18 pot plants to the front doors of the Mendocino County sheriff and district attorney. He's campaigned and lost elections for U.S. Congress and Santa Cruz County District Attorney on platforms like the abolition of all international borders and legalization of drugs. Around town, more than a few people who know him say he's crazy. Others conclude that he's just a passionate ideologue.

Santa Cruz City Attorney John Barisone, who recently squared off in court with Frey over local transient Robert Facer's camping ban citation and homeless advocate Becky Johnson's disturbing the peace violation—prevailing over Frey in both cases—goes so far as to say Frey puts his own political agenda over his client's legal needs.

"He is very argumentative, and that doesn't help him out," says Barisone. "With Facer he got in an argument with the judge, not necessarily a good tactic. He also put his client on the witness stand when he didn't need to. ... [Frey] called Facer, who basically admitted to violating the law, and I didn't even have to ask him any questions. I was able to cite his direct testimony."

In many ways Frey is just other weirdo in a city that sells weird by the bushel. But his particular brand is both organized and influential, and for the last 52 days it's been a part of every local taxpayer's life as highly paid police conduct nightly surveillance, erect gas-powered floodlights and write tickets with the knowledge that each one will likely be dragged out in court.

None of this bothers Frey, however, as he points out that homeless rights are never very popular and that "it takes someone like me" to stand up for them. "People say I'm using people to further my agenda," he says. "But it's in the public's own good!"

Shake It

Earlier in the day, Frey's phone rang with infamous homeless advocate gadfly Robert Norse on the line. Christopher Doyon, the gaunt de facto leader of the on-site activities at the protest, was quitting. Frey decided it was high time he got arrested.

"I think it has to be done," he'd said cockily. "Someone has to prove the point that it shouldn't be a crime to fall asleep. Someone needs to shake these people up."

Along with Congressman Sam Farr and Mayor Mike Rotkin, Vice-Mayor Ryan Coonerty is one of the people Frey says needs "shaking." As the sleeping ban protest was starting, he challenged Coonerty to a public debate. Coonerty says Frey was just seeking attention.

"I got a fax from him challenging me to a debate," says Coonerty. "I responded publicly that I don't think it's necessary for me to be a part of every publicity stunt in Santa Cruz. In the latest case, I think homelessness is a very serious issue and I work with social service providers and others to try and address this. I don't think that endless protesting is the right way to go about it. But he certainly has the right."

Frey, in many ways, is part of the classic fabric of Santa Cruz's old guard of radical progressives: liberal, passionate, prone to espousing conspiracy theories. His camping protest is unlikely to change the city's homeless laws and has already led to dozens of citations for a group of people with little means to pay them. With a wife of 27 years and a combined 10 children between them, his family life is strained because of his obsessive focus on homeless rights and willingness to do it free of charge. And, if he were ever actually elected to Congress, his radical policies would have little to no chance of passing.

And yet a Santa Cruz without its Ed Freys, Robert Norses and Becky Johnsons might not be the same city that residents have come to know. And Frey, at any rate, isn't going anywhere.

"My underwater yoga therapy keeps me going strong," he says. "We intend to keep on until we have the right to sleep. And I have no plans to retire. My services now seem more crucial than ever."

Read a longer version of this story online by going to www.santacruz.com and clicking on 'News.'/

Send letters to the editor here.

Ed Frey's Bail reduced from $50,000 to $110

2011-06-24T12:11:00.000-07:00

by Becky Johnson
June 24, 2011

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- Considerably regretful, Judge John Gallagher agreed to a bail reduction pending appeal for Attorney, Ed Frey, jailed directly from court last June 10th on a 6 month sentence. "As you know, I had no choice at the time," Gallagher told Peter Leeming, Ed's attorney for his motion to reconsider sentencing.

Gallagher sounded as if he was willing to do what was legally within his means to do, which wasn't much. He does not have jurisdiction to reduce his own 6 month sentence. Only an appeal can do that. He doesn't have jurisdiction to impose probation since Ed turned down the 3 years of probation offered and no counter-offer was made.

Leeming argued that there is very little case law in this area, but he did find a few cases where extraordinary circumstances existed.

"I was very moved by the circumstances in Ed's declaration," Gallagher explained. "Let's see what we can do to get him back to care for his responsibilities to his family and his clients."

The scene was very different from June 10th, in which each side dug in, unwilling to concede any point or position. Ed declaring even after a jury conviction that he had done nothing wrong and

Ed Frey is arrested for sleeping on Aug 7, 2010 as part of a protest against the Sleeping Ban. Photo by Bradley Stuart.

was being punished "for asserting our rights."

Now, wearing green jailhouse clothes and chained at the wrists and ankles, Ed appeared calm and compliant. However, when he asked to speak, it was only to emphasize his lack of funds.

Gallagher asked DA Sara Dabkowski what bail she recommended.

"The standard bail schedule would be acceptable," she replied. Gallagher looked this up.
"The bail schedule for 647 (e) is $110," Gallagher announced. Wasn't this bail for 647 (e) last June 10th? Gallagher had issued $50,000 bail! And Ed is neither a flight risk nor has he missed any court appearances.

And why was bail for COLLETTE CONNOLLY and ARTHUR BISHOFF set at $2500? That's 23 times what the courts have set.

Also appearing in court was GARY JOHNSON, also sentenced to 6 months in jail and not qualifying for work furlough or able to claim "extraordinary circumstances." Ed Frey, chained and shackled stood when JOHNSON stood, much to the chagrin of the bailiff.

"But I'm representing MR. JOHNSON!" Ed protested. Then he said, "Your honor, I have no idea what this hearing is about."

Gallagher called City Attorney CAIO ARELLANO to the podium and told him "I asked you to appear to tell us the status of the other infraction charges against Mr. Johnson."

Arrellano asked that they be dismissed. Gary agreed and all 21 infraction citations against Gary Johnson were dismissed. However, he remains jailed on a 6 month sentence.

Outside court, a beaming Diana, Ed's wife, collected tens and twenties offered up by Ed's supporters to raise the $110 quickly. As she prepared to drive to Watsonville to bail Ed out of the Rountree Medium Security Facility where he is housed, she expressed great relief. "It's been a long two weeks."

Free Gary Johnson! Free Ed Frey!

2011-06-14T17:44:00.000-07:00

Homeless Civil Rights Attorney Ed Frey prepares for court at City Hall while taking part of a protest against Sleeping Bans as part of Peace Camp 2010. Frey drove a porto-potty to City Hall at 8PM each night and pulled it away each morning at 8AM in order to facilitate the ability of homeless people to sleep. Peace Camp 2010, in its 3-months of existence provided over 1,000 shelter nights for homeless people who did not or could not fit inside existing shelter space. Frey was sentenced to 6 months in County Jail on June 10, 2011 by Judge John Gallagher. Photo by Shmuel Thayer of the Santa Cruz Sentinel.

by Becky Johnson
June 14, 2011

(This article has been updated on June 22, 2011) - Ed.

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- Houseless civil rights worker, Gary Johnson, and his attorney, Ed Frey, began serving a 6 month term in Santa Cruz County Jail. Gary for sleeping 4 times in a 3-month period, and Ed for having slept three times. Twice on the steps of the Santa Cruz County Courthouse, and once on the bricks at the edge of the plaza at City Hall, a stones' throw from Mayor Ryan Coonerty's office. Both slept out in violation of the Sleeping Ban which outlaws the act of sleeping within the City Limits between 11PM and 8:30AM out of doors or in a vehicle.

Of course only homeless people are every charged with "criminal" sleeping. It is not a little-enforced law, either. MC 6.36.010 a and it's twin, the "Blanket Ban," MC 6.36.010 section b, are cited about 60 times a month within the City limits by police and by Parks and Rec Rangers.

How the City expects to "teach" homeless people to not sleep at night or to not use a blanket at night is never discussed. When Gary Johnson, at his sentencing hearing told Judge John Gallagher, "I can't go three years without sleeping," Gallagher punitively sentenced him to six months in jail for sleeping four times in 90 days. "You can sleep in jail," Gallagher told him.

Had Johnson and Frey been convicted for the City's sleeping ban, they would only have faced a maximum of 8 hours of community service. DA SARA DABKOWSKI asked for fifty times that sentence when she sought 400 hours of community service.

Does Judge Gallagher and the DA Bob Lee expect to turn our county jails into homeless shelters? Indeed, they apparently already have. And those who were marginally housed at the time of jailing will become homeless as well, once they lose a job or can't make their rent. I call this Lose-Lose public policy. Prohibitively expensive homeless "shelters" plus cranking out MORE HOMELESS by the day.

UPDATE JUNE 22 2011: ED FREY called me from jail this morning. He is prisoner # 236511
Those wishing to correspond with ED in jail can write to him at: Rountree Medium Security Jail, 90 Rountree Lane, Watsonville, CA. 95076 phone: (831) 454-5112

ED tells me that his attorney, Peter Leeming, has scheduled a motion to reconsider sentencing at 8:30AM in Dept. 2 before Judge John Gallagher. Supporters are encouraged to attend.

ED says that his family is experiencing severe financial distress as the result of his jailing, and are seeking donations to prevent their own homelessness. In addition to ED's sudden jailing, his wife is helping to care for two newborn grandchildren, the youngest born while ED was in jail.

Please send donations to Ed Frey,
4630 Soquel Dr
Soquel, CA 95073
Or call Phone: 831-479-8911 and leave contact information.

Gary Johnson is also scheduled for a hearing at 8:30AM in Dept 2.

Ed reports that Santa Cruz County Jail is overcrowded, with very little floorspace in which to walk around. People sleep in "boats" which are pulled out at night and placed in common areas. He has spoken with dozens of prisoners, a great percentage are homeless or will be homeless upon release. The law library at the jail has been closed and the books he ordered for his own defense have not yet arrived.

He has since been transferred to the Rountree Facility in Watsonville which he describes as "a country club" compared to SCCJ. "We play ping-pong and watch television. There is much more room to walk around in and the staff are more relaxed."

Ed Frey has asked for legal support to file an appeal and for financial support to help his family survive their loss of the main breadwinner. He is seeking a sentence modification to time served.

Ed Frey, Gary Johnson jailed for 6 months for Sleeping

2011-06-10T14:28:00.000-07:00

Defendants refused 400 hours of Community Service, Punitively sentenced by Judge John Gallagher with the maximum possible sentence: 6 months in jail, 3 years probation;

Frey and Johnson taken by armed sheriffs out of the courtroom in chains to begin serving sentence for the act of sleeping

June 10, 2011
by Becky Johnson

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- It began as a motion by Ed Frey for a new trial. Disturbing reports from the jurors of the Peace Camp Six trial jurors detailed one juror refusing to deliberate, telling all it was a waste of his time, and screaming at another juror who wanted to continue to deliberate---all classic examples of juror misconduct. But Judge John Gallagher was only interested in quashing any such reports by any means possible.

The statements are hearsay," Gallagher ruled. "The proper way was to have contacted jurors and have them deposed."
" I'm asking for that now. I need the names and contact information from the court in order to do that.

"This is not the proper time to make that motion. You had your chance. Motion denied."

The reports issued verbally from the Foreman of the jury and backed up by about 8 jurors were made directly after the jury had been excused, but before the jurors had left the courthouse. In a 30 minute discussion attended by Ed Frey, DA Sara Dabkowski, and recorded by Becky Johnson, several allegations of juror misconduct were made. Ed Frey quoted from a partial transcript of the recording and offered to play the tapes in their entirety for the Judge and the court.

Ed quoted the Jury Foreman who said,

JURY FOREMAN: "I do have a question and maybe you might know something about. If you have a juror who is somewhat belligerent. Didn't want to continue to deliberate--thought it was a waste of their time--After we got through most of the counts, we had one juror who was completely belligerent, who refused to continue with deliberations, who thought it was a waste of their time, how...is there anything a jury can do?"

Then Ed Frey quoted District Attorney's recorded response to the Jury Foreman's statement.

ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY SARA DABKOWSKI: Well I think, potentially, that you could go to the judge with that issue. There is juror misconduct if a person does not attempt at least to deliberate appropriately. There is a process where if they are refusing to deliberate at all, and they are not following the rules, then potentially there could be an investigation. Generally the courts try to stay out of the jury room as much as possible....I've never actually had it come up....but I think that there's a process where you go to the court. I don't know for sure.

Then Ed Frey repeated a statement made by a female juror:

FEMALE JUROR: We didn't want it to end in a mistrial or completely nullify all of our efforts so far. But it was completely impossible!" (laughs).

Finally Ed quoted the jury foreman again.

JURY FOREMAN: For most of the time, I'd say 75% of the process he was mostly quiet, or made a few statements here or there but there were a few times where he crossed the line. He was not professional. We talked about that. But basically he announced he was not going to be professional, and that it was a waste of his time, "My time has been wasted all day. I'm done wasting my time."

Ed told Gallagher that the discussion had been recorded, DA Dabkowski was present for it, and that we were willing to play the tapes for the court. Gallagher was having none of it.

"The tapes are hearsay," he announced. Frey then asked for the names and contact information of the jurors so he could go and get sworn statements from them. Gallagher refused. "You've had ample time to seek that information," he ruled, even though there is no time limit on providing that information to the court. "I'm asking for the time now," Ed responded.

"Motion denied."

I reeled. In another court on another day, I had been called before the judge and quizzed and then chastized for having SPOKEN to a juror! Here 8 out of 12 jurors were complaining of actual juror misconduct and Gallagher couldn't dispose of that quickly enough!!

So much for the APPEARANCE of propriety!

Having lost the motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct, Frey moved to the more difficult area: Gallagher's OWN misconduct. It's never easy getting a sitting judge to admit he made an error.

Frey challenged Gallagher for having provided for the jurors his own definition of "lodging" since PC 647 (e) did not come with such a definition.

"Where did you get the authority to claim the definition of illegal lodging included sleeping? It's not in the law itself. Opposing counsel cited two authorities, neither of which addressed sleeping as a criminal act. The defendants last August had no access to a definition of "lodging." The sheriff's who enforced it had no guidelines or definition to determine what "lodging" was. Only when we get to trial do we find that you, yourself provide that definition to the jury. Where did you get that definition? On what authority did you base it?

"And how were the defendants last August supposed to know what "lodging" is? You, yourself said it is equivalent to sleeping. But where did you get that?"

"I got it from a dictionary," Gallagher admitted, so softly his words were barely audible. "And the defendants were warned first that they were illegally lodging."

Gallagher was referring to the unsigned notice sheriffs handed out to anyone at Peace Camp 2010 who was sleeping when they came around. Since they only cited people who were sleeping, it appeared to all that the county was only concerned about arresting people for sleeping. Even the jury foreman mentioned it.

PHOTO: Copy of unsigned notice given by sheriffs to Peace Camp 2010 protesters an hour before arrests were made. Photo by Becky Johnson

JURY FOREMAN: Personally I found it pretty crappy that it was clear that they were citing people as soon as they fell asleep. That was the one thing they were really going after.

Frey was adamant about pressing this point. He had filed a motion to dismiss based on vagueness of PC 647 (e) at a January 21st hearing this year. At that hearing, DA Sara Dabkowski argued that a definition was not necessary since "everyone knows what "lodging" means. It is a common word that puts people on notice that they can't lodge, can't live, can't stay the night, can't sleep somewhere, can't set up roots somewhere if they don't have permission. So it's not unconstitutionally vague on its face as written." A complete transcript of that hearing can be found here.

Yet at trial, and against the objections of the defense, Judge John Gallagher introduced his own definition of "lodging" to help the jurors reach a verdict. Gallagher told the jury that they should use this definition of lodging: "to lodge means to settle or live in a place, that may include sleeping."

He told the jurors as part of the Judge's instructions, "Even if you disagree with the law, you must follow the law." But whose law? The law passed by the California legislature? Or the law as defined by John Gallagher from a dictionary at trial?

He told jurors that to find a defendant guilty of illegal lodging, they must "commit the prohibited act with wrongful intent."

"The defendants are charged with unlawful lodging. To find them guilty you must:

1. determine that the defendant lodged in a building, structure, or place
2. defendant did not have the permission of the owner or person in charge

After the verdict, jurors confessed that they had relied on the definition of lodging as supplied by Judge Gallagher to reach it's verdict. They were asked whether they were concerned that the definition of "lodging" was something that just popped out of the judge's mouth and was not contained in the law.

JURY FOREMAN: Well, I'm glad that the definition of "lodging" did pop out of the judge's mouth because otherwise we would have had no way of knowing what "lodging" was one way or another, other than, I suppose, our own general sense. Since "lodging" was defined by the judge, that made it pretty clear.

AND

JURY FOREMAN: "If we had not been given that instruction....you're right, "to lodge" is very vague."

ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY SARA DABKOWSKI had, at the time, defended Gallagher's decision to provide a definition of "lodging" for the jury. She put forth that "with the lodging we thought it helpful to give a definition." (Was the "we" the prosecution and the judge acting together as a team?)

But at today's June 10th hearing, DABKOWSKI sniffed that her two authorities cited by the prosecution that "We didn't say they defined 'lodging'. It was about conduct. The man was sleeping in a tent."

There were no tents at Peace Camp 2010 and the ONE citation made by the prosecution was not using 647 (e) and did involve using a tent.

"Mr. Frey had the opportunity to offer his own definition," Dabkowski offered, but that begged the question of when? Gallagher had given it to the jury during the "Judges Instructions" portion of the trial. Certainly Frey couldn't have done it then.

And if Frey could have, then he surely he would have. He surely would have included the 1st amendment as part of the instructions, that "Congress shall make no law which abridges the freedom of speech...the right to peaceably assemble...and the right to redress government grievances." Pulling out a law that no one had ever used, that was not defined, and was selectively enforced only against the protesters, surely violated these Constitutional protections.

Gallagher denied that the protesters in August 2010 didn't know what "lodging" meant. To him it didn't matter. "I think you knew (you were illegally lodging) because the officer told you that you were." But did the officer's themselves know what constituted illegal lodging?

When asked on the stand, Lt. Fred Plageman, the highest ranking officer at the County Building, and who had directed the busts last August, testified that they cited people sleeping in bedding because "one could draw the conclusion that they are there to spend the night." But, as far as in custody arrests for illegal lodging, Plageman was surprisingly opposed. "Custody is a big drain on resources, and not necessary for this type of offense."

Frey told the court, " We see now, very clearly, that no one knows what "lodging"means until the time of trial. A written warning does not meet the test. And this court had so little confidence that the jury could find what "lodging" is, they felt they had to supply their own definition.

Indeed, Gallagher's language, which he claims came from a dictionary, contains suspect language. He used the term "settled in" as an indication of illegal behavior. There is legal precedent for this language. Article 13 of Indiana's 1851 Constitution stated "No Negro or Mulatto shall come into, or settle in, the State, after the adoption of this Constitution."

While PC 647 (e) does not prohibit blacks from coming into the State, it does condemn to jail any person found within the State boundaries who does not have some form of permission to to sleep, live, or spend the night. That means any person in the State of California can be arrested on sight if they can't prove they have permission to "live" somewhere.

This sounds little different than article 13 of the Indiana State Constitution of 1851. Just substitute the word "homeless" for "Negro."

But the County of Santa Cruz, the County Sheriffs, City police, and the judges at the Santa Cruz County Courthouse have all decided that sleeping is a criminal act. They have decided that depriving homeless people of any right to sleep, any ability to sleep on either public or private property is the cornerstone of their policy to criminalize homelessness. And the jails are full of homeless people.
"I instructed correctly at trial that sleeping is part of the definition of lodging. And you can be punished for that conduct."

DA DABKOWSKI moved on to the sentencing phase. "We are asking for 400 hours of community service from Mr. Frey. People who worked at the County Building said they feared for their safety when they had to walk by people."

Frey argued, "We were expressing ourselves. The first amendment is the most valid right we have. 400 hours of labor for expressing ourselves? That's outrageous. I didn't even know there was a "lodging" law. We were there to protest the Sleeping Ban of the City. We were speaking on behalf of the poorest of the poor. 400 hours is outrageous. I won't serve them."

"Then I sentence you to 6 months in County Jail," Gallagher announced, the maximum sentence possible under 647 (e). Frey asked to be released long enough so he could file an appeal.

"Okay. $50,000 bail!" Double-outrageous.
"I can't find it in any of the laws that were cited that you can't sleep. Go home tonight and sleep if you can, and let my words ring in your ears."

Then Gallagher turned to Gary Johnson, who is homeless. "Do you accept 400 hours of community service?"
"I have more of a problem with the 3 years probation clause "obey all laws." I have to sleep. I can't go three years without sleeping."
"Are you turning down the conditions?"
"It's not that I won't. I can't. I have to sleep. I have to sleep tonight. Where can I go and legally sleep in the State of California?"
"Do you accept the 400 hours of Community service?"
"As a citizen and a patriot, I cannot."
"Okay. Then 6 months in the County Jail for you too. Report to jail next Friday at 3PM."
"But I have to sleep TONIGHT."
"Okay. You can sleep in jail. You will be remanded into custody at the end of this hearing."

Gary Johnson and Ed Frey were handcuffed and led off to jail by County Sheriff's. A protest is scheduled for Monday, June 13th, on the County Courthouse steps beginning at 7:30AM and continuing until....

Quotations on Jury Nullification

2011-05-21T07:15:00.000-07:00

by Becky Johnson
May 21 2011

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- I have a gripe with the Santa Cruz County Superior Court. It has to do with the jury instructions given to jurors at criminal trials. The most recent example of this was at the Peace Camp Six trial before Judge John Gallagher. Gallagher told the jurors that they "must follow the law, even if you disagree with the law." Huh???? WHY do our judges do this? Why do they pre-empt the authority of the jurors to judge both the facts AND the law?

I assume they do it to get convictions. If jurors were allowed to judge the law itself....well anarchy would reign! Laws against sleeping, use of marijuana, or, as happened prior to the Civil War, slavery laws might not be enforceable if twelve citizens cannot agree in the justice of the law.

But don't take my word for it. What follows are quotes from some of our most famous jurists throughout US history. Let's see if their words bear any relevance on how juries are instructed in the Santa Cruz County court system.

"If a juror feels that the statute involved in any criminal offence is unfair, or that it infringes upon the defendant’s natural God-given unalienable or Constitutional rights, then it is his duty to affirm that the offending statute is really no law at all and that the violation of it is no crime at all, for no one is bound to obey an unjust law.

"That juror must vote Not Guilty regardless of the pressures or abuses that may be heaped on him by any or all members of the jury with whom he may in good conscience disagree. He is voting on the justice of the law according to his own conscience and convictions and not someone else’s. The law itself is on trial quite as much as the case which is to be decided."
U.S. Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone, 1941-1946.

"It is not only his Right but his Duty to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." -- U.S. President John Adams, a lawyer, speaking about the Juror

"The Jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."--U.S. Chief Justice John Jay

According to US Legal, Inc, "The right of jury nullification originated in what is referred to as Bushell’s Case, an English court decision from 1670. William Penn, the eventual founder of Pennsylvania, was accused of holding an illegal meeting. The jury, based on inconclusive evidence, acquitted Penn and his co-defendant Bushell. The judge retaliated against the jury by fining and imprisoning them. After several weeks, Bushell asked for an appeal of the trial judge’s action against the jurors. The judge for a higher court set the jury free and said that because reasonable people can look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion, juries are free to decide as they see fit regardless of whether the judge believes they had an legally adequate reason."

Although this was a case in English law, the principal established applies to US law as well.

Julian Heiklend offers this description of Jury Nullification, or the ability of the jury to try both the facts and the law in this way:

"Jury nullification was introduced into America in 1735 in the trial of John Peter Zenger, Printer of The New York Weekly Journal. Zenger repeatedly attacked Governor William Cosby of New York in his journal. This was a violation of the seditious libel law, which prohibited criticism of the King or his appointed officers. The attacks became sufficient to bring Zenger to trial. He clearly was guilty of breaking the law, which held that true statements could be libelous. However Zenger's lawyer, Andrew Hamilton, addressed himself to the jury, arguing that the court's law was outmoded. Hamilton contended that falsehood was the principal thing that makes a libel. It took the jury only a few minutes to nullify the law and declare Zenger not guilty. Ever since, the truth has been a defense in libel cases."

"When a difference in sentiment takes place between the judges and jury, with regard to a point of law,...The jury must do their duty, and their whole duty; They must decide the law as well as the fact." -- Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice James Wilson 1790

It should be noted that in 1879, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated that "the power of the jury to be judge of the law in criminal cases is one of the most valuable securities guaranteed by the Bill of Rights."

"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts. " -- Samuel Chase, U. S. Supreme Court Justice and signer of the Declaration of Independence 1796

"The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact." --U. S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes 1902

"The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge." -- from a 1972 decision (U. S. v Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139)

"There is a practice of judges to incorrectly instruct the jury that the judge determines the law, and that the jury is limited to determining the facts. Such an instruction defeats the purpose of the jury, which is to protect the defendant from the tyranny of the state. Judges or expert witnesses can determine the facts better than juries can. The purpose of the jury is to protect the defendant from the tyranny of the law." ---Julian Heiklend

"The jury's responsibility is to deliver justice, not to uphold the law." --- Victor Hugo from Les Miserables

"In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the judge of Law, as well as of fact, except that the Court may pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction."--Article 23 of the Maryland Bill of Rights

Jury Nullification was used towards the end of prohibition when juries refused to convict for possession or use of alcohol. This was a factor in bringing about the end of prohibition.

The primary function of the independent juror is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by government. The Constitution guarantees you the right to trial by jury. This means that the government must bring its case before a jury of The People if government wants to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property. Jurors can say "no" to government tyranny by refusing to convict." ---from the Fully Informed Jury Association

"The judge is a witness who testifies as to what the law is, and the jury is free to accept or reject his testimony like any other." -- from the Tennessee Supreme Court in Nelson v. State 1852

So jurors have a very important job. They are to be the final check against tyranny by government. They have not only the right but the duty to judge both the facts and the law. In Santa Cruz, juries should examine whether a ban on Sleeping and a ban on using a blanket with which to keep warm are truly crimes punishable under the law. Unfortunately, they must do so against the explicit instructions of Santa Cruz County judges. However, justice demands that they do. To do anything less, is to violate the civil rights of homeless people who must sleep at night and must stay warm by using blankets or bedding.

Transcript of Juror post-verdict interview May 3 2011

2011-05-17T12:40:00.000-07:00

The following are outtakes from five separate audio recordings of Defense Attorney, Ed Frey, District Attorney, Sara Dabkowski, Becky Johnson, Linda Lemaster, with Jury Foreman, Mr. Kauffman, and with 8 jurors. A ninth juror opted to not be recorded and can be heard asking that the recording be turned off. The other jurors said he was a doctor, practicing at Dominican Hospital, and that he was the bullying and non-participating juror.

AUDIOTAPE # 1 1min and 42 seconds

BECKY: Do you mind talking to us a moment about the case?
FEMALE JUROR: I can't. I've got classes. (walks by hurriedly. This juror had formerly agreed to be interviewed by Becky, and was a student at UCSC).
(Becky confronts DA Bob Lee as he walks through the hall "Do you want to talk about your verdict? That you've solved homelessness in Santa Cruz County? That you can have every homeless person arrested on sight?" Lee passes through without comment. Becky returns to interviewing jurors)

BECKY: Do you mind talking about the case?
FOREMAN KAUFFMAN: ....we had a juror that didn't feel that any more discussion would be helpful, was a waste of his or her time. And really wasn't willing to allow for further discussion to happen.
SARA DABKOWSKI: Are you aware that a recording device is on? And do you object to a recording being made of this discussion?
FOREMAN KAUFFMAN: No, I don't.
SARAH DABKOWSKI: So it started at 11 - 1 where that one person just didn't want to talk about that count anymore?
FOREMAN KAUFFMAN: I don't want to comment on that.
SARA DABKOWSKI: That's fair.What do you feel like was the sticking point about on that particular count?
FOREMAN KAUFFMAN: I don't think it was neccessarily about that particular count. It was a question of general time. One person felt that was it.
SARA DABKOWSKI: Was there anything that could be made more clear? In terms of all the other counts, where you were able to reach a decision, was there anything that I could have done to make your job more clear?
JUROR (a doctor ): I'll speak to that. But I don't want to be recorded. (end of clip)

AUDIOCLIP#2: 16 min and 5 sec
.....was the dog, was that part of it? (yeah)
JURY FOREMAN KAUFMAN: I would like to partly disagree with that. Speaking for myself anyway, I didn't feel that I necessarily had the time I needed to fully hear everyone to decide whether or not I was absolutely convinced one-way or another regarding Mr. Anderson.
SARA DABKOWSKI: Yeah.

ED FREY: Are any or you or are all of you convinced you don't have any ownership of this property?

(DA Bob Lee walks through and Becky asks him again if he's now going to have all homeless people arrested and convicted. Lee continues walking without comment.)

K: I do have an opinion about that. We live in a representational government and we elect officials, and they don't obviously do what we want to do, but we do elect them. but that is the way our government is run. It's my belief that...
ED FREY: Actually, the corporations elect our public officials with their campaign contributions.
K: Fair enough.
ED FREY: The corporations are in charge.
K: I'm not going to disagree with that. But we do elect those people, and this is, whether you like it or not, how our government is run and how our laws are run and until you change the laws unfortunately....
ED FREY: What do elections have to do with ownership of the property?
K: Well the people of California...I'm not 100% sure of this, but based on your testimony, I'll believe that the people of California own these grounds. If that's true then the representatives that are elected by the people of California are the people who are in control of these grounds. Obviously every single one of us isn't able to have the same day-to-day...uhm...what am I trying to say? We can't do every single job there is to do in the State of California, all of us standing here. We elect someone to be a judge. We've elected someone to do all kinds of different jobs. We elect those people. So we've elected someone to take control of the grounds.
If we don't like the way they are controlling the grounds, we should elect someone else to change the laws. Unfortunately, that person has been elected to do that, whether you disagree with it or not.

BECKY: Were you concerned that 647 (e) had never been enforced before in this county before August 6th?
K: Yeah. Yeah sure. But I don't see how that could affect how I decided in the case.
BECKY: Isn't is possible that this ordinance was just picked to get everybody off the steps and away from City Hall?
K: Absolutely. I think that's possible.
BECKY: And were you also concerned that even after they left the steps and they left the courthouse, that they would still be in violation of 647 (e) unless they stayed awake all night?
K: Yes. I agree. It's possible.
BECKY: Do you think the repercussions now, as a consequence of your verdict be that the sheriff's will now begin enforcing 647 (e) all over the County against any person who appears to be homeless?
K: Perhaps. And if they do, and people in the County feel it's wrong then they should change the law--WE should change the law.
BECKY: Were you aware that at the time the law was enforced, the sheriffs were unaware of this law even as it was being enforced?
K: Excuse me? Sorry, can you repeat that?
BECKY: The testimony of all the police officers was that they had really no information about enforcement of this law before August 6th. That they'd never used it before, they didn't have any particular experience with it. They just started using it August 6th for this protest
K: My understanding was that when they enforced the law they were aware of the law. Maybe not very far beforehand. But when they enforced it, they were aware of it.
BECKY: And were you concerned that the definition of "lodging" was something that just popped out of the judge's mouth and was not contained in the law?
K: Well, I'm glad that the definition of "lodging" did pop out of the judge's mouth because otherwise we would have had no way of knowing what "lodging" was one way or another, other than, I suppose, our own general sense.
BECKY: So how were defendants who....
ED FREY: So how is a person who is actually engaged in this activity, how is that person supposed to know what lodging is? If you don't know what it is, (ED points at jurors) and you don't know what it means, and he doesn't know what it means, and she doesn't know what it means, then how is the defendant supposed to know what it is?
(interruption by DA DABKOWSKI)

K: right. And we were specifically told that ignorance of the law does not in any way change whether or not you violate it. ...Sorry. We were told that.
FEMALE JUROR: We have to follow the law. We were told that. It's not as if we had a choice.

ED FREY: So the emergency or the word "emergency" was troublesome?
K: Yeah there were some of us who in general believe homelessness itself constitutes an emergency. It was hard for us to come to a conclusion on this. We had trouble coming to a general conclusion on this. For some people an emergency is when you have to call an ambulance, someone is dying right now. Right now. Now vs. a longterm issue like homelessness, sure, it was a tough point for us.

ED FREY: How long should a homeless person have to stay awake, since there is not one square inch in the State of California, where a person can go to sleep legally if he doesn't have a property right somewhere, How long does a person have to stay awake before you're going to excuse him from this cruel law"
DA DABKOWSKI INTERRUPTS AGAIN: "You know I don't think the juror should have to answer..."
K: No. I want to.
DA DABKOWSKI: Well if they want to they can.
JURY FOREMAN KAUFMAN: I think you should be able to sleep anywhere. I do. I don't have a problem with it. I personally think I should be able to go outside right now and sleep if I wanted to, and so should you and you and you. And I should be able to do it at 4AM in the morning if I want to. As long as I'm not causing any trouble, that's my personal opinion.
5:52
And so I think to enforce a law which was maybe... slanted a little bit one way or another in order to do this one thing. get what they wanted they chose to enforce a law because they wanted to get the people out of there. Was that right? You know (makes a hand gesture indicating indecision)--ehhhn--I don't know. But was it a law that was enforceable by those methods? Yes, it was there on the books. Yes. It was there. It was used.
ED FREY: Isn't that like a good German soldier? Just following orders?
K: Well the difference is, no one has died. And to equate this to the holocaust is, a little...I think the insinuation is a little too strong I think (laughs) . To compare this to Nazi Germany is....
BECKY: Would you have been persuaded if you knew the homeless death toll, last year 32 deaths in the City of Santa Cruz alone?
K: That's awful. That's awful.
BECKY: And couldn't the Sleeping Ban have...?
ED FREY: And the reason for it is people are willing to kick the homeless in the teeth when they are down.
K: That's awful. That's horrible.
ED FREY: They continue to prosecute them, to send them to jail, just because they are homeless.
K: We should change the laws.
ED FREY: I tried. I tried with this judge. With a full motion with this judge based on the Constitution and he rejected it. Back in January. Even though the Constitution gives the right to freedom, to the pursuit of happiness under the US Constitution, and the right to freedom and the pursuit of happiness, under the California State Constitution, the right to pursue safety. The right to pursue privacy. He still rejected it. And even under the 9th amendment to the US Constitution that says that all rights are retained by the people. He rejected all of these arguments.
K: You have my full support in trying to change laws which are unjust.
(GAP)
7:47 into clip
DA DABKOWSKI-- (re: jury instructions) "with the lodging we thought it helpful to give a definition."
8:24 FOREMAN KAUFMAN: "If we had not been given that instruction....you're right, "to lodge" is very vague"

FEMALE JUROR: For me a factor that weighed very large is that they had been warned that they were, indeed, lodging. If they had not been warned, then that would again be different.

ED FREY: Did any of you hear the potential juror mention jury nullification before the trial during the jury picking? Does anyone know what jury nullification is?
(General "no's")
BECKY: So you didn't think that as a juror you had the right to judge the law or perhaps in this application it was politically motivated?
MALE JUROR: It doesn't matter what the motivation was. The defendants were charged with lodging. That being political and protesting...well...it didn't mean much.
ED FREY: What did you think that an emergency existed socially and that we needed to protest that social emergency, that political emergency? Do you have any ideas about that?
FEMALE JUROR: Probably our hardest point. I think that some people who were even staunchly on the other side felt some ambiguity in that issue. Some people. SOME people definitely didn't. It depends on how narrowly you want to define it. ( 8:51 INTO CLIP) Like an emergency being immediately life threatening like a person chasing you with a knife emergency, or a societal emergency --they are so far apart that it that it's almost impossible for a jury to define or to really know exactly what that is.
(MISSING TEXT)
(9:29 into clip)
FEMALE JUROR: There were a lot of other criteria to the necessity defense that others didn't necessarily meet.
ED FREY: So what were the other criteria that we didn't meet?
FEMALE JUROR: Ohhh, here we go! I was afraid you'd ask that. Can anyone else here help me out? (general laughing).
at 10:05
K: Since "lodging" was defined by the judge, that made it pretty clear and we all agreed on the question of who controlled the premises.
DA DABKOWSKI: In terms of the officers, do you think it would have been helpful to provide more information, what each person was doing,

K: personally I found it pretty crappy that it was clear that they were citing people as soon as they fell asleep. That was the one thing they were really going after. I knew they were doing that just so they could have without question, in-the-bag as far as what lodging was but...I think Mr. Frey laid out a pretty good defense that it was unfair and basically what you were doing, was citing people for being asleep.
ED FREY: Thank-you.
(GAP)
FEMALE JUROR: I wasn't one of those people.
(GAP)
contributing to the emergency was one of them
(GAP)
BECKY: Do you think a reasonable person might fall asleep at night?
FEMALE JUROR: Well, that's a silly question. Of course everyone needs to sleep at night.
BECKY: Well the officer's testimony. I believe it was about Gary Johnson. He said that Johnson had just been released 6 days earlier for the crime or the conduct. And there he was, six days later engaging in the same conduct as before, which was sleeping. Didn't it cross your mind that normal people sleep twice within six days.
FEMALE JUROR: Well of course people sleep each night.
BECKY: So where was Gary Johnson supposed to go to sleep legally that night?
FEMALE JUROR: Where had he slept before dozens if not hundreds of other nights?
BECKY: Hiding in bushes...
GALLAGHER'S BAILIFF: (INTERRUPTING) Anyone who wants to can leave. I don't mean to interrupt...
BECKY: You just interrupted.
GALLAGHER'S BAILIFF: ...no one has to stay here.
BECKY: Where could Gary Johnson go that night where he wouldn't be ...
DISSENTING FEMALE JUROR: Excuse me. I just wanted to say, if there were more instructions around being able to make decisions based on a political decision...if we had been given those instructions, that would have impacted our deliberations greatly.
ED FREY: If you were given more instructions on civil disobedience?
(GAP)
13:16
BECKY: Were you influenced at all by the Judge announcing at the beginning of the jury selection that this group of people who were camping on the courthouse steps last summer as (GAP)

FEMALE JUROR: I felt that both sides agreed on that. You and both the prosecution agreed that people were up there...what she's trying to say...that wasn't in dispute
JURY FOREMAN KAUFMAN: That you and the prosecution pretty much agreed you were camping.
FEMALE JUROR: it didn't seem like it was something the prosecution was saying that you were arguing against.

You felt that the defendants arrived pretty much announced that they were camping and guilty of 647 (e)

you were greatly constricted
we were greatly influenced in our verdict based on all of the instructions

it had some influence, definitely.
without any def

on public property

the law specifically stated it included public property and so we didn't have any wiggle room.

whether it was public

Audiotape # 3 at about 8:54

(SKIPPED TEXT)

JURY FOREMAN MR. KAUFMAN: I do have a question and maybe you might know something about. If you have a juror who is somewhat belligerent. Didn't want to continue to deliberate--thought it was a waste of their time--After we got through most of the counts, we had one juror who was completely belligerent, who refused to continue with deliberations, who thought it was a waste of their time, how...is there anything a jury can do?
DA DABKOWSKI: Well I think, potentially, that you could go to the judge with that issue. There is juror misconduct if a person does not attempt at least to deliberate appropriately. There is a process where if they are refusing to deliberate at all, and they are not following the rules, then potentially there could be an investigation. Generally the courts try to stay out of the jury room as much as possible....I've never actually had it come up....but I think that there's a process where you go to the court. I don't know for sure.
FEMALE JUROR: We didn't want it to end in a mistrial or completely nullify all of our efforts so far. But it was completely impossible!" (laughs)
ED FREY: Can I ask, in your opinion was that one person who was hostile to the whole process, did that person just cave in because he or she just wanted to get out of here?
FEMALE JUROR: No. He was on the side most of us were on, He was leaning towards guilty.

He was screaming at her...it was so awful...
DA DABKOWSKI: It's okay to let the bailiff know.
FEMALE JUROR: It was really awful.

DA DABKOWSKI: I'm really sorry to hear that. Well obviously, you don't want to have a bad experience and not want to be a juror in the future so I'm really sorry to hear that.

This one person, I thought that during the selection of the jury...he made a lot of statements
you're talking about a doctor He's a neurologist Santa Cruz Medical Foundation

everyone else was having reasonable dialogue but we were taken away. He snapped.
JURY FOREMAN MR. KAUFMAN: For most of the time, I'd say 75% of the process he was mostly quiet, or made a few statements here or there but there were a few times where he crossed the line. He was not professional. We talked about that. But basically he announced he was not going to be professional, and that it was a waste of his time, "My time has been wasted all day. I'm done wasting my time."

on the 13 countes you were able to read\\

we saved the stuff that was harder for hte end and he wasn't willilng to hear it.
10:40
DA DABKOWSKI I didn't think
he's a doctor? A neurologist.

Generally he'll ask the judge.

Everybody else was having reasonable dialogue. I mean, we were chipping away at it.

was it immediately or later on?

It was immediately. But he snapped after lunch.

End the Sleeping Ban in Santa Cruz

2011-05-15T12:26:00.000-07:00

Robert Norse: City can save thousands of dollars by ending sleeping ban

Santa Cruz Sentinel Guest Opinion
Posted: 05/15/2011 01:30:55 AM PDT
Found online here.

by Robert Norse

Still from video by Becky Johnson at the Santa Cruz City Council meeting on March 12, 2002

I've offered to settle a costly lawsuit. I'll drop my financial demands for tens of thousands of dollars in the "two-second mock-Nazi lawsuit" if the city of Santa Cruz will stop wasting money on ticketing homeless people for sleeping where they must at night. But Mayor Ryan Coonerty and his Council say no.

They don't mind spending scarce city money paying police to harass people for sitting down within 14 feet of a vacant building, playing a musical instrument for donation within 10 feet of a penguin sculpture or holding up a sign silently after dark asking for food. Such confrontations can and do prompt arrests and more costs.

In the last year the city spent more money on police, hosts and private "security." For what? To bust the poor for sitting on a public bench for more than an hour? For smoking a cigarette outside the library after it's closed? For holding up an "End the Sleeping Ban" sign at City Hall at 10:30 at night? Cops spent public money to take all these "crimes" to court last year.

It's illegal to be in any park after dark, including the huge Pogonip area, where hundreds of homeless sleepers hide. Sleepers without options are busted in front of churches, even those that have given their permission. "Falling asleep while poor" in liberal Santa Cruz is still a crime. Meanwhile Los Angeles, San Diego, Laguna Beach and other more conservative cities have abolished their sleeping bans.

When critics like myself come to City Hall to object to these abuses, we face hostility, discrimination, and, if we persist, the creation of special "rules" to muzzle our speech. This pattern of City Council repression against activists is the reality behind the illusion of "decorum." Maintaining this illusion and the power it masks is the real reason for all the money spent dragging out this lawsuit.

The latest is the hiring of an out-of-state law firm to prepare an appeal to the Supreme Court because, as city attorney George Kovacevitch absurdly puts it, "we have a shot, arguably, albeit a small one." I'm told that chance is 5 percent.

The lawsuit: In March 2002, as a silent protest almost as a humorous sigh, I made a brief, silent "don't act like a fascist" mock-Nazi salute and was arrested. View it here. Only Councilman Tim Fitzmaurice noticed. Then-mayor Christopher Krohn had me arrested, handcuffed and jailed with no charges ever filed. I sued for false arrest.

Nine years later in December, a rarely convened 11-member panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the city to face a jury for its actions. Defending this lawsuit has already cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars.

In response, I've offered to drop my lawsuit for personal damages if the city will agree to changes in the Council rules restoring fair public input, attorney's fees, and repeal of the camping ban as long as the current shelter emergency in the city persists there is shelter for less than 10 percent of the city's homeless.

Let's end such costly stupidities as last year's seven-day infraction trial for singing homeless songs near Mayor Coonerty's Bookshop Santa Cruz, the week-long misdemeanor Peace Camp 5 trial for sleeping, and the city attorney's personal appearance to convict Wes Modes of walking in a New Year's eve parade.

If the Council won't listen, let's make them bite the fiscal bullet by ballot initiative.

Sign the on-line petition at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/761/petition-to-settle-the-lawsuit-with-robert-norse/

For more background see http://beckyjohnsononewomantalking.blogspot.com/search/label/Nazi%20Salute .

Robert Norse is a longtime activist for the homeless and homeless issues.

Peaceable Assembly disturbed by police and DA

2011-05-10T18:08:00.000-07:00

NOTE TO READER: As many readers may know, the defendants were found guilty of PC 647 (e), illegal lodging on the Courthouse steps. At the May 10th sentencing hearing, Ed Frey made a motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct at the Peace Camp Six trial. Sentencing has been postponed and a June 1st hearing on that motion is scheduled. --ed

Protesters bed down at night on the courthouse steps in Santa Cruz, Calif. to protest the Sleeping Ban. Photo by Becky Johnson July 10, 2010

County Shouldn’t Punish Civic Activists

Several Peace Camp 2010 demonstrators face criminal charges

By City on a Hill Press

City on a Hill Press

Published May 5, 2011 at 3:19 am

Found online here.

The right to assemble is guaranteed in the First Amendment to the Constitution for a reason: liberty depends upon it.

This week, the Santa Cruz County Superior Court is moving forward with the trial of six people accused of illegally camping outside government buildings in the summer of 2010. Five men and one woman rolled out their sleeping bags over the summer with dozens of others who protested a city ordinance that bans sleeping outside at night in public places.

Peace Camp 2010, as it became known, began July 4 on the county courthouse steps and continued to Santa Cruz City Hall, where it ended in October. Many demonstrators were cited and arrested, but judges dismissed nearly all violations except for those of the six defendants in this week’s case.

Eliot “Bob” Anderson, Arthur Bishoff, Collette Connolly, Christopher Doyon, Gary Johnson and Ed Frey stand accused of breaking a state lodging law by participating in the protest against the anti-camping policy. If sentenced, the group could face jail time, exorbitant fines or community service.

On Tuesday, four defendants were found guilty, Anderson was dismissed because of a hung jury, and Doyon did not show up to court. He is now facing a warrant for arrest. Sentencing is expected on May 10.

The protest was intended to scrutinize the constitutionality of a policy with questionable implications. While thousands of homeless people reside in Santa Cruz County, there are only a couple hundred beds in county shelters to accommodate them.

Demonstrators argued that local governments’ insistence on presenting a wholesome image is infringing on the basic rights to life and liberty, including the very personal decision of where to sleep at night.

Because the camping ordinance criminalizes sleeping outside of a private residence, thousands of people need to “get on their feet” or “get out of town.” Unfortunately, both of these clichés are easier said than done.

Unemployment has made even the most qualified job seekers desperate for minimum wage employment. People without residences are often excluded from jobs, and while there are a few exceptions, most find the transition from street life to mainstream society painful and ultimately unsuccessful.

To top it off, state and local governments across the country actively expel the homeless with strictly enforced anti-camping policies. In more extreme cases, the homeless are bussed to other places.

Ordinances like the one in Santa Cruz exist across the country. The logic for many cities is that if sleeping outside is allowed in one town (especially a beautiful one with a mild climate), then the homeless will come flocking to sleep on the streets.

This may be true. However, the exclusion of residence-less persons from a community is both elitist and immoral. Santa Cruz should be concerned with maximizing liberty, not avoiding a population of people who sleep on the streets.

There is no point in targeting these six demonstrators, especially in light of charges being dropped against all other protesters. It is a way for the city to show that it is tough on crime. Yet, shouldn’t we be congratulating these protesters for recognizing a potentially unconstitutional policy and taking action against it?

Beyond the questionable ethics of the policy itself, there is no reasonable explanation for why these six people specifically are facing court charges.

The right to assemble is a clear and non-negotiable right in this country. It has been essential to important social movements throughout U.S. history: abolition after the Civil War, women’s suffrage after that, progressive reform in the 1930s, and most present in the recent consciousness, the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

For Santa Cruz to claim that the assembly of those six protesters was illegal because they were in sleeping bags is appalling. Peace Camp 2010 was a peaceful demonstration and, as such, it is protected under the First Amendment.

Basic rights are not contingent on a person’s residential status. Each of us has the right and the responsibility to protest unfair and discriminatory laws.

Budget Considerations in the Peace Camp 2010 Trials

2011-05-07T08:18:00.000-07:00

by Becky Johnson
May 7 2011

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- With City and County budgets in crisis, social service programs cut to the bone or eliminated entirely, the Peace Camp 2010 misdemeanor prosecutions may seem a waste of time and money. Actually they are an OBSCENE waste of time and money. But to certain parties, these trials are a cash cow.

First, a little bit about how the organizers

District Attorney, Bob Lee
Photo by Schmuel Thayer March 2011

of Peace Camp 2010 last summer considered our impact on the community in general and the County Building in particular. We also considered the possible consequences of citations or arrests of the people we were attempting to shelter.

We researched the County Camping Ban and found our group would not be subject to it. We anticipated ticketing under infraction MC 6.36.010 section a a.k.a. the Sleeping Ban (a subsection of the Camping Ban). And we believed that any homeless person charged would likely be acquitted by using a defense of necessity since no one disputes there are more homeless people than the available shelter. Even a conviction would only result in 8 hours of community service (a small WIN we'd achieved back in 2000).

No one anticipated ticket and arrest under PC 647 (e). Bob Lee pulled that out of complete obscurity to use against us.

We are still researching its legislative history, but early research shows it to be based on a BLACK CODE from the late 1800's to prevent freed slaves from moving into California.

Its language prevents "illegal lodging" anywhere in the State on both public and private property without the permission of the owner. A similar law, Article 13 of Indiana's 1851 Constitution stated "No Negro or Mulatto shall come into, or settle in, the State, after the adoption of this Constitution." This term "settled in" as a crime, is the exact same language Judge John Gallagher used to define "lodging" for the jury that convicted 4 Peace Camp 2010 defendants on May 4th.

Of course we didn't NEED to tell people that they may be cited or arrested. They LIVE it every day. Local attorney, ED FREY offered to defend pro bono anyone arrested with Robert Norse, myself, and others from HUFF providing tactical support. But NONE of us are paid for this unlike DA SARAH DABKOWSKI and her 31 law enforcement witnesses. THEY are all paid HANDSOMELY!

Subpoenaed for the trial, 29 law enforcement individuals--all paid for a half day if testifying on their off-time. And PAID and in uniform, if called to testify during their regular shift.
City and County staff members, Dinah Phillips, Dannette Shoemaker --with annual salaries of $118,296 and $159,111 respectively, plus any expense for photos, videos, or other exhibits was paid for by the DA's office because their expenses are considered too vital to cut.

"Key public safety positions, including prosecutors and sheriff's deputies, will be spared layoffs...." --from the Santa Cruz Sentinel

"There are particular areas where reductions are not as great," she (Susan Mauriello) said, referring particularly to public safety services in the Sheriff's Office and District Attorney's Office."

Needless to say that DA Sarah Dabkowski is paid over $60,000/yr and the Judge is in the hundred-thousand a year club.

None of the defendants, their witnesses, their supporters, or the ONE attorney we had were paid. No wonder the trials continue unabated. The money virtually pours into District Attorney Bob Lee's office as the chance to arrest and try homeless defendants for misdemeanor lodging are unabated "make work" for law enforcement and DA's alike.

So let justice roll, Santa Cruz Style. Ka-ching!

City hires big city attorney to fight Nazi-Salute Case

2011-05-06T12:37:00.000-07:00

NOTE TO READER: Robert Norse and his attorney, Kate Wells, have always been willing to settle this case for reasonable changes in the Rules of Decorum at City Council meetings and, as the years have dragged by, and for legal costs to continue fighting it have added up, attorney's fees and costs. Today is no different than any other day. But the City, under the leadership of John Barisone, appears to know no limits on the minutia on which they'll litigate or to the nth degree they will drag it out. It should need no explaining that the legal fees they will run up benefit themselves. Below is today's SENTINEL article by J.M. Brown dated May 6, 2011. ---ed

NOTE TO READER: There is an online poll running with the article, so be sure to log on and vote.
At this time 305 people have "voted" and Norse is slightly ahead of City Council with 50.49% of the vote.
City Council 48.85% and Other 0.66% (2 votes). --Becky Johnson of HUFF

Santa Cruz to appeal Nazi salute case to Supreme Court: Lawyers still seeking settlement with Robert Norse

By J.M. BROWN

Posted: 05/05/2011 11:00:00 PM PDT

found online at: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_18006114

SANTA CRUZ -- The city of Santa Cruz plans to appeal its loss in the Robert Norse free-speech case to the U.S. Supreme Court next month unless a settlement can be reached with the longtime government critic, officials confirmed Thursday.

The city has hired a high-powered Supreme Court expert to file the appeal if an agreement isn't reached with Norse, who filed suit in federal court nearly a decade ago alleging the city violated his First Amendment rights by ejecting him from a 2002 City Council meeting. The 63-year-old activist was arrested after refusing an order to leave the meeting, which city officials said he disrupted by raising a mock Nazi salute.

A rare panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously in December that a trial judge should reconsider the case, indicating they believe city officials silenced Norse because they disliked his criticism. The case, which has garnered national attention, has never gone to trial.

City officials have met with Norse and his lawyers recently to negotiate a settlement, one that could lead to a loosening of restrictions on public commentary during council meetings and a financial payout for Norse. But an agreement has been elusive, and council members directed the city attorney in closed session last week to pursue the Supreme Court appeal.

George Kovacevich, an attorney with the city's firm, supports the appeal even though there's a slim chance the high court, which typically hears less than 5 percent of petitions, agrees to take the case. To accept the lower court's decision could mean a costly trial for a case the city has spent $148,000 to defend -- a cost that will grow if the city loses and has to pay Norse's legal fees.

"At least now we have a shot, arguably, albeit a small one," Kovacevich said. "Certain rulings are reversed, and then that would not bind the city up in a trial."

Kovacevich said the city has hired Richard Ruda, former chief counsel of the State and Local Legal Center in Washington, to prepare a writ of petition to the high court. The deadline to file is June 6.

Ruda, whose office is in the tony Washington suburb of Chevy Chase, Md., declined to comment on the case when reached by phone Thursday. He also declined to discuss his previous appearances before the Supreme Court, though his website says he is "uniquely qualified to assist state and municipal attorneys and officials with questions about Supreme Court doctrine, practice and procedure."

The Supreme Court Institute at Georgetown University's Law School, for which Ruda has served as an advisory board member, reports that the Yale University and Harvard Law School graduate has filed briefs with the high court on behalf of state and local governments and conducted practice runs for lawyers preparing arguments before the nation's top justices.

Kovacevich said he didn't have details Thursday on Ruda's fees. He said Ruda has consulted with the city for about a month.

As part of a potential agreement to withdraw his suit, Norse said he expects the council to change its rules regarding public participation -- including expanding a two-minute time limit for general commentary and dispensing with a rule against booing speakers. He has vigorously fought against a gradual tightening of such restrictions, which his speeches to the council, as well as a host of tirades by other gadflies, have engendered.

"I want a clear declaration that people are not disruptive who engage in technical violations, such as not turning in a card to speak, or not facing the City Council when they speak, or if they make a silent gesture from the side of the room," Norse said Thursday.

Mayor Ryan Coonerty, who began enforcing the two-minute rule last year, said he would consider adopting clearer definitions of what constitutes a disruption of council meetings.

But, he said, "I don't think protected First Amendment speech includes disrupting public meetings. Robert is proposing letting people be booed when they speak to their city government. I fundamentally disagree."

Coonerty said a Supreme Court appeal is worth the taxpayers' investment, and the city will have to pay Norse's legal fees if it loses.

"There are costs no matter what," he said. "Ten years later, this case has never been tried in a courtroom."

Norse said he does not support Nazi views and only made the gesture during the 2002 council meeting to protest then-Mayor Christopher Krohn cutting off another speaker. Krohn determined Norse was being disruptive, demanded he leave and ordered his arrest when Norse refused.

After watching a five-minute video clip of the incident, a federal trial judge dismissed Norse's suit in 2007 and a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit upheld that decision. But a rare en banc panel of the appeals court agreed to rehear the case and revived the suit in December.

A longtime homeless advocate, Norse has needled the council for years, opposing crackdowns on the city's overnight camping ban and panhandling. He criticized the council for placing what he says are controversial matters on its consent agenda and agreeing to discuss those matters only if council members agree to transfer them to the regular part of the meetings.

ONLINE POLL:

You be the judge in the Salute vs. the City case. Who is right?

Santa Cruz City Council
Robert Norse
Other:

Guilty of Sleeping Jury finds

2011-05-03T20:47:00.000-07:00

Collette Connolly, as Star Warrior, is ticketed for Sleeping at Santa Cruz City Hall on August 19, 2010. She was convicted by a jury trial on May 4, 2011 for sleeping and using a blanket. She faces up to 6 months in jail and/or $1000 fine. Photo by Becky Johnson Aug 19 2010

by Becky Johnson
May 3, 2011

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- Jurors delivered a verdict this afternoon in the Peace Camp Six trial. Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, and Hung. A sixth defendant, Chris Doyon, was absent and a bench warrant was issued. A good Samaritan paid Doyon's bail, but that "fact" was irrelevant to District Attorney, Sarah Dabkowski, who reported to SENTINEL reporter that there is a warrant for Doyon's arrest. But then facts were never set in stone for Dabkowski.

Why just last January, Dabkowski said "lodge" means "they can't lodge, can't live, can't stay the night, can't sleep somewhere, can't set up roots somewhere if they don't have permission."

However, despite no definition being contained in the actual language of PC 647 (e), Gallagher supplied his own!
Not waiting for the prosecution to take a stab at what "lodging" means in a legal sense, Judge John Gallagher jumped forth and issued his own definition, creating the perhaps greatest grounds on which to appeal the verdict.

Gallagher told the jury that they should use this definition of lodging: "to lodge means to settle or live in a place, that may include sleeping"

Not only had this been a hotly disputed item at the hearing where Frey challenged the Constitutionality of the law based on it being "vague and overbroad" especially due to the lack of a definition, the defense did not have time to digest the meaning of Gallagher's hand-chosen definition in order to prepare a proper defense. Needless to say, neither did any of the defendants last August, September, and October. I mean, for a homeless person to comply, they'd have to stop "living in a place" since 647 (e) covers the entire State of both public and private property!

Then Gallagher sternly told the jury that "Even if you disagree with the law, you must follow the law." This is standard practice in Santa Cruz County courts but has no legal authority. Jurors are allowed to vote their conscience, and rule on the totality of circumstances. They may consider whether a law is being selectively enforced, or that the prosecution is largely political. They can judge the value of the law itself and find "not guilty" even if the evidence is clear that that law was broken. Being a juror is the most powerful position a single person can have on the justice system, far greater than as a voter. Being a foreman of a jury is perhaps the most influential position a citizen can have in influencing how our laws are applied. This jury was having none of that.

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse," the jurors trumpeted self-righteously. But they themselves were ignorant of the law. So were virtually all of the dozen or so police officers and deputies who testified. After Lt. Steve Plageman testified that in his 23 years or so as a deputy, he'd never written a PC 647 (e) citation before August 6th in his life, the DA objected every time defense attorney, Ed Frey asked about their experience in enforcing the law. Judge Gallagher sustained it every time. They were told the issue was "irrelevant."

But was it? How can anyone, much less a bunch of homeless people without access to computers, televisions, or home libraries going to know about an ordinance that law enforcement had never used before? And no one could know what Judge John Gallagher was imagining the definition of illegal "lodging" would eventually be.

Yet the jurors, like contestants at a beauty show, mouthed important truths about justice and the importance of the law, while failing to see a stark example of selective enforcement right in front of their own eyes. It was obvious from the testimony of a dozen police officers that 647 (e) was ONLY being enforced to shut down an otherwise legal protest against laws which criminalize sleeping, and was ONLY being enforced at City Hall and on the steps of the Santa Cruz County Courthouse.

Defendant, Eliot "Bob" Anderson was not convicted when the jury hung on one juror's opinion: That a homeless person should not have to gas their dog, to use one of our local homeless shelters for the night. Eleven jurors disagreed. No one can sleep well tonight in Santa Cruz County.

"We live in a society where our system elects representatives by the voters of California. They pass our laws," the Jury spokesman, Mr. K said following the verdict. "And if the people think the law is wrong, then they should actively work to change it." He also admitted that had Gallagher NOT given the jury a definition of "lodging," they could not have come to a verdict as easily or at all.

Fresh with a victory, it is now possible that sheriff's and SCPD may now feel emboldened to use 647 (e) more widely now> ANY homeless person, whether sleeping or not, in the day or the night, can be arrested for "settling in, or living in a place, that may include sleeping" or for " intending to spend the night without permission" (as DA Dabkowski challenged, as if that were a crime) on both public and private property." Since public and private property encompasses the entire state of California, they cannot avoid committing the law....ever.

Sigh. More homeless jury trials are upcoming. Gary Johnson faces a jury trial for sleeping twice in twenty-four hours, something our doctors encourage us all to do. And Linda Lemaster has a pre-trial before Judge John Gallagher in Dept 2 at 9 am on Wed. May 4th.

"I don't think we could have come to a verdict without a definition," said the jury foreman after the end of the trial.

Remembering 647 (e) "anti-lodging" Police Repression

2011-04-30T16:10:00.000-07:00

In Santa Cruz, we organized Peace Camp 2010, a demonstration at both City Hall and on the steps of the Santa Cruz County Superior Court in order to protest against laws which prohibit the act of sleeping or use of a blanket. We consider these as crimes against humanity and a matter of conscience to oppose. First we were ignored. Then we were ridiculed. Then they really cracked down. Can a win be far away?

Sheriff's Deputies attempt to awaken a sleeping man to tell him he can't
protest there anymore or face immediate arrest for unlawful "lodging."
Aug 6 2010 Photo by Becky Johnson

An unknown protester lies under a camouflage tarp with a copy of the Santa Cruz Sentinel prominently displayed with the title of the article "Homeless Protesters ready to 'resist.'" Photo August 6, 2011 by Becky Johnson

Sheriff's Deputies awake and cite a homeless man for PC 647 (e), unlawful "lodging", in an effort to shut down the protest which County officials had "tolerated" too long. Deputies could not tell any of the protesters where they could go and legally sleep. Nine months later, DA Sarah Dabkowski introduced evidence of 1 or 2 possible shelter beds the sixty some homeless protesters could theoretically have slept in that night as evidence of their "choice."

(on left)
Sheriff's Deputies pour over the art supplies of artist, Dreamcatcher, as
well as bedrolls,
clothing, and food supplies. In court, they referred to these things as "garbage" which was offending the "aesthetics" of the courthouse grounds.

(on right) 72-yr-old Collette Connolly is cited by SCPD for unlawful sleeping. She was convicted of misdemeanor lodging May 4, 2011 and now faces up to 6 months in jail and/or $1000 fine. Connolly is both mentally and physically disabled and homeless.

Gary Johnson gets cited for use of a blanket when he is cited for sitting up, awake, in a charge, but covered with a sleeping bag. Video by Chris Doyon.

Klieg lights, costing about $100 a night to operate, shine down on Peace Camp 2010 at City Hall in a scene reminiscent of Guantanamo Bay. This along with the posting of "No Trespassing" signs at both City Hall and at the Public Library across the street by Parks and Rec Chief, Dannette Shoemaker were justified as "an oversight." Protesters claim the City Council wanted to shut down their legal protest. Photo by Becky Johnson August 19, 2010.

After nearly 165 years of open access by the public to the public grounds of City Hall, "No Trespassing" signs were installed after the arrival of the demonstration against the Sleeping Ban. Unless the public objects, less and less of public space is available for use by the public. Photo by Becky Johnson Aug 21, 2010

Peace Camp 2010: refuge or hazard?

2011-04-30T15:07:00.000-07:00

July 29, 2011 as another night of Peace Camp 2010 began. That night, 45 people were welcomed to sleep together in peace and safety, with a porto-pottie and wash sink available for hygienic reasons. A week later, they were arrested in the same place for lying down, covering up with blankets, or for sleeping determined to be "illegal lodging" by the Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Department. Photo by Becky Johnson

by Becky Johnson
April 30, 2011

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- Collette Connolly sleeps on the courthouse steps in an open protest of Santa Cruz' cruel and unusual punishment for homeless people: a ban on the act of sleeping itself. Behind her were two signs she had herself chosen to speak for her cause:

"SLEEPING BAN Unconstitutional AND Cruel!!"

And "Free Gary Johnson -- Peace Camp 2010 --
the sleeping ban 6.36.010 a"

Collette had been cited by the Santa Cruz County Sheriff's on August 6th under an even more punitive and open-ended law against illegal "lodging" PC 647 (e).
Connolly, age 75, is both physically and mentally disabled, was sheltered for a time (less than 30 days) at the Paul Lee Loft, but lost her place when she failed to return in time for the evening curfew.

A homeless man, certain there was no shelter for an able-bodied, single male at any local shelter, sleeps in front of the Santa Cruz County Courthouse as part of a protest to raise public awareness about laws which criminalize the act of sleeping on both public and private property. Photo by Becky Johnson July 30, 2010

Christine Nibheolain, an Irish national, is interviewed by Azenith Smith of KION after she was cited for misdemeanor "lodging" as she slept in front of the Santa Cruz County Courthouse to protest the Sleeping Ban.

"I've never been arrested before," says Nibheolain, "I've never been in trouble before. I figure if I'm going to get arrested for, it's something I believe in."

Nibheolain spent eight hours in jail. The Ireland native joined the homeless camp four days ago, since she says, the shelters are full.

"I'd rather be here illegal and under the lights and know that I'm safe," says Nibheolain.

Who owns the courthouse? Who is in charge?

2011-04-28T18:11:00.000-07:00

Peace Camp 2010 at 7PM on the night of July 20th on day 16 of the protest
against the Sleeping Ban in the City of Santa Cruz. Photo by Becky Johnson.

by Becky Johnson

April 28, 2011

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- Only three of the original six defendants in the Peace Camp 2010 anti-lodging trial were in court. Collette Connolly was seen earlier during jury selection, behaving somewhat erratically, falling down but not obviously drunk, and belligerent when someone tried to help. Collette was nowhere to be seen today. Arthur Bishoff was in court earlier this week, but now has housing and employment and did not attend due to a conflict with his new work hours. Gary Johnson and Eliot "Bob" Anderson were quite another story, having attended every minute of their trial, and actively participating in their own defense. Chris Doyon, the once prominent camp spokesman, has not made an appearance. Linda Lemaster, who is housed, is scheduled for another jury trial next week on the same PC 647 (e) charge. Defense Attorney, Ed Frey, who is also housed, no doubt will be using a necessity defense-of-others for himself later on, but for the moment is seeking a not guilty verdict from the jury.

Yesterday, the jurors heard from Lt. Fred Plageman, who was the supervisor in charge of security for the Santa Cruz County Courthouse on the nights in which Frey and the others were either cited or arrested under PC 647 (e) the State's anti-lodging statute. Plageman revealed that in his 23 years on the force, he had never written a citation for 647 (e) in his career.

As Frey and DA Sarah Dabkowski met in court prior to the seating of the jury, Judge John Gallagher told Frey "It's not relevant to ask members of law enforcement their interpretation of what the law is. And I'm going to sustain every objection made."

"The law requires probably cause. I have a right to ask them on what criteria they are determining that there is probable cause that a crime has been committed," Ed countered.
"These officers had orders to give verbal and written warnings to these defendants, not to interpret what was said on the flyers," Gallagher firmly insisted. The flyers were unsigned.

This is a touchy subject for Judge Gallagher, because Frey had already challenged the statute for being vague and overbroad before Gallagher earlier this year, and Gallagher had ruled the ordinance is Constitutional since "there is no Constitutional "right" to sleep." But the fact remains, that "lodging" is not defined in the ordinance, and one is left with 14 dictionary definitions or however the officer chooses to interpret it as a crime.

Now with FREY trying to nail down that the officers themselves had NO IDEA what constitutes illegal lodging, and how to enforce it, Gallagher ruled Ed's line of questions to be out of order which would help to conceal the officer's lack of knowledge or experience in citing this law from the jury.

Once seated, jurors heard from a parade of sheriff's and police officers, some in full uniform, and some in suits and ties that some of the protesters were "setting up a camp, laying down on a sleeping bag, or showing they were not going to leave." When Ed Frey objected to a photo not being properly verified, Gallagher ruled that it was, and then told the jury "We are establishing that a proper foundation has been laid since Deputy Matson testified." The "we" Gallagher meant is surely the prosecution and himself, the judge. Truer words were never misspoken.

DEPUTY KYLE MATSON

Santa Cruz Sheriffs Deputy, Kyle Matson, who had cited Eliot "Bob" Anderson, testified that "I don't remember warning Mr. Anderson personally." While 647 (e) does not require a warning, it seems clear that the prosecution is attempting for that unsigned written notice, or a verbal "you can't lodge here" warning to be sufficient notice

Warning notice given to protesters at Peace Camp 2010. Photo by Becky Johnson Aug 7 2010
that the "owners" of the property do not give their permission for lodging.

Ed asked Matson, "Who owns the courthouse?" but Dabkowski objected claiming lack of relevance and Gallagher sustained the objection. Ironically the wording of PC 647 (e) says you can't stay on property without the permission of the owner or the person in control. But the DA and Gallagher were preventing Frey from determining if the police even knew who that person might be. How can if be "irrelevant" if it's a requirement in order to enforce the law?

Matson also testified he cited 75 year old Collette Connolly when "she was sitting on her sleeping bag." The two photos showed Collette sitting on her sleeping bag, full clothed. Behind her is a sign which a reader can barely make out the words as "The Sleeping Ban is Unconstitutional and Cruel." When Matson was asked why he cited her, he said "She had not made an attempt to move." So sitting on a sleeping bag is an arrestable offense? Apparently.

A man sleeps at Peace Camp 2010 on July 20th. Photo by Becky Johnson.

Dabkowski asked, "What did you do on August 7th?"We attempted to remove the remaining people who were sleeping in front of the courthouse." On cross examination, Ed Frey asked "Isn't it true you've never used 647 (e) in front of the courthouse until the night of August 6th?

Objection. Sustained. This jury would not hear how Matson determined that "the owner" had not given "permission" to "lodge."

"Did you observe these defendants causing any damage to the property?" Ed asked.
"Objection." "Sustained."
"Did people ask you where they could go and sleep legally?"
"They did."
"What did you tell them?"
"I didn't have an answer for them."
"As you sit here today, do you have an answer now?"
"I do not."
"Did anyone at the sheriff's office make any attempt to call the Homeless Services Center on August 6th to see if there were shelter beds that night?"
"No."
"Did you see a cane with Ms. Connolly? Did she appear disabled?"
"Yes"
"Was Ms. Connolly interferring with anyone else's rights? Was she obstructing anyone?
"The courthouse was closed at the time and there was no foot traffic in and out so, no."

DEPUTY RYAN KENNEDY

Next, Deputy Ryan Kennedy of the Sheriff's office testified he'd attended a briefing that night "about lodging happening" so he "talked to the lodgers" and about 12:40AM issued citations after that warning had been given. When Kennedy cited and arrested defendant Gary Johnson, he reasoned "he hadn't dispersed, was lying down in some sort of bedding, and planning on staying the night."

Gary Johnson, for his part, fully cooperated in confirming his identity. As each officer pointed him out in court, Johnson unzipped his jacket to reveal the same red shirt and hood he was wearing in his arrest photos. Johnson is not trying to conceal either his presence at Peace Camp 2010 or the fact he slept there. It WAS a protest AGAINST all Sleeping bans. Gary was not only openly violating their law, but was challenging it.

Frey asked Kennedy "Were standards issued as to how to enforce PC 647 (e)?"
"Yes. There were guidelines. If people were lying down, had bedding, were sedentary, or looked like they were going to spend the night we warned or cited them. If they were actively moving around, or standing, they were not cited. If they were up and around and moving, then they're not a lodger."

"What is lodging?"
"Objection." "Sustained."
"Did you have an understanding that this was a political action? A protest?"
"No."
"Was anyone causing a problem for anyone, obstructing anyone's way?"
"Yes. The bedding was partially obstructing our way. We had to move around it."
When asked if anyone else during the entire time, not just on August 6th, had caused anyone any danger, destruction of property, or injury to anyone, Kennedy said "yes."
"There were traumatic effects when the lodgers possibly left behind remnants, items, and trash." and while Kennedy didn't personally see any of the defendants leave any trash behind, he argued that their presense "caused unrest among the people who work at the County Bldg."
"Multiple times," he explained "as county workers were coming out of the building at late hours, they felt threatened and asked for a police escort."
"Was there any factual basis for these threats?" Frey asked.
"They felt threatened by the presence of people they were unsure about in that place and time."
"Do you think homeless people are more dangerous than other people?"
"Objection." "Sustained."
"Did you arrest anyone for just sitting?"
"No. They were lying down."
"Did people ask you if there was a legal place they could go and sleep?"
"Objection--relevance." "Sustained."
"Do you know who is in control of the building at night?"
"Objection." "Sustained."
"Prior to the night of August 6th, did you know what unlawful lodging was?"
"Objection." "Sustained."
"If this is a crime, can you identify a victim?"
"Objection." "Sustained."

DEPUTY MICHAEL MULLET

The next witness was Sheriffs deputy Michael Mullet who's job that night was to book property.
Mullet reported that he was up all night booking property seized, and that his 17-page report included 16 pages of property items including multiple tents.
"Did any of the defendants use a tent? " "No."
"Who was in control of the courthouse that night?
"Objection." "Sustained."
"Do you know who owns the Courthouse?"
"Objection." "Sustained."
"Are you aware of any permanent property damage that was done by either the defendants, or the people protesting?" "No."
"What was the nature of the trash?"
"Fast food containers, a broken meth pipe, broken dishes, broken glass, cereal boxes."
"Do you know if the defendants were responsible for the trash?"
"It would be impossible to say."

DEPUTY DOUGLAS SMITH

The next witness, Deputy Sheriff Douglas Smith, was in charge of taking the police video of the first round of warnings. He admitted that his film did not turn out, and that the DA was forced to rely on a system of hand-written name cards placed previously by other deputies as proof that the person "had been warned" and could now be cited or arrested.
"All of the still photos were taken at the time of arrest, and not during the warning period."
Among the people Deputy Smith cited, was Collette Connolly. "She did not speak. She had a self-imposed silence and nodded her head that she understood the warning."

After the lunch break, Ed Frey asked Deputy Smith if those "lodgers" had asked where they could go to safely sleep."
"Did you hear a response?"
"Objection. Hearsay."
"Did any of the defendants create any danger by obstructing the sidewalk, or injure someone else in any way?"
"Yes. People were victimized. There was a lot of garbage there, and if you had to walk by it in the daytime, you'd be victimized." When Frey asked the nature of the garbage he replied "Cups, cans, bottles, stuff from food." Yet, of the 26 photos the DA had produced thus far in the trial, NONE of them showed this "trash". No littering tickets were issued during the 3 months Peace Camp 2010 was in existence.

"Did you ever enforce PC 647 (e) prior to the night of August 6th?"
"Objection-irrelevant." "Sustained."

DEPUTY ZACHARY REED

Deputy Zachary Reed testified that he cited Arthur Bishoff at the County Bldg. "laying flat on his back with his eyes closed and a sleeping bag on top of him." Bishoff was lying behind a large rock on the traffic island in front of the courthouse.

"He told me his address was 115b Coral St."(the mailing address for the Homeless Services Center).

"Where did Mr. Bishoff go after you cited him?" Ed asked.
"He stood up and wandered off across the parking lot towards Ocean St. The last time I saw him, he was seen exiting the parking lot towards Highway 17." Was Reed disappointed to see Bishoff had not only not left town, but was now declaring "not guilty" and demanding a jury trial?

SCPD OFFICER ABELINO VIGIL

Officer Vigil was the first SCPD prosecution witness. Peace Camp 2010 had moved its location to 809 Center St. and stationed itself on the brick patio next to Center St. in front of City Hall. Officer Vigil described an "extra check" that sometimes involved officers going outside of their regular beat to conduct. "Our sergeant told us to do extra checks at City Hall." Vigil cited Connolly, Frey, and one other man in a sleeping bag.

On the night of August 17th, did you notice any unusual lighting situation?" Ed asked.
"I don't recall," Vigil replied, but on further questioning, Vigil remembered something.
"There were some vehicle-pulled lights."
"What was the purpose of those extra lights?"
"I didn't put them there, so I don't know."
"Did you notice that they were powered by a diesel engine that produced light pollution, sound pollution, and exhaust?"
"Objection-relevance." "Sustained."
"Do you remember any property seizures that night? Do you remember any protest signs being taken?"
"I don't recall."
"Do you remember seeing anyone there patrolling besides the police?"
"I don't recall."
"Isn't it true that a private company--1st Alarm--had a securty officer stationed there?"
"I don't recall."
"So you have no specific knowledge on any night of the protest, when you were on duty or even when you were not on duty, seeing a 1st Alarm security guard standing there?"
"Yes, I did see one."
"Did you see any of the defendants presenting any danger to anyone there?"
"No."
"Did you get asked where they could go to get a safe and legal place to sleep?"
"We hand out homeless resource cards."
"On the night we were describing?"
"No."
"Were any shelter beds available that night?"
"I don't know."
"Do you have any idea what happens in the City of Santa Cruz when a person is cited on a night when no shelter exists in Santa Cruz?"

This question prompted a sidebar. At the end of the sidebar, Judge Gallagher explained that an objection had been made and he had sustained the objection.
"Who owns City Hall?"
"Objection." "Sustained".
"Who is in control of City Hall?"
"Objection." "Sustained." The witness was excused.

SCPD OFFICER NATHAN VASQUEZ

Frey asked SCPD officer Nathan Vasquez who had ordered the "extra check" at City Hall.
"We do that if someone asks. In this case, the City Council had asked for an extra police check at City Hall." Vasquez cited Collette Connolly. He also testified that the reason he used PC 647 (e) was not because he believed that was the most applicable ordinance to apply but because "Sgt. Conner told me to cite under 647 (e).

"Did anyone ask if there was a safe place for them to sleep?"
"I don't know the number for that. In the past, I have contacted the shelter and they told me they would not be accepting campers on my request."

SCPD OFFICER IAN BURNHAM

Officer Burnham testified he cited Arthur Bishoff that night when he and two other officers conducted an extra check at City Hall. He testifed that "about 15 people" were there. When asked about the Klieg lights he said "I saw the flood lights set up by the City."
"Why were those lights there?"
"I imagine for officer safety. We've done this before for Halloween, New Years."
"Was the purpose of these lights to drive people away?"
"Objection." "Sustained."
"Did anyone ask you where they could sleep that night?"'
"I've been asked that question many times. My standard answer is that it is not legal to sleep anywhere in the City. There is an ordinance against it."
"Do you know who controls City Hall?"
"Objection--relevance." "Sustained."
"Do you know who owns City Hall?
"Objection," this time triggering a sidebar. At the end of the sidebar, "Sustained."

DINAH PHILLIPS TESTIFIES

Dinah Phillips testified that she is a "Principle administrative analyst for the County Administration office. She is the media contact for the County and has worked for the County for 30 years.

"Our office is in charge of every property in the County. Susan Mauriello is my boss." Phillips told of issuing a press release last August to clarify an issue that had mistakenly been reported in a Santa Cruz Sentinel article.

"Did you come across an application I submitted to conduct a protest in July and August at that location? Ed asked.
"I think I recall something like that," Phillips admitted, "but it would have had to go through my immediate boss."
"When did you first notice that we were there?" Ed asked.
"As soon as they were there. There were a lot of discussions and I was responding to people in multiple departments. I had to tell them that people have a right to protest."
"So why did you then decide to take action?"
"It had become a health, safety, and welfare situation. There was no restroom facilities open at night. Employees who had to walk through there felt threatened. People who were walking by had things said to them."
"Did they present a danger?"
"I couldn't say that."
"Do you have any written regulations for what is permitted or forbidden on these grounds?"
"No. I could probably look for some."
"Why didn't you enforce the County Camping Ban?"
" To my knowledge, the County doesn't have a camping ban."
"Do you know if any of the protesters were given permission to stay?"
"It's County property. The County can determine who can stay overnight."
She admitted there are no posted rules or hours on either the government building or the courthouse.
"I believe the building is locked at night," she replied as though that explained it. Then to make matters even more muddled, she said "I think its legal to be on the property, but I don't think it's legal to be there overnight." She admitted that , other than one sign on the basement door, that "there are no signs showing hours of operation."

"You said that there were no restroom facilities open at night. Did you notice the porto-pottie there?"

"I did see the porto-pottie, but I couldn't tell how many nights it was there. I know that the Park Service was very concerned. We had to steam-clean the steps after the folks left. It smelled like urine. I saw it sometimes."
"Who owns the County Bldg.?"
"Objection." "Sustained."

The County wanted them to leave

2011-04-27T17:29:00.000-07:00

by Becky Johnson

April 27, 2011

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- After three days in Judge John Gallagher's court, with two panels of 80 average citizens each having had their lives disrupted, missed classes, had to hire babysitters, missed work and worried how to replace that lost income, a jury panel has been installed: 12 jurors and 2 alternates.

The Peace Camp Six, now reduced to five, following the unexplained absence of charismatic, Peace Camp 2010 spokesman, Chris Doyon, now face a jury of their peers to decide whether they were criminally "lodging" on the steps of the Santa Cruz County Courthouse last July and August, and at the Santa Cruz City Hall last August, September, and October, as part of a protest against the use of Sleeping Bans at all in a situation in which inadequate shelter exists.

Assistant District Attorney Sara Dabkowski has subpoenaed 31 witnesses, to testify, all of them on the County or the City's payroll. Defense Attorney Ed Frey, has subpoenaed three, of which none are on the County or City payroll. I mean what does a boss EXPECT his employees to testify to? Like Donald Trump, asking his celebrity apprentice contestants if they will vote for him for President, and then laughing he'd fire them on the spot if they said "no" "for stupidity."

DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OPENING STATEMENTS:

DA Sara Dabkowski began by telling the jury that the defendants "chose to be there, chose to sleep there, and not because they needed to. That the five defendants, on eight different nights, chose to spend the night somewhere they did not have permission to be."

"The County wanted the people who were staying there to leave," she explained. "They were given a written warning to leave. If they were packing up and getting ready to leave, they were not cited. The defendants chose not to leave. You will hear testimony that the sheriff's gave plenty of time to leave. " "Some people refused to sign the citation and they were arrested and jailed." "You will hear testimony from Santa Cruz Police who worked it into their normal shift schedule to go thru City Hall, warn people that they couldn't lodge there, and then going back later and citing those who failed to leave. Only the repeat offenders were cited. The people they arrested were the people who were lying down, sleeping, or pretending to sleep. I'm going to ask that you find each and every one of the defendants guilty of illegal lodging."

ED FREY'S OPENING STATEMENT:

"First, I want to thank you for your service on this jury. This is a case of unlawful lodging. You just heard from District Attorney, Sara Dabkowski, that the defendants chose to spend the night somewhere they are not allowed to be. PC 647 (e) says if a person does not own property, and this includes every inch of land inside the borders of the State of California, that if you don't own your own home, don't rent an apartment, or stay in a motel, then you cannot sleep."

"If you don't own it, you may not lodge on it. Defendants were sleeping together in a group. Sleeping by yourself is less safe than sleeping in a group. One of our defenses, under the defense of necessity, is that we wanted to preserve our safety and our health. Sleep is an actual, physiological need for human life. There is also another necessity. A necessity of conscience. There can be a point where, after so much injustice, it is incumbent to break the law, to demonstrate the conviction that a person has a right to sleep.

We have over half a million people homeless in this country. Is that homelessness voluntary?Now I have a home. But the other defendants didn't have a home. And, during this trial, you will come to understand that they are homeless by necessity and circumstances, and not homeless by choice--in fact, no choice was involved. They were subject to circumstances beyond their control.

If when you carefully examine the elements of a necessity defense, you will find the evil they were avoiding is the detriment to their health they would suffer if they couldn't go to sleep. Decide for yourselves if the defendants really had a choice.

LT. FRED PLAGEMAN TESTIFIES FOR THE PROSECUTION

Lt. Fred Plageman was clearly the go-to guy last summer when he was told by County Counsel to issue PC 647 (e) citations (or make arrests) of those who would not leave when told to. A veteran with 23 years experience, Plageman, who supervises 29 employees, was the supervisor in charge of security at the County Building on the night of August 6th.

On or about August 1st, Plageman testified he attended a meeting of Susan Mauriello's assistant and Sheriff Wowock. "They told us to enforce the unlawful lodging law. The people we contacted were lying prone, supine, or on their side, were in bedding, or were sleeping, staying, lodging over night. Someone who was sitting upright or not on bedding, we did not issue a citation. Anyone who refused to cooperate, we issued a citation.

Prior to August first, Plageman testified that "Unlawful lodging was taking place. People were camping overnight, the smell of urine. They were holding social activities 'round the clock. I saw the general decline in the area. I saw the grass turn brown and go to dirt. I saw sticky food substances. The facility use had become extreme and the number of people grew to as many as 30 or 40, although the numbers were greater at night. Sometimes it dropped to 12 or less."

Plageman testified that on the night of August 6th, he personally supervised a team of 6 or 7 sheriff's who first issued warnings in writing to those who were "illegally lodging." After an hour or more, they returned and arrested anyone who did not leave.

When asked if a lot of people left, he said "Yes, about half of them." He testified that they continued to cite people from that point on, perhaps writing the last citation around 2AM.

"Who wrote the notice?" asked DA Dabkowski. "The County Counsel wrote it." He testified that as the team circulated with the warning notices and later to write citations that "there were a lot of people around us who were walking along with us, who demanded to know what our authority was, and what our business was. It started out civil but it progressed to the point where we felt physically threatened, people yelling threats. I was concerned we were going to have a riot."

The notice said that "Lodging at any time will not be tolerated.

On cross-examination, Plageman defined a lodger as "camping, sleeping, or spending the night." He defined camping as "going someplace, going to sleep, bedding, tents." Frey asked " To lodge, don't you need a lodge?" but Dabkowski objected to the question and Gallagher sustained her objection.

"Lodging" is not defined in 647 (e) so it's up to anyone's interpretation of what forms the elements of illegal lodging. So Frey asked "How would defendants know what lodging is?"

"Well, there are signs on the highway that say "Gas, Food, and Lodging" Plageman responded.
"Were there any signs out in front of the courthouse preventing anyone from being there?"
"I don't know."
"Are there any signs there now?"
"I think there might be."

Plageman explained that while Susan Mauriello is in charge of "all county property" her aide, Nancy Carrgordon is in charge of General Services at the County Building. Plageman was called to a meeting with Carrgordon and Sheriff Phillip Wowack. "They decided the activity that was going on was not going to be allowed to continue." He said that the area had degraded to "drugs, fights, public intoxication."

Frey asked Plageman, "What makes lodging illegal?"
Plageman thoughtfully constructed his answer.
"We didn't want to interfere with free speech, but the area had transformed into a campground and posed health risks and hazards. As far as that area goes, lodging was unlawful--the camping, sleeping, and overuse of the area."

"Did you notice the presence of a porto-pottie?" Frey asked.
"Yes. A porto-pottie would arrive when the building was closed and disappeared the next morning."
"Was fecal matter ever found around the courthouse?"
"I heard reports."
"Any personal knowledge of fecal matter found around the courthouse?"
"No personal knowledge."
"Did the people cited ask you where they could go and sleep legally?
"Yes."
"What did you tell them?"
"I said I didn't know."
"So today, if someone were illegally lodging, do you know today where they could go and legally sleep?"
"I don't know."
"Who owns the courthouse?"
"The taxpayers own it."
"In order to legally lodge, you need the permission of the owner. Does the County own it or do the citizens own it?"
"The citizens."
"Were people "lodging" prior to August 6th?"
"Yes."
"Then you as sheriff were aware of a danger presented by the five of us prior to August 6th?"
"No."
"Are you aware of any damage to the courthouse, the county building, or the Government Center from Peace Camp 2010?"
"No."
"How about victims. Were there any victims among the staff or the public during that period?"
"No."
"How about the people of the City of Santa Cruz. Were any of them victims?"
"Objection. Argumentative."
"Objection sustained."

"Was there any shelter space available that night?"
"I don't know."
"Did you or anyone at the County try to find out if any shelter was available?"
"I don't know."
"If not, why not?"
"I don't know."
"Who was in control on August 6th between 6PM and 7PM? If a person wanted to ask for permission, who would they ask?"
"I don't know."
"Did the defendants interfere with anyone's rights or movement?"
"I'm not sure. I don't know. I was approached by workers who were upset and did not feel safe."
"Did any actions by the five defendants here make anyone unsafe?"
"No. There was a fight and a weapon was involved. There was lots of inappropriate yelling an antics that went on, but not sufficient that law enforcement action needed to be taken."
Plageman admitted that the sheriff's went out of their way to avoid making an arrest, despite that unlawful lodging calls for immediate arrest. "Custody is a big drain on our resources, and not necessary for this kind of offense."

Trial begins again on Thursday, in dept 2 at 10:30AM.

Jurors near revolt in Peace Camp Six Trial

2011-04-26T12:12:00.000-07:00

A lone protester sleeps in the forbidden zone at Santa Cruz City Hall last August as City-sponsored klieg lights glare down at him. Photo by Becky Johnson Aug 20 2011

by Becky Johnson

Santa Cruz, Ca. They swarmed the hallways, cluttered the benches, many clutching books in preparation for a long day. At least eighty public citizens who still believe in the purpose of jury trials ( or were afraid of facing criminal charges if they failed to respond to that letter in the mail) arrived at Judge John Gallagher's court to volunteer to serve to adjudicate whether the six defendants were guilty of "lodging" on the Courthouse steps last July and August as part of a peaceful protest against the Sleeping Ban in Santa Cruz.

Gallagher told juries "I expect this trial will last two weeks," which caused a concerned murmur through the crowd. He then told the court that they were in the middle of a "heavy-duty financial crisis" and that the court had had to "lay off 30 to 40 employees, has closed the misdemeanor court in Watsonville, closed the domestic violence court, and drastically reduced the drug court." Gallagher told jurors that he had to adjudicate "136 cases in one day."

Gallagher had the opportunity to throw the charges aside when Attorney and defendant, Ed Frey filed a motion to dismiss last January. Gallagher ruled that PC 647 (e) is NOT vague and overbroad and that the prosecutions could proceed. Judge Rebecca Connolly ruled essentially the same on March 4th in the case of Linda Lemaster, also charged with 647 (e). Lemaster will be tried later in May on the same charge, and, presumably, a different jury will be seated.

Assistant District Attorney Sarah Dabkowski for her part, picked up the gauntlet and filed subpoenas for the following witnesses* from the Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office: Lt. Fred Plageman, Mattson, Matrargan, Reed, Santos, Butin, Buchanan, Burreul, Gidding, Habermeil, Hanks, Huntsman, Hurley, Kennedy, Mullet, Murphy, Nathan, Murrey, Peterson. From the Santa Cruz Police Department, she subpoenaed the following: Birnham, Conner, DeCampo, Guegelo, Forbus, Medina, Pendleton, Vasquez, Venetion, Vigil. She subpoenaed a witness from the Parks and Recreation Department to be named later, and a witness from the Homeless Services Center, to be named later. From the County administration she subpoenaed Dina Phillips for a total of 31 prosecution witnesses, all of whom will be paid for testifying.

* (Spelling may be approximate for some of these witnesses. My apologies to the reader)

Frey has subpoenaed Paul Brindel of the Shelter Project, Paul Lee, namesake for the Paul Lee Loft and founder of the Homeless Garden Project, and Monica Martinez, Executive Director of the Homeless Services Center.

She and her staff will also be paid, but Ed Frey will not be paid, despite serving the duty of a public defender for the other five homeless defendants.

Actually, defendant Arthur Bishoff has since obtained both housing and employment. Defendant Eliot Anderson also achieved housing and employment but has since been laid off from his job and lost his housing. Defendant Collette Connolly was sheltered for about a month at the Paul Lee Loft after Peace Camp 2010 was disbanded in October. She will not be eligible for those shelter services for at least six months now. She, and co-defendant, Gary Johnson, remain homeless. Defendant Christopher Doyon has not appeared in court and will be tried at a later date.

Police officers are paid for a four-hour shift if called to testify on their day off. If on duty, they testify in uniform, and do not serve on their beat during those hours, depriving the public of their actual services. Lt. Fred Plageman and Dina Phillips presumably will testify as part of their administrative salary.

The defense, other than the actual defendants themselves have only subpoenaed three witnesses: Paul Brindel of the Shelter Project, Paul Lee, namesake for the Paul Lee Loft at the Homeless Services Center, and Executive Director, Monica Martinez (or her substitute) of the Homeless Services Center.

When jurors learned they would not be serving on a jury to try a child molester, a rapist, a murderer, or an extortionist, but instead would be asked to determine whether a couple of homeless people "lodged" on the courthouse steps as part of a protest last summer, they rebelled.

A kindergarten teacher from Brooknoll Elementary School started the rebellion. "When I first came to Santa Cruz, I lived in my van for three years. During that time, I was hassled, arrested, and jailed. There is no way I could be impartial in this case considering the pain these people are suffering."

The next juror to object said "I grew up homeless and my dad was a veteran. I've been hassled and harassed, and I'm hostile. They make victims of people. They don't help them out. You can't take a homeless kid and give them a $225 ticket."

When DA Dabkowski asked " Do any of you believe this is a case that should not be brought to court," another juror raised his hand. "I have a strong respect for people's property rights, but I speculate that the people charged here had no other option. This is simply a case of right and wrong laws."

The next juror who objected said "I not only object, but I'm shocked really. I arrived not knowing anything about this case and now find you want to conduct a two week trial? And it's simply about a group of homeless people being where they're not supposed to be? What a waste of people's time. It's a travesty really, spending this much time and money on this here."

When Judge John Gallagher asked him if he could put his bias aside and render an unbiased decision he said "I'd just be sitting here, stewing, that I can't believe we are spending all these resources on this."

Potential juror #4 said "I'm honored to be here and to serve. However, I am not impartial. I feel this is a waste of time for the taxpayers. I tried to use my calculator to add up the expenses. And I'm upset we've opened up this much time on this particular case. You say it's criminal? Then why do the sheriff's spend so much time being giving tickets, just harassing people, especially my own kids, aged 17 and 18? And then not showing up when I need them. My storage locker was broken into and thousands of dollars worth of my things were stolen, and I never got anything back. You say this is criminal so perhaps there's more to it."

Another potential juror described her previous jury experience. " There was a break-in and we did reach a verdict, and I sat on the jury for a four-week trial on a rape case. But I'll say I'm already feeling some pre-conceived notions as I keep hearing this case is about illegal lodging, not what I keep hearing. It feels like we're getting away from that. Honestly, I don't think I can be unbiased."

Juror #36 was disillusioned with the whole process. "I testified in court once as a witness for the prosecution in an attempted murder case. And even though I was testifying against the defendant, the prosecutor was so aggressive in his tactics, I came to resent the whole court process. This case here shouldn't be taking place at all.

Potential juror #2 had experienced both sides of law enforcement. "I was saved by police at age 9. But then I've had relatives of mine pulled over by police and hassled for no reason at all."

Jury selection continues today. The trial is expected to last two weeks. Defendants face up to 6 months in jail and/or $1000 fine on each charge. Defendant Gary Johnson, who has the most charges, faces up to two years in jail for sleeping at the courthouse and at City Hall as part of a protest against Sleeping Bans.

Ed Frey can be contacted at 831 479-8911
Becky Johnson can be contacted by e-mail at becky_johnson222 (at) hotmail.com.

647 (e) Anti-lodging Jury trials to begin Monday, April 25th in Santa Cruz

2011-04-22T12:51:00.000-07:00

Peace Camp 2010 defendant, Gary Johnson, sleeps on a public sidewalk August 29, 2010 to protest the Sleeping Ban. He faces up to two years in jail if convicted for his multiple charges of sleeping and "lodging."

by Becky Johnson

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- As the State, County, and City struggle to meet record budget deficits, there are two local leaders of City and County government who know no limits on what they will expend on their budgets. And this despite any evidence these expenditures produce any public benefit other than to feather their own nests. They are City Attorney John Barisone and the District Attorney Bob Lee.Both proceeding at breakneck speed to prosecute homeless people for...well...for BEING homeless. And the sky is the limit as far as costs go.

Now logic tells us that if some guy doesn't have $100 for a motel room, he's not going to be able to afford a $97 citation for sleeping on public property. Nor will turning him into a criminal help him find housing or employment.

But that's standard operating procedure in Santa Cruz. The City has MC 6.36.010 section a, also known as the "Sleeping Ban,"for which around 60 citations are issued monthly. The County has its own Camping ordinance, but it doesn't apply to the Government Center properties.

Last August, Santa Cruz County Sheriff's made a series of arrests under PC 647 (e), the Statewide anti-lodging statute which provides immediate arrest and jailing for those who don't possess a deed to a piece of property, a mortgage on a house, a lease on an apartment, a rental agreement, or a receipt for a motel room if they are found within the borders of the State of California and a cop tells them they no longer have "permission."

And if it is TRULY illegal to "lodge" which, according to Assistant District Attorney Sarah Dabkowski, representing the people, the law "puts people on notice that they can't lodge, can't live, can't stay the night, can't sleep somewhere, can't set up roots somewhere if they don't have permission." Dabkowski is prosecuting the Peace Camp Six who laid down their bodies on the court house steps as part of a protest last July and August to challenge laws which criminalize sleeping at night. Laws which are disproportionately directed at displaced former tenants and not against truck drivers, cabbies, kids waiting in line overnight for the opening of Star Wars: Episode III--Revenge of the Sith, or against those sleeping inside upscale-looking motorhomes.

The Peace Camp Six are five houseless individuals and their attorney, Ed Frey. Frey made a motion to dismiss the charges based on the vague and overbroad language of the statute which can make "living" without permission an arrestable offense. A three-judge panel, headed by Paul Marigonda, and joined by Judges Paul Burdick and Timothy Volkmann, met in chambers and voted to deny the motion. DA Dabkowski, has subpoenaed 28 to 30 sheriff's deputies, police officers, staff members at the Santa Cruz County Courthouse and Government Center to testify with jury selections to begin on Monday, April 25th at 9AM in Dept 2 before Judge John Gallagher.

A separate jury trial is likely forthcoming in the case of a seventh defendant, Linda Lemaster,who also faces trial beginning early in May. She is being defended by attorney Jonathon Gettleman, who defended Miguel Deleon against the City's civil injunction for sleeping in the downtown area. Neither City Attorney John Barisone nor District Attorney Bob Lee have any compunctions about performing jury trials, calling dozens of witnesses who are paid staff of both the City and the County, paying their own staff for hundreds of hours billed at between $215 and $225 and hour to prosecute homeless people for "living" "staying the night" "sleeping" or "lodging" in a public place where they are not trespassing.

It goes to say, that a fraction of these costs could be used to house, feed, transport, and provide job training the very same people who lack a permanent shelter and hence tend to be subject to these and other laws.

Facing trial on Monday are Eliot Anderson, Arthur Bishoff, Collette Connolly, Christopher Doyon, Gary Johnson, and Ed Frey. If all are found guilty, what does anyone "win?"

For more information: call Ed Frey at 831 479 8911
or contact Becky Johnson at becky_johnson222 AT hotmail.com

Urgh, California

2011-03-25T09:18:00.000-07:00

A Public Works employee installs new signs on Pacific Ave. in Santa Cruz
to post the new smoking ban on December 16, 2009. Photo by Becky Johnson

by Chris Snowdon

March 23, 2011

found online at Velvet Glove, Iron Fist.

London, England -- With Britain vying for pole position in the tobacco control freak race with its zany plain packaging/display ban proposals, reigning champion California is having to raise its game. Can it rise to the challenge? Of course it can...

Smoking on open patios and balconies will be prohibited for the 18,500 apartment and condominium residents in Laguna Woods if the City Council on Wednesday gives final approval to an amendment to the city's smoking ordinance.

Yes, that's an outdoor smoking ban on your own private property. And even that doesn't go far enough for the illiberal goof-balls of this clown state.

The council also considered prohibiting smoking inside homes unless all windows and doors of the units are closed, but tabled that provision for further study.

"We are not yet ready to regulate smoking within houses," said Mayor Pro Tem Cynthia Conners.

Don't mistake that for 'we don't want to' or 'we would never'. They're just not ready yet. The baby steps of prohibition have got them this far, so why start taking bigger strides now? There's plenty of time for smoking bans in the home, don't you worry.

Meanwhile, up the coast in Santa Cruz...

The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 Tuesday to require retailers to obtain a license to sell tobacco, joining dozens of other communities statewide.

The ~~excuse~~ urgent justification for this policy is to reduce youth access to cigarettes.

The county says a recent survey demonstrated county retailers' poor compliance with laws prohibiting sales to those under 18. "It shocked everybody," said Bob Kennedy, the county's environmental health director.

It would be interesting to learn where this shocking study came from and who funded it but, I guess we should all be thankful that this licensing system is going to stop retailers selling cigarettes to kids, um, somehow. How exactly will that work again?

The new license applies to all of the county's 104 retailers who sell cigarettes, and will cost $318 annually.

So you can't sell cigarettes to kids unless you can scrape together $318 a year? That should stop 'em.

That $318 is the whole point, of course. It won't stop shop-keepers selling tobacco to under-18s but it will penalise tobacconists in the hope that some of them will say 'screw it' and stop selling cigarettes. Places that don't sell many cigarettes will do that, for sure, and prohibition takes one step closer.

The whole point of the exercise is to make selling cigarettes less profitable and make buying cigarettes more inconvenient. That's why it's been on the anti-smokers' agenda for some time. It's got sweet nuthin' to go with youth access which, as ever, needs to be addressed with enforcement. Speaking of which...

The county hopes to run at least one compliance check on businesses per year, with first-time violators facing a 60-day suspension of tobacco sales.

Those who are cited four times over five years can lose their tobacco licenses.

If stopping kids buying tobacco was really these people's concern, they'd be doing all this already. They don't need to charge store-owners several hundred dollars a year for a junk license before they start enforcing the law. Or is the State of California seriously claiming that it doesn't already get enough money from cigarette taxes and the Master Settlement Agreement to afford doing a measly one check a year?

And finally, back down the coast in Los Angeles, Bernard Parks is doing his stuff. Parks is a supremely stupid man with totalitarian tendencies who believes that "secondhand smoke is the number one cause of preventable health disease in America". He also believes that "inhaling secondhand smoke is more harmful than actually smoking". If this is the kind of bumpkin that gets elected (and re-elected) in California these days, then it's no wonder the State has become a bankrupt citadel of intolerance.

Parks' previously efforts to turn LA into a bully state include an outdoor smoking ban in the city's streets and he has now turned his beady eyes—as they all do sooner or later—to food. As the video from Reason shows below, he's going to ban restaurants he doesn't like. The fact that LA residents obviously do like them doesn't enter into it.

With San Francisco banning Happy Meals and New York putting a tax on soda (thanks to Michael Bloomberg, another smoking ban obsessive who took the 'next logical step'), this is only the start of the war on food. For the time being, Bernie Parks is only going after the fast food joints. As they might say in nearby Lacuna Woods: "We are not yet ready to regulate eating within houses."

Peace Camp Six Jan 21 2011 Hearing Transcript

2011-03-19T08:28:00.000-07:00

TRANSCRIPT FOR "MOTION TO DISMISS" HEARING

Jan 21, 2011
1:30PM

Santa Cruz County Superior Court
701 Ocean St.
Santa Cruz, Ca. 95060
Department 2

The Honorable JOHN GALLAGHER, Presiding Judge
ED FREY, defendant and attorney for the defense,
Assistant District Attorney, SARAH DABKOWSKI, for the prosecution
Peace Camp Six defendants, COLLETTE CONNOLLY, ARTHUR BISHOFF,

ELIOT ANDERSON, GARY JOHNSON, and ED FREY were present.
CHRISTOPHER DOYON, also a defendant was not present

THE HEARING BEGINS AT 3:50 PM

JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Mr. Frey. I believe you are representing everyone on the motion to dismiss. Is that true?
ED FREY: Yes it is.
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Is there anyone else here in the courtroom waiting for a
matter to appear other than people represented by Mr. Frey? (silence)
Okay. I think we can take your matters now. I'll call them for the record.
So the matters that are remaining are the People v Eliot Mathew Anderson et al. Is Eliot
Mathew Anderson present?

ELIOT ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Perhaps all of Mr. Frey's clients could sit in the first row near
the bailiff station. If others sitting there would kindly vacate that area.
Gary Allen Johnson is present. Eliot Mathew Anderson is present. Mr. Frey is present.
Christopher Mark Doyon?

ED FREY: Is not here, your Honor
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Collette Marie Connolly is present. Good afternoon.
Arthur William Bishoff is present.
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Mr. Frey, Can you tell me anything about Christopher
Mark Doyon's status?
ED FREY: No. Mr. Doyon lives in a place that is very inaccessible, he lives about 20
miles out of town, and has no telephone. I don't know why my client is not in court.

JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: All right. Given that you are his counsel and you're
here, I am going to excuse his absence for the purposes of this hearing. And who is
handling this for the people?
DA SARA DABKOWSKI: Sara Dabkowski, representing the people

JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Good afternoon to all the people
represented by Mr. Frey. I'm sorry you had to wait all day to
have this happen. Or perhaps all afternoon. I have read the moving papers, the opposition, and
the reply. And I will hear your arguments at this time. Mr. Frey it's your motion.

ED FREY: Thank-you, your Honor.
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER:How much time do you think you need?

ED FREY: I'd say 15 minutes.
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Excuse me . I need to deal with the media request. I have
a media request to record, photograph for broadcast submitted by the Santa Cruz Sentinel,
a Mr. Dan Coyro of the SENTINEL. Is Mr. Coyro present?

(voices: he's not present)
All right. Then if he's not present then I don't need to deal with that request. Mr. Frey,
your other request?

ED FREY : That it be recorded aurally.
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER:: "It IS being recorded by the court's recording system.
And that will be the only audio recording. If you want a copy that will be the official copy.
ED FREY: Very good.
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Ms. Dabkowski, how much time do you need?
DA SARA DABKOWSKI: I guess it will depend on if the court would like me to
address the specific issues: I'd say 10 minutes.
JOHN GALLAGHER: Perhaps, since to some extent this is an evidentiary hearing because
Mr. Frey has asked me to address a number of items for judicial notice. Why don't we first
address the issues of judicial notice. Mr. Frey, why don't you go forward.
FREY: Okay. The first is request for judicial notice is that the fact that this courthouse is a
place...that's traditionally been a location for public protest.

JOHN GALLAGHER: Do the people have a position on this?
DA SARA DABKOWSKI: Your Honor, I thought the type of fact... it's not the type of facts
that would be taken under judicial notice in the evidence subsection 452, facts that one would
take judicial notice of, items of common knowledge, like what kind of (unintelligible) there
would be on a particular day. Such as what day of the week is Feb. 14th is on. I don't think
it's the type of fact that the court can take judicial notice of.
ED FREY: Your Honor, I believe that we cited not section 452 for that, but we cited section
452 for that fact, but section 451 subdivision F

JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: "Facts and propositions of generalized knowledge that are
so universally known that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute."

ED FREY: Yes.

DA SARA DABKOWSKI: I'd have the same argument, that that is not something that is
generally universally known. It is a proposition or opinion. It could be disputed.
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Mr. Frey, your response?

ED FREY: Yes. Actually 452 (g) is probably the most appropriate : "Facts and
propositions that are such common knowledge within the territorial jurisdiction of
the court they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute."
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: All right. Is your response any different to that
sub- section Ms. Dabkowski?
DA SARA DABKOWSKI: No, your Honor.
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: "Mr. Frey, I've lived in this community for roughly
31 years, and if I had been asked to say whether I think
that is a fact, that that is indisputable under any of these sections, even though I've been
coming to this courthouse for 32 years, my personal
opinion is "no". I know it's not my personal view that supports whether or not judicial
notice should be given. But I did want to tell you that
even as from someone who's been coming to this building for nearly 32 years, I would
not have found that that is true.
ED FREY : Can we think about all the times, for example, that the SEIU would hold
demonstrations here? And in front of the stairway over
in front of the high rise building. Then there's all the public groups that hold meetings and
public demonstrations here. SAM FARR came here
and spoke . It's a place where the public has gathered. I've been to about thirty or so myself
at this location. "
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Your specific request is that the County courthouse and
civic center of the City of Santa Cruz, City Hall....
you mean city hall, that complex?
ED FREY: Yes.
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Have been used as sites for public gatherings, public
demonstrations , for many decades and are still so used.
ED FREY: Yes
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: You're not asking me to say that this is a frequent
occurrence, just that these occurrences have happened in these two locations for many
decades continuing till today. Is that a fair statement?
ED FREY: Yes.
Now Ms. Dabkowski, now that I'm focusing on that particular language, do you have
anything to add?
DA SARA DABKOWSKI : I guess I would add that Judicial notices are irrelevant,
since what we are arguing today is whether or not 647 (e) is valid or invalid on its face
and this particular judicial notice does not go to the argument and is irrelevant.
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Mr. Frey, what is your response to that?

ED FREY: Well, as I understand the demurrer process, and that is essentially what
this is as counsel has pointed out. Evidentiary facts...any facts are not permissible.
However, the exception is if facts are taken by judicial notice.

JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: That is the rule of law and that I accept that it is
accurate.
ED FREY: It's relevant especially to our first amendment argument of course.
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: I'm going to grant the request for judicial notice
as stated on number one. I'm not ruling whether that evidence is admissible on the
motion to dismiss.

ED FREY: "The second request for judicial notice is "the defendants purpose and
what they did was, well one of their purposes was, to protest the Sleeping Ban. And
that again was under section 452 (g).
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: "I'm denying that request for judicial notice. I'm
guessing that Ms. Dabkowski, you won't want to talk me out of that decision?

DA SARA DABKOWSKI: No, thank you.

ED FREY: "The last request I have is one of those general propositions. That it is safer to
sleep in group when you are sleeping outside than it is to sleep by yourself."
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: "I will deny that request for judicial notice. I assume
the people have no objection. Are there any other evidential matters before we go to arguments?
ED FREY: No.
DA SARA DABKOWSKI: Your Honor, I also would object to Mr. Frey's declaration.
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Is Mr. Frey's declaration attached to something?
DA SARA DABKOWSKI: I believe it was attached to the motion that he filed.
ED FREY: It is filed as separate document, I believe. It was filed contemporaneously
with our opening brief.
(long silence)

JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: I'm looking over all the files and I can't find it.
ED FREY: It may be in Mr. Anderson file as that is the case that it was filed under.
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: do you have a copy?

ED FREY: I do. (gives Judge his copy)

JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Let me refresh my recollection here. Mr. Frey, this would not be
something I could take judicial notice of in the demurrer process. This kind of submittal is not
acceptable, traditionally at least. So do you have any response to that?

ED FREY: No, I think in general counsel is right. We are challenging the statute on its face and
therefore to bring in new facts would not be appropriate. We have to just take just the statute itself.
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: I will treat this as an evidential objection by Ms. Dabkowski. And
I will sustain that objection and not consider the contents of the declaration or the attachment or
any other references to the attachment. Any other evidential issues?

DA SARA DABKOWSKI: No, your honor.

JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Let's go for it.

ED FREY: May I request of the court whether you have a tentative decision? Or if the court
wants to hear arguments on a particular issue vs a request for others?
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: I don't have an opinion and I don't have a request for issues.

ED FREY: The point I would make first, your Honor, is that even though The Ninth Amendment
to the United States Constitution has hardly ever been cited by the Supreme Court of the United States.
The same can be said with regard to that portion of article 1 section 24 in the California State Constitution
that says basically the same thing the 9th Amendment says, and that too has not been a subject of
appellate review or application.

But we are faced with is applying the law set out in the Constitution directly in this case without
having to examine how other appellate judges have treated it. Obviously, there is almost no history
there. I don't know if the court had a chance to review the book I mentioned about the 9th amendment
in my briefs?

JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: If you did not submit it for me to review, I did not review it.

ED FREY: But I do cite several points made in that book about the 9th amendment that the purpose
of the 9th Amendment, was that the authors of the Bill of Rights were concerned that if we list certain
rights then are judges going to assume that those are the ONLY rights available? And that was precisely
what the drafters and the authors of the Bill of Rights did not want to happen. So that was the purpose of
putting it in --the 9th amendment in. To say clearly to everyone, especially the judges, that the
enumeration of these rights above --such as freedom of expression, freedom from unreasonable searches
and seizures, etc.--- are not, that list was not meant to exclude other rights that are retained by the People.
Rights which obviously are too numerous to mention, and too obvious to mention. As I said, the right to
breathe was not put into the Constitution. Because it's pretty obvious to everyone, if you can't breathe,
you can't live. I think the same thing can be said about the right to sleep. If one cannot sleep one will not
live very long. One cannot survive without sleeping. And that the right to sleep has to be one of those
unenumerated rights.

JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: "Did the founding fathers side to protect any rights associated with
the physical process of living?

ED FREY: Not to my knowledge. I don't believe so. Of course the right to freedom of speech, freedom of
religion, unreasonable search and seizure, the right to counsel, the right to jury trial. It seems that none of
these have anything to do with bodily functions.

JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Does that tell us something?

ED FREY: Yes, it tells me that those bodily functions are so ingrained in human life, so necessary to
human life that if one were to apply a modicum of common sense, one would say we need not list these
things.
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Isn't it also a reasonable assumption that they were protecting
political rights but not physical rights?"

ED FREY: Well I think they were reserving all sorts of rights that were not listed, not specifically listed.
But I certainly couldn't give a catalog of what I would surmise to be what those rights might be. But the right
to sleep, I certainly would say is included in there, because, as I said, if you can't sleep you can't live.
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Is the right to pursuit of happiness anywhere found expressly in the Constitution?

ED FREY: Not in the United States Constitution, but in the California Constitution, it's right there:
the right to pursue and obtain happiness. That's another broad set of rights, article 1, section 1 of the
California Constitution that is extremely broad, and yet it has to mean something. It means, really,
that the people retain the right to do whatever they want to do so long as they don't interfere in someone
else' rights.
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: the "Right to pursue happiness" was found in other documents around
the Revolutionary period. Were they not?

ED FREY: In the Declaration of Independence but not in the United States Constitution. But in the
California State Constitution.
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Don't you see the dichotomy there? By the time the Declaration of
Independence they were expressing that right, but by the time they got around to writing the Constitution,
they were focusing on political rights, and not more personal or physical rights.

ED FREY: Yes. I believe that's an accurate statement. The California Constitution, the drafters of that..
.actually it was adopted by the voters, I believe, in the State of California in 1874. They decided they
wanted to put it in. So we have that right as Californians. We have much greater rights as Californians
under the California Constitution than Americans generally do under the United States Constitution.
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: But even in that much broader document, voters did not choose to
enumerate the rights you're seeking here. Is that correct?

ED FREY: Yes, it's correct. But again, for the same common sense reason. They wouldn't put in
"the right to breathe" because it would seem silly. Everyone has the right to breathe. It's kind of
absurd to put that in a legal document.

JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: I didn't mean to steer you off course. I just had some questions.
Please continue.

ED FREY: So I believe what we are talking about here is precisely what the drafters of the Bill of Rights
had in mind. And that is the right to do something that they weren't prepared to list in their very
basic list of political and civil rights listed in the Bill of Rights.

Then with regard to our second basic set of rights under due process of law. The 5th and 14th amendments
to the United States Constitution, generally that the law that we're dealing which here which outlaws
"lodging" whether it be on public or private property, at any time or at any place. There's no limitations
on it, there's no definitions on it. A citizen reading that law would have no clear idea whatsoever what is
permitted and what is prohibited. "Lodging" in general, means, as I have always understood the word,
living in a particular place. You are lodged in a house, you're lodged in a trailer. You're lodged at a big...
Yosemite Lodge. To me it's always implied a structure. Unless you're using it in the other term as when
an object gets "lodged" between two rocks, but that's not the sense in which the statute speaks, I don't think.
Unlawful lodging means a person is in a place where they are not supposed to be. How can a person know
what they can or can't do just by reading it?
Your Honor, as I pointed out in my opening brief, "lodge" has been used very specifically for various
statutory purposes in California and it is always surrounded with the rights that go along with real property
occupants; tenants rights; lodger's rights. That sort of thing. Even, as I point out, if you are considered a
"lodger" because you rent one room in a home, in a single family residence that is occupied by the owner,
you are then considered to be a "lodger." You can be ousted by the police from that, but you have to have 7 days
written notice before that can happen. It's one of the only cases where under landlord/tenant law, an unlawful detainer
is not necessary to dislodge someone from real property. You can just call the police and have them come.
In fact, if the policemen come to oust you, one of the questions they will ask the owner is, "Have you given this
person 7-days notice in writing?" If not, if the answer is "no," the policeman will go away. There is no right of
the owner to dislodge the person without having first given that 7 days written notice.

So reading this entire body of California law, a citizen could say, if I'm just sleeping in front of the courthouse,
I'm not lodging. Because "Lodging" has always implied that you had permission. That you have some sort of
written contract with the owner or the person who is in control of the property. Here we had no contract.
We just came and we slept. We didn't ask anybody first.

So we're not lodgers. Or we don't think we are lodgers and the statute doesn't make it clear. And because that's so,
that's one reason the law should be held void. Another basic reason it should be held void for vagueness is, of course,
that Sheriff's and the police have no guidelines for them to know what to do and what not to do, and who is breaking
the law and who isn't breaking the law. It opens up the situation to the possibility of arbitrary and capricious
enforcement and that is precisely the most important factor that the United States Supreme Court has held,
when present, to find the statute void for vagueness.

JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: You don't think the statutes acknowledges the permission
element in the standard for "lodging?"

ED FREY: It says "without permission" but what does "lodging" mean? Lodging implies a
structure--it imply s a lodge
or it implies.... If you are walking down the sidewalk and you're really tired and want to sit
down and rest, that doesn't
require permission, generally.

JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: But doesn't the statute provide definition to that when it
says "building, structure, vehicle, or place?"
ED FREY: No. That is so broad in includes every square inch in the State of California.
"Every place" in California. Every place.
It could be on a sidewalk. It could be in a park. It could be in front of the Courthouse.

JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Why should any place be unprotected?

ED FREY: It's not that any place should be unprotected. What we need here are reasonable guidelines. For example,
if the County authorities felt it was not a good thing to have people sleeping here at night, they could write a regulation
or an ordinance that says "not here" "not permitted here" but they can't prohibit it everywhere in the county. Because the
people have a right to be here, and they have the right to remain here as I pointed out in the reply brief, there is a statute
in California which tries to answer the dilemma that public welfare authorities would have, "If a person is homeless,
how do we know where he resides?" Well, that statute says he resides where ever he remains unless he's called away.
So anyone who remains in the County of Santa Cruz, has a right to remain here....but this statewide statute takes away
his right to sleep while he remains here."

JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Your time has been exceeded. But please take a minute to wrap up if you like.

ED FREY: I know I'm asking the court to do something that is unprecedented. But that's just in the nature of things.
We have these very broad Constitutional provisions. The fact that they've not been applied or referred to by other judges,
especially other appellate judges doesn't mean we can ignore them. Those are the basic rules that the court goes by, as
the court well knows. The Constitution must be applied. You can't just say those are just pretty sounding words.
Those words mean something. The right to pursue safety. The right to pursue privacy. The right obtain privacy.
The right to obtain safety. These words have to mean something and given meaning. And in this context, the right to
pursue happiness, the right to pursue privacy has got to include the right to sleep. Because otherwise, your life
is ruined if you can't sleep.

ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY DABKOWSKI gives her summation

DA SARA DABKOWSKI: Your honor, Mr. Frey is correct that this is an unprecedented request he is making. And that there is no law which supports granting his untimely request. Let me point out that this is an untimely motion that is being treated like a demurrer. A demurrer is something that must be filed before a plea is entered. All defendants have entered pleas. And if a demurrer has not been filed prior to a plea, then all rights to a demurrer are waived. And that's something that's found in the penal code. And it is untimely to proceed as a demurrer. And that would be the proper motion or format to address these particular issues. Particularly the question of whether 647 (e) is void on its face. Because that is something that a demurrer definitely asks, whether the charge or code section is valid and addressing the code section on its merits and asking if 647 (e) is unconstitutionally vague.

Case law supports that it is not unconstitutionally vague. It does put people on notice. As case law says, it does have to "provide sufficient definite guidelines for a potential violator and to the public and sufficient definite guidelines to law enforcement" so there is not arbitrary enforcement of the particular section. In this case, there is sufficient information to give notice that it is illegal To 'lodge' somewhere you don't have permission. To "lodge" somewhere, it's a common word. It does put people on notice. It's a word that can mean that you are a lodger at a motel, spending the night, staying the night. Or as Mr. Frey pointed out, it can have a more permanent meaning. That you are a "lodger" in someone's home. But it is a common word that puts people on notice that they can't lodge, can't live, can't stay the night, can't sleep somewhere, can't set up roots somewhere if they don't have permission. So it's not unconstitutionally vague on its face as written. To lodge at a hotel, to live, stay the night, sleep somewhere, set up roots where they don't have permission.

So it is not unconstitutionally vague. Particularly because in this case a person can ask themselves, "What do I have permission to do here?" A person coming up the courthouse grounds at night should ask, what is it I can do here? I can't file a court case right now since the courthouse is closed. And I should know that no person gave me permission to sleep here.

And so there are guidelines to put the public on notice, to put law enforcement on notice, and put juries how have to decide on such things on notice. It's not unconstitutionally vague. It uses common words which have common meanings. No law is going to be absolutely perfect where every single time everyone has the exact same idea but the point it, it has to provide sufficient and definite guidelines, which this particular statute does.

Turning to the 9th amendment. There is no ninth amendment violation right here. There is no constitutionally protected "right to sleep." It's not a recognized right under the US Constitution nor under the California State Constitution. while sleep may be a need and a very important need, and in no way are we down-playing the importance of the need, and we're not unsympathetic to the plight of a lot of people, but here in Santa Cruz, homelessness is a pervasive and common issue here that we are all as a community dealing with. it's not a right at this time. It is not recognized as a right. There is no authority to support it. But there is no Ninth Amendment violation in this case. Nor is there any particular section of the California State Constitution either cited by counsel or otherwise that shows that there is any California violation in this case.

Finally, in Counsel's case, Counsel raised the issue that defendants' first amendment rights may have been violated. But the defendants were not cited for their speech. They were not being punished for any speech. They were cited for conduct after they were warned to leave. This is not a punishment on speech. 647 (e) on its face is content neutral. It doesn't in any way target particular types of speech or types of expressive conduct. It does have reasonable time, place, and manner regulations because 647 (e) just applies to areas where you don't have permission. As the cases we cited, it's reasonable for the government to maintain the safety, maintain the cleanliness of common places. That is a government interest that they can protect. The cleanliness of public spaces. They have a right to have reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions put on even expressive behavior and expressive speech. So I think it is reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions that you can't lodge in places where you don't have permission.

Is there anything else which the court specifically would like me to address?

JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: I don't think so. Mr. Frey, would you like to reply?

ED FREY'S FINAL ARGUMENTS

ED FREY: Just briefly, your Honor. When the People say there is no law that supports our motion, I'm sorry, but I have to basically disagree in a very arduous manner. The law that supports our motion is very strong. It's right, directly in the Constitution. It's not law that appellate judges have established, but it is law that is right in the Constitution. To say that "there is no law.." is simply inaccurate. With regard to providing guidelines, the only guideline is that counsel mentioned is the one that says you have to have permission. that means in effect that the requirement of getting consent from someone, then if you are so poor you can't afford a motel room, you have no where in the State of California where you can go and legally sleep. That is simply and morally unacceptable.

JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Thank-you Mr. Frey and Ms. Dabkowski. You both made well-prepared written and oral presentations.

GALLAGHER'S RULING

JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER:"It's my intention to deny the motion to dismiss. I think the People make a good point when they say that "Sleeping is not a Constitutionally protected activity." And that this statute provides a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction. I am not unmindful of the difficult situations of people who don't have the assets or means to purchase lodging, don't have the means to purchase a campsite. And what it means to buy accommodations in a given area. But I don't think it was the intention of the people of California amending the Constitution to say that someone could sleep on any piece of public property or private property without permission as part of the pursuit of happiness under the State Constitution. I'm even more comfortable that the founders of the United States Constitution did not envision a "right to sleep" anywhere when they were drafting the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights and I think I followed that with my argument that that is a document that protects political rights and not physical rights and those who drafted the Bill of Rights did not envision to allow anyone to sleep on ANY public or private property without permission.

They did not envision an ingrained "right" to sleep anywhere when they were drafting the Constitution. As I suggested in my discussion that that is a document that highlights political rights and not physical rights.

I appreciate that as a society we have not found a good solution to the terrible economy we have in this State and in this country and we haven't for quite some time. But the People of the State of California and the people who wrote the Constitution did not intend it to allow the right of the people to sleep anywhere they wanted without permission from the landowners. I have to deny this motion to dismiss. So I'd be happy to set consistent dates as counsel wishes. Do the people move to intend to join these cases?

DA SARA DABKOWSKI: I guess I'll file a motion to join these trials unless Mr. Frey objects.

ED FREY: No. We don't object. We don't want separate trials. That would be wasteful to everyone.

JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: So you'll stipulate to the rejoinder?

ED FREY: Yes your Honor.

JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Can you contact CHRIS DOYON and inform him his presence will be required at these trials?

ED FREY: Yes I will do that. Your Honor, may I make one additional one-sentence comment about your ruling?

JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER:I request that you do not do that.

Transcription by Becky Johnson on March 18, 2011

misdemeanor 647 (e) California State anti-lodging law

PC 647 (e) Who lodges in any building, structure,
vehicle, or place, whether public or private,
without the permission of the owner or person
entitled to the possession or in control of it.

Judge Rebecca Connolly rules 647 (e) not vague or overbroad

2011-03-05T13:22:00.000-08:00

One of the protesters at Peace Camp 2010 lies down for the night
literally on the front doorstep of the Santa Cruz County Courthouse.
Photo by Becky Johnson August 29, 2010

by Becky Johnson
March 5 2011

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- Yesterday, the newly-elected Judge, Rebecca Connolly faced her first decision regarding the case of Linda Lemaster and the Peace Camp Six. All had been arrested under the State's draconian 647 (e) statute which outlaws "illegal lodging" with the word "lodging" undefined.

Representing Linda Lemaster, Public Defender, Mark Garver had submitted a brief and gotten a response to his brief, at a hearing called a demurrer. Connolly said she'd reviewed both briefs. Garver began by addressing the two cases raised in the Prosecution's brief, both of which addressed camping ordinances. What follows is my version of what I heard, based on my notes and conversations I had with Ms. Lemaster afterwards.

MARK GARVER: In the cases cited by opposition, Joyce v City of San Francisco, and in the People v Scott, in both cases, the statute further defines the behavior addressed. 647 (e) is vague and overbroad. What does it mean to violate it? Does it mean or specify lying down? In Joyce, it states specifically that "merely lying down or sleeping in a bedroll does NOT constitute a violation."

In the People v Scott, it does define "camping" as well. " Camping" is defined as residing or resting in a park for long repetitious periods of time. Your Honor, this is a tangible definition.

Under PC 647 (e) it's not clear if a person violates the statute after one-half hour, or 10 minutes, or after a period of days. Even in the language of the courts on ruling on the W. Hollywood (camping) ordinance, the Justices said "If the City of W. Hollywood had not provided a definition of "camping" they would not have found their ordinance constitutional."

But here, the opposition expects us to merely substitute the word "lodging" for "camping."

What's illegal is using that claim as a living accommodation sufficient to provide guidelines to police to enforce what lodging is. Can we tell what "lodging" is after 5 minutes? Ten minutes? One-half hour? Is it for lying down? Is if for sleeping? This lends itself to arbitrary enforcement by police, or so said the Hawaii Supreme Court when they reviewed the ordinance.

DISTRICT ATTORNEY MCKINNEY: I just saw this case today so I'm not going to respond to those arguments.

MARK GARVER: The Hawaiian decision was different from the Scott decision in that it was "camping" and it did have a definition of "camping." Still it was found vague for other reasons. It defined what "living accommodations" were. It said that's "remaining for a prolonged period not for recreational use." Here we have no definition of "lodging."

And if "lodging" can be defined as someone who stands, sits, or publicly assembles in a protest, it can be used to disperse that protest. I am challenging this ordinance on its face as well as as applied.

DISTRICT ATTORNEY MCKINNEY: In the Hawaiian case, I haven't had the chance to review it all but I don't think you should give it much weight. In Joyce, it details a 647 (i) which is virtually identical to (j) --and they found it was NOT unconstitutional. As for over-broad or unconstitutional, that was not addressed in the counselor's response.

JUDGE REBECCA CONNOLLY: I can't believe this statute is vague. Regarding Constitutional issues, I don't think it's so vague it would influence the 1st amendment. How about the ruling in Scott where they said that "If they'd had a definition...?"

DISTRICT ATTORNEY MCKINNEY: It said it "might" be unconstitutional. We all have a common sense understanding of "camping." We all have a common sense notion of what "lodging" is.

JUDGE REBECCA CONNOLLY: I find the statute as written is sufficient on its face.

As to the citation, it's sufficient As to the citation, it's sufficient to address the charges -- it says it's illegal to "lodge" --with respect to 647 (e), is not void for being over-broad. I'm going to rule to deny the demurrer.

With respect to this case, Judge John Gallagher is handling all the camping cases.

MARK GARVER: So for all purposes that means Department 2?
JUDGE REBECCA CONNOLLY: Yes. Judge Gallagher. Next hearing March 11th at 8:30AM., Dept. 2. I want to thank everyone here. It was very well argued by counsel. Thank-you for your attention to detail. I'll assign it to Dept. 2 in Judge Gallager's court.

Congratulations Egypt!!

2011-02-11T09:29:00.001-08:00

by Becky Johnson
Feb 11, 2011

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- Watching the Egyptian revolution from the comfort of my living room on CNN and other American news media has allowed me to be a witness to a drama on par with Les Miserables. President Hosni Mubarek, although carrying the title of "President" is/was actually a dictator, despite denials as such by Vice-President Joe Biden. And now, the sheer force of the Egyptian people taking to the streets, bravely carrying signs and letting their faces be seen by Mubarek's secret police, has in only 18 days taken down a military regime.

While without doubt, the unifying cry has been to throw Mubarek out of office, the secondary demand has been for the right of freedom of speech and for the right of the people to peaceably assemble. You see, under the Mubarek regime, one could neither protest nor assemble.

What will come next? In the best case scenario, the heads of the Egyptian army provide for a safe and smooth transition to free and open elections, as well as a transition to a representative government. Egypt's equivalent of Marshall Law will be lifted soon, ending the 30-year "emergency" that put it in place.

In the worst, religious-fanatics shoot their way to power and sharia law is instituted about the land. One election occurs and then no more after that.

But I do not fear the worst. I am extremely hopeful for the fate of the Egyptian people, that they find their way forward, that an era of freedom of speech, an end to the use of State torture, and free and open elections follow.

Egypt's young people are educated, internet-savvy, and less interested in religious extremism than their parent's generation. However, in current Egypt, good-paying jobs have not been available, leading to a whole generation without hope. Ridding themselves of a corrupt regime that took away their rights and left them in poverty has got to help.

May God bless the Egyptian people.

NYC Smoking Ban is Civic Disservice

2011-02-08T02:22:00.000-08:00

Times Square, New York City, one of 1,700 parks and plazas
where smoking will be banned under a new City ordinance.

Commentary

By Evan Mantyk
Epoch Times Staff
Feb 7, 2011

Do you want someone next to you in the park smoking, or do you want someone next to you in the park smoking and casting nervous glances at you- hoping that you don’t threaten to report them to the police?

That is the reality behind the city’s impending ban on smoking in public areas like parks, beaches, and public plazas, including the large one in Times Square. The law is considered one of, if not the widest reaching smoking ban in the country. But you can expect no new police staff will be added to enforce it.

Councilwoman Gale Brewer, the bill's main sponsor, said that she anticipates the ban will mostly be self-enforced by New Yorkers, according to the Associated Press. Basically, one New Yorker lights up in a park, the next one is irritated by the smoking and says: “I’m going to report you to the police.” The smoking New Yorker is then scared into putting the cigarette out or leaving the park.

Certainly less smoking or no smoking is good for New Yorkers’ health; but think about it— what kind of New Yorker reports a fellow New Yorker for smoking a cigarette outside in the open air? Not one I would want to be around.

And this could just be the beginning. The City University of New York is planning to ban smoking on all of its campuses next year.

These bans do not seem like a move to truly improve the quality of life in our city, like the ban on smoking in restaurants and bars in 2003, but rather like an antiquated, big brother-ish move by city officials hoping to impress themselves and others with what they have accomplished.

Smokers enjoy cigarettes on
a New York City balcony,
an activity that is now banned
under the new ordinance.

I am a non-smoking political independent. The unfortunate reality is that politicians survive off of laws and bills and coming up with new and ostensibly better ways to govern. The truly great politician will be the one who is willing to once in a while approach governing from the perspective of reducing laws and appealing to a higher power, whether that be public awareness, capitalist forces, fate, faith, or (if you prefer a smoking theme) the inextinguishable flame of integrity that lights the human spirit.

In this case the issue behind the law being created is second hand smoke

“By voting to prohibit smoking in all 1,700 City parks and 14 miles of beaches, the City Council will help us protect more New Yorkers from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke – particularly children who suffer from asthma,” said Mayor Michael Bloomberg in a statement.

“The statistics don’t lie: second hand smoke kills. With this bill, all New Yorkers can now breathe easier and breathe cleaner air,” said Council Speaker Christine Quinn.

But, instead of creating more laws to reduce the chance of second hand smoke in public areas, why not focus on creating more public area for New Yorkers, smokers and non-smokers alike. It actually wouldn’t be that hard at all since large portions of park space in the city are often closed off from the public.

Most of my trips to Madison Square Park with my wife and two kids have been filled with comments on what a complete waste the usually fenced off lawn area is. Sure, the grass is well kept and pristinely green, but most of the time it is off limits to the public.

The closed off grass is like our city lawmakers, trying to look so perfect but really just doing this city a disservice.

Evan Mantyk can be reached at evan.mantyk@epochtimes.com

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 and The Berne Convention on Literary and Artistic Works, Article 10, the news clippings, audio, and images used in this posting are made available without profit for research and educational purposes.

Why Are Some Cops So Hostile to Marijuana Policy Reform?

2011-02-02T10:16:00.000-08:00

by Morgan Fox January 19, 2011

This article by Rob Kampia was recently in Huffington Post:

A few years ago, when the Marijuana Policy Project was lobbying the Minnesota legislature to pass a modest medical marijuana bill, the state prosecutors association led the opposition. Rank-and-file police from the Twin Cities left their beats to fill up committee hearing rooms — in uniform, with handguns strapped to their waists — in an attempt to intimidate the state legislators on the committees.
And law enforcement lied, lied, lied, so much so that we started distributing daily “Law Enforcement Lie of the Day” videos to all state legislators and political reporters in the state. We also slammed the leading local prosecutor’s office with phone calls from angry constituents; he privately threatened to arrest us for “obstructing justice.” I almost wish he had arrested us so that he would have had to explain why trying to help sick people interferes with justice, but he didn’t.
For a couple years, it was all-out warfare, but we finally passed a medical marijuana bill through the legislature in May 2009, only to see Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) veto the bill, saying he preferred to “stand with law enforcement.”
State prosecutors, police, sheriffs, and attorneys general — not to mention federal DEA and FBI agents — are almost universally opposed to marijuana policy reform measures in every state, to the point where they actually spend time and taxpayer money campaigning and lobbying against us. Why?
1. IGNORANCE: For the most part, rank-and-file cops aren’t trained scientists or policy experts. They don’t spend much time reading medical studies or public policy analyses, and they generally don’t have much knowledge about the issue beyond how it directly affects their jobs. When presented with such information, they tend to listen to the people they encounter most in their work. Unfortunately, those people are almost always government officials or those with a vested interest in keeping marijuana illegal, such as drug treatment specialists. Since this information comes from “trusted sources,’ it’s usually accepted as fact, and differing viewpoints are therefore ignored.
2. JOB SECURITY: Before MPP helped decriminalize marijuana possession in Massachusetts in November 2008, we learned that marijuana-possession arrests accounted for 6% of all arrests in that state each year. So, to some extent, law enforcement was opposing our ballot initiative because they were concerned that some of them might need to be laid off if there were fewer “criminals” to arrest and prosecute. As for me, I never thought that 6% of law enforcement would be laid off; more likely, we were freeing up law enforcement to go after real criminals. Which leads me to…
3. QUALITY OF LIFE: According to the FBI, 48 law-enforcement officers nationwide were feloniously killed in the line of duty in 2009, and none of these were killed by enforcing drug laws. It makes sense that going after murderers would be more dangerous than sniffing under college students’ doors. But policing exists to make society safer, and hunting down nonviolent marijuana users at the expense of thousands of unsolved assaults, rapes, and murders does nothing to accomplish this.
4. COGNITIVE DISSONANCE: It’s hard for any person to change his or her political opinion after years of believing that opinion. So you can imagine how it would be even harder to change your opinion on an issue after you’ve ruined the lives of hundreds or thousands of people by arresting them on that issue. In other words, once a cop arrests marijuana users, testifies against them in court, and moves up the political food chain because of all this, it’s almost impossible for that cop to then declare, “I was wrong.”
Thankfully, there’s an organization of principled law enforcement professionals who are neither ignorant, self-serving, nor mentally calcified. I’m talking about Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, an organization that deserves your wholehearted support.
And there is another ray of hope: When I talk to cops on the beat in the District of Columbia, where I live, I ask them, “What’s the worst crime you usually have to deal with?” They almost always answer, “Domestic violence.” I ask, “Is marijuana involved in that?” They laugh and say, “Never. It’s almost always alcohol.” So should marijuana be decriminalized, or maybe even legalized? “Probably, but the higher-ups would never go for that,” they say.
So there you have it: There are plenty of police officers who see the futility and unfairness of marijuana prohibition up close, but most law enforcement officials with real authority support marijuana prohibition. Why the discrepancy?
The most obvious explanation is that the higher-ups are (1) more likely to be appointed or hired by mayors and city councils, and (2) responsible for presenting departmental budgets to those politicians every year. So perhaps there’s a fifth reason why so many law enforcement officials are hostile…
5. FEAR OF OUT-OF-TOUCH POLITICIANS: Politicians are far behind the public when it comes to understanding the harms of marijuana prohibition. Whether politicians are afraid of being perceived as “soft on crime,” of sticking their necks out on what is still a fairly contentious issue, or of offending particular special interest groups, opposition remains high among elected representatives. Law enforcement officials looking for bigger budgets and better jobs will echo these politicians ad nauseum, providing them with political cover and legitimacy. And there we have a self-perpetuating cycle.

This is why it’s important to engage law enforcement on this issue at every opportunity. Whether it is the cop on your corner or the chief of police, opening the dialogue is vitally important.