Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Related Categories: Santa Cruz Indymedia | Government & Elections | Health, Housing & Public Services | Police State & Prisons
SCPD Covering Up False Police Report From Councilmember Mike Rotkin?
The following correspondence between me and Trisha Husome, Records Keeper of the Santa Cruz Police Department shows their reluctance to release a public record documenting Councilmember Mike Rotkin's inappropriate call to the SCPD in order to demand my arrest for merely attending a public ACLU meeting with a sign. Could this be to protect the 3-time Mayor? It seems to have that effect.
In late August, Councilmember (and former Mayor) Mike Rotkin (who is also on the Board of Directors of the American Civil Liberties Union) attempted to have me arrested for entering a general ACLU meeting with a sign. The meeting was publicly announced and open to the community--according their own posting on indybay.org and information given out by phone a day before the meeting. The sign I was carrying asked why the ACLU was not challenging the Santa Cruz Sleeping Ban (as the L.A ACLU has).
In response Rotkin physically blocked our path, tried to grab our signs, and threatened us with eviction by the police. He then apparently filed a false police report claiming we were "disrupting" the meeting (which had loud music playing and included 50-75 people milling about). Police from two different departments (SCPD and UCSC) showed up but declined to arrest us, noting we had the right to be there, Rotkin's opinion notwithstanding.
Though somewhat shellshocked, we entered the meeting and distributed some of our literature, though our activities were significantly chilled by Rotkin's actions. I also believe other ACLU members were negatively influenced by his behavior and false report.
I believe that Rotkin intentionally filed a false police report with the intention of intimidating us into either leaving or abandoning our first amendment right to have a sign in a publicly announced meeting open to the community. This kind of behavior is criminal, of course, but the likelihood of the D.A. prosecuting a sitting Councilmember for harassing an activist in this member is about as high as Mayor Ryan Coonerty moving to suspend the Sleeping Ban during freezing winter weather. I.e. zero and dropping.
In order to document Rotkin's report, I sought a copy of the "incident recall"--the specific dialogue between the dispatcher and the complainant and police officers responding, indicating what the nature of the complaint was, who made it, etc.. In September, Trisha Husome supplied me with a censored (i.e. "redacted") report.
In December I sought an unredacted (i.e. uncensored) report and the following correspondence has resulted.
I have received no unredacted report or explanation received as of the date of this writing.
ORIGINAL PUBLIC ACT REQUEST THAT GOT A CENSORED REPORT
> From: Robert Norse [mailto:rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 7:49 AM
> To: Trisha Husome
> Subject: RE: Public Records Act for August 26 detailed incident recall (TH)
>
> Santa Cruz Police Department
> Santa Cruz, CA
> Attention: Tricia Husome
>
> Dear Tricia,
>
> Hi. I'm looking to view a copy of the detailed incident recall of any SCPD
> activity at 100 Shaffer Rd. on August 26, 2007 between 2:30 PM and 5 PM on or
> around a public meeting of the American Civil Liberties Union....
>
> Thanks for your help in this matter.
>
> Robert Norse (423-4833)
>
> Mr. Norse,
>
> The document you requested on 09-09-07 regarding 100 Shaffer Road, occurring
> on 08-26-07, has been placed at the front desk for pick-up. Payment of
> $1.00 was applied to your $35.00 deposit paid for an unrelated request.
> The $1.00 cost is paid in full. Processing of this request is now
> completed.
>
> Trisha Husome
REQUEST FOR AN UNCENSORED REPORT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Norse [mailto:rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 1:52 PM
> To: Trisha Husome
> Cc: Jhond Golder
> Subject: Public Records Act request
>
>
> Santa Cruz Police Department
> Santa Cruz, CA
> Attention: Tricia Husome
>
> Trisha:
>
> I need another copy of the 8-26 Incident Recall of the incident at 100
> Shaffer Road which you sent me several months ago.
>
> If you do any redacting, please indicate specifically why you are doing
> so--that is, per the Public Records Act, specify the category of information
> that is being denied.
>
> I include our prior correspondence on this request for your information.
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> Feel free to call me if you have any questions.
>
> Robert Norse (423-4833)
>
>
>
>
TRISHA HUSOME REFUSES TO PROVIDE AN UNCENSORED REPORT
> Subject: RE: Public Records Act request
> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:53:04 -0800
> From: THusome [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us
> To: rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com
>
> Mr. Norse,
>
> California Government Code section 6254(f)(2)identifies that information
> which must be disclosed with regard to requests for police assistance. Any
> information redacted from the document previously produced is information not
> mandated for disclosure under that section.
>
> The cost for an exact duplicate of the document previously provided is $1.00.
> Upon notification of your agreement to pay the fee, I will place the document
> at our front desk for pick-up and will notify you, by email, that I have done
> so.
>
> Trisha Husome
> Records Manager
> Santa Cruz Police Department
> 420-5874
I REQUEST A SPECIFIC EXPLANATION AS REQUIRED BY LAW
From: Robert Norse [mailto:rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 3:32 PM
To: Trisha Husome
Cc: Bob Patton; Jhond Golder; Peter Scheer; Kevin Vogel; Robert Aaronson; Don Regan; Don Zimmerman
Subject: Public Records Act request: confirming fee and requesting unredacted report
Trisha:
Thanks for your reply.
Section 6254(f) that provides: "state and local law enforcement agencies shall make public the following information (i.e., the information identified in Section 6254(f)(2)), except to the extent that disclosure of a particular item of information would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation or would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation."
Unless there is an ongoing investigation involving this particular report, I request a full unredacted copy of the report.
I agree to paying the requisite fee.
Is it still SCPD policy not to make reports available for viewing at the window unless a few is paid, incidentally?
Thanks for your help,
Robert Norse
(427-3772)
TRISHA AGAIN STONEWALLS
Subject: RE: Public Records Act request: confirming fee and requesting unredacted report
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:01:32 -0800
From: THusome [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us
To: rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com
Mr. Norse,
Per my response dated December 10, 2007, all information mandated for disclosure under section 6254(f)(2) GC has been provided. As mentioned previously, an exact duplicate can be provided.
Trisha Husome
Records Manager
I CITE THE SPECIFIC CODE SECTIONS INVOLVED AND ASK WHICH ONE SHE IS APPLYING; I ALSO ASK WHETHER THE SCPD IS INSISTING THE PUBLIC PAY BEFORE BEING ALLOWED TO LOOK AT PUBLIC RECORDS
From: rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com
To: thusome [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us
CC: jhond [at] comcast.net; pscheer [at] earthlink.net; donzim [at] aol.com; davebeau [at] pacbell.net; policeauditor [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us; dregan [at] santacruzsentinel.com
Subject: Again Requesting Specific Reason for Non-Disclosure of Redacted Section of previously requested Publ
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 08:49:57 -0800
Trisha:
Thanks for your response.
Your last e-mail advises me that you are refusing to provide me with an unredacted copy of my Public Records Act for the incident recall of 8-26-07 on 100 Shaffer Rd. on August 26, 2007 between 2:30 PM and 5 PM on or around a public meeting of the American Civil Liberties Union.
You cite Section 6254(f)(2) which allows redaction to protect the names of victims of a number of specified crimes--and only those specified crimes.
6253 (c) states "the agency shall promptly notify the person the request of the determination and the reasons therefore." Which specific provision of Section 6254(f)(3) are you citing (i.e. which victim incident or alleged crime) does your non-disclosure allege?
You may choose between Sections 220, 261, 261.5, 262, 264, 264.1, 273a, 273d, 273.5, 286, 288, 288a, 289, 422.6, 422.7, 422.75. Please specify which section applies.
Have you determined that the reporting party is a victim of a crime? If so, what crime?
Additionally, are you claiming there is an on-going investigation or not?
Also, I'm sure your aware that under Section 6253.1(a)(3), you are obliged to provide suggestions for any practical basis for overcoming objections to any of the information sought.
Thanks for your help again,
Robert Norse
(423-4833)
TRISHA DECLINES TO RESPOND I RENEW MY REQUEST WITH A FORMAL COMPLAINT TO HER SUPERIOR, DEPUTY-CHIEF VOGEL, THE SANTA CRUZ GRAND JURY, AND THE POLICE AUDITOR, AS WELL AS INFORMING THE SANTA CRUZ SENTINEL, VARIOUS ATTORNEYS, AND THE CALIFORNIA FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION
From: Robert Norse (rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com)
Sent: Tue 12/25/07 10:45 PM
To: Tricia (SCPD) Husome (thusome [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us)
Cc: Kevin Vogel (kvogel [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us); lioness [at] got.net; David Beauvais (davebeau [at] pacbell.net); Rico Thunder (thespoon [at] thespoon.com); Ray Glock-Gruenich (grws [at] baymoon.com); Shanna McCord (smccord [at] santacruzsentinel.com); Terry (!) Messman (tmessman [at] afsc.org); Peter Scheer (pscheer [at] earthlink.net); Bob Arenson (policeauditor [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us); Don Regan (dregan [at] santacruzsentinel.com); grandjury [at] co.santa-cruz.ca.us; Don Zimmerman (donzim [at] aol.com)
Trisha:
On December 10th I sent you a renewed Public Record Act request, seeking an unredacted copy of an incident recall from last August (described below).
On December 13th, you declined to meet that request or suggest ways of facilitating it, as provided for by the Public Records Act. You also declined to specify the specific code section under which you were refusing to provide an uncensored copy of a Public Record to which I am entitled, or to clarify whether there was an on-going investigation (which would legitimately exclude the record from public view).
On December 14th I renewed my request, specifically reminding you of the sections of the Public Records Act which allow redaction and again requesting you specify which section applied and whether an investigation is in progress.
We are nearing or past the 10-day deadline since the Public Records Act was filed and you have not responded. Please advise me if you need more time, and if so, why.
Otherwise, please follow the law and respond immediately.
Additonally, I have not heard back from you as to whether it is currently SCPD policy to require the public to pay to see records that I understand are public and should be available for inspection without charge. Please clarify whether this is your current policy, as I requested in my December 10th letter.
Thanks,
Robert Norse
(423-4833)
P.S. I am forwarding a copy of this to your superior Deputy-Chief Vogel--which I ask him to treat as a formal complaint in the event that I do not hear from you within the next day or two.
MORE BACKGROUND ON THE ROTKIN'S ARREST-THE-SIGN POLICE CALL, THE SANTA CRUZ ACLU, AND THE SLEEPING BAN
ACLU of Southern California Wins Historic Victory in Homeless Rights Case
http://www.aclu.org/rightsofthepoor/housing/25070prs20060414.html
Activists ask ACLU to help end sleeping ban
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/08/26/18443532.php?show_
Rotkin Responds to the ACLU Scandal: Signature Hypocrisy of Phoney "Progressive" Politics -
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/09/08/18446314.php
BACKGROUND ON SCPD RECORDS MANAGER TRISHA HUSOME'S PAST BEHAVIOR IN PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUESTS
A Torturous Tale of Seeking Public Records from the SCPD
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/09/23/18449208.php?show_comments=1#18449209
In response Rotkin physically blocked our path, tried to grab our signs, and threatened us with eviction by the police. He then apparently filed a false police report claiming we were "disrupting" the meeting (which had loud music playing and included 50-75 people milling about). Police from two different departments (SCPD and UCSC) showed up but declined to arrest us, noting we had the right to be there, Rotkin's opinion notwithstanding.
Though somewhat shellshocked, we entered the meeting and distributed some of our literature, though our activities were significantly chilled by Rotkin's actions. I also believe other ACLU members were negatively influenced by his behavior and false report.
I believe that Rotkin intentionally filed a false police report with the intention of intimidating us into either leaving or abandoning our first amendment right to have a sign in a publicly announced meeting open to the community. This kind of behavior is criminal, of course, but the likelihood of the D.A. prosecuting a sitting Councilmember for harassing an activist in this member is about as high as Mayor Ryan Coonerty moving to suspend the Sleeping Ban during freezing winter weather. I.e. zero and dropping.
In order to document Rotkin's report, I sought a copy of the "incident recall"--the specific dialogue between the dispatcher and the complainant and police officers responding, indicating what the nature of the complaint was, who made it, etc.. In September, Trisha Husome supplied me with a censored (i.e. "redacted") report.
In December I sought an unredacted (i.e. uncensored) report and the following correspondence has resulted.
I have received no unredacted report or explanation received as of the date of this writing.
ORIGINAL PUBLIC ACT REQUEST THAT GOT A CENSORED REPORT
> From: Robert Norse [mailto:rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 7:49 AM
> To: Trisha Husome
> Subject: RE: Public Records Act for August 26 detailed incident recall (TH)
>
> Santa Cruz Police Department
> Santa Cruz, CA
> Attention: Tricia Husome
>
> Dear Tricia,
>
> Hi. I'm looking to view a copy of the detailed incident recall of any SCPD
> activity at 100 Shaffer Rd. on August 26, 2007 between 2:30 PM and 5 PM on or
> around a public meeting of the American Civil Liberties Union....
>
> Thanks for your help in this matter.
>
> Robert Norse (423-4833)
>
> Mr. Norse,
>
> The document you requested on 09-09-07 regarding 100 Shaffer Road, occurring
> on 08-26-07, has been placed at the front desk for pick-up. Payment of
> $1.00 was applied to your $35.00 deposit paid for an unrelated request.
> The $1.00 cost is paid in full. Processing of this request is now
> completed.
>
> Trisha Husome
REQUEST FOR AN UNCENSORED REPORT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Norse [mailto:rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 1:52 PM
> To: Trisha Husome
> Cc: Jhond Golder
> Subject: Public Records Act request
>
>
> Santa Cruz Police Department
> Santa Cruz, CA
> Attention: Tricia Husome
>
> Trisha:
>
> I need another copy of the 8-26 Incident Recall of the incident at 100
> Shaffer Road which you sent me several months ago.
>
> If you do any redacting, please indicate specifically why you are doing
> so--that is, per the Public Records Act, specify the category of information
> that is being denied.
>
> I include our prior correspondence on this request for your information.
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> Feel free to call me if you have any questions.
>
> Robert Norse (423-4833)
>
>
>
>
TRISHA HUSOME REFUSES TO PROVIDE AN UNCENSORED REPORT
> Subject: RE: Public Records Act request
> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:53:04 -0800
> From: THusome [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us
> To: rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com
>
> Mr. Norse,
>
> California Government Code section 6254(f)(2)identifies that information
> which must be disclosed with regard to requests for police assistance. Any
> information redacted from the document previously produced is information not
> mandated for disclosure under that section.
>
> The cost for an exact duplicate of the document previously provided is $1.00.
> Upon notification of your agreement to pay the fee, I will place the document
> at our front desk for pick-up and will notify you, by email, that I have done
> so.
>
> Trisha Husome
> Records Manager
> Santa Cruz Police Department
> 420-5874
I REQUEST A SPECIFIC EXPLANATION AS REQUIRED BY LAW
From: Robert Norse [mailto:rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 3:32 PM
To: Trisha Husome
Cc: Bob Patton; Jhond Golder; Peter Scheer; Kevin Vogel; Robert Aaronson; Don Regan; Don Zimmerman
Subject: Public Records Act request: confirming fee and requesting unredacted report
Trisha:
Thanks for your reply.
Section 6254(f) that provides: "state and local law enforcement agencies shall make public the following information (i.e., the information identified in Section 6254(f)(2)), except to the extent that disclosure of a particular item of information would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation or would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation."
Unless there is an ongoing investigation involving this particular report, I request a full unredacted copy of the report.
I agree to paying the requisite fee.
Is it still SCPD policy not to make reports available for viewing at the window unless a few is paid, incidentally?
Thanks for your help,
Robert Norse
(427-3772)
TRISHA AGAIN STONEWALLS
Subject: RE: Public Records Act request: confirming fee and requesting unredacted report
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:01:32 -0800
From: THusome [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us
To: rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com
Mr. Norse,
Per my response dated December 10, 2007, all information mandated for disclosure under section 6254(f)(2) GC has been provided. As mentioned previously, an exact duplicate can be provided.
Trisha Husome
Records Manager
I CITE THE SPECIFIC CODE SECTIONS INVOLVED AND ASK WHICH ONE SHE IS APPLYING; I ALSO ASK WHETHER THE SCPD IS INSISTING THE PUBLIC PAY BEFORE BEING ALLOWED TO LOOK AT PUBLIC RECORDS
From: rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com
To: thusome [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us
CC: jhond [at] comcast.net; pscheer [at] earthlink.net; donzim [at] aol.com; davebeau [at] pacbell.net; policeauditor [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us; dregan [at] santacruzsentinel.com
Subject: Again Requesting Specific Reason for Non-Disclosure of Redacted Section of previously requested Publ
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 08:49:57 -0800
Trisha:
Thanks for your response.
Your last e-mail advises me that you are refusing to provide me with an unredacted copy of my Public Records Act for the incident recall of 8-26-07 on 100 Shaffer Rd. on August 26, 2007 between 2:30 PM and 5 PM on or around a public meeting of the American Civil Liberties Union.
You cite Section 6254(f)(2) which allows redaction to protect the names of victims of a number of specified crimes--and only those specified crimes.
6253 (c) states "the agency shall promptly notify the person the request of the determination and the reasons therefore." Which specific provision of Section 6254(f)(3) are you citing (i.e. which victim incident or alleged crime) does your non-disclosure allege?
You may choose between Sections 220, 261, 261.5, 262, 264, 264.1, 273a, 273d, 273.5, 286, 288, 288a, 289, 422.6, 422.7, 422.75. Please specify which section applies.
Have you determined that the reporting party is a victim of a crime? If so, what crime?
Additionally, are you claiming there is an on-going investigation or not?
Also, I'm sure your aware that under Section 6253.1(a)(3), you are obliged to provide suggestions for any practical basis for overcoming objections to any of the information sought.
Thanks for your help again,
Robert Norse
(423-4833)
TRISHA DECLINES TO RESPOND I RENEW MY REQUEST WITH A FORMAL COMPLAINT TO HER SUPERIOR, DEPUTY-CHIEF VOGEL, THE SANTA CRUZ GRAND JURY, AND THE POLICE AUDITOR, AS WELL AS INFORMING THE SANTA CRUZ SENTINEL, VARIOUS ATTORNEYS, AND THE CALIFORNIA FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION
From: Robert Norse (rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com)
Sent: Tue 12/25/07 10:45 PM
To: Tricia (SCPD) Husome (thusome [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us)
Cc: Kevin Vogel (kvogel [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us); lioness [at] got.net; David Beauvais (davebeau [at] pacbell.net); Rico Thunder (thespoon [at] thespoon.com); Ray Glock-Gruenich (grws [at] baymoon.com); Shanna McCord (smccord [at] santacruzsentinel.com); Terry (!) Messman (tmessman [at] afsc.org); Peter Scheer (pscheer [at] earthlink.net); Bob Arenson (policeauditor [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us); Don Regan (dregan [at] santacruzsentinel.com); grandjury [at] co.santa-cruz.ca.us; Don Zimmerman (donzim [at] aol.com)
Trisha:
On December 10th I sent you a renewed Public Record Act request, seeking an unredacted copy of an incident recall from last August (described below).
On December 13th, you declined to meet that request or suggest ways of facilitating it, as provided for by the Public Records Act. You also declined to specify the specific code section under which you were refusing to provide an uncensored copy of a Public Record to which I am entitled, or to clarify whether there was an on-going investigation (which would legitimately exclude the record from public view).
On December 14th I renewed my request, specifically reminding you of the sections of the Public Records Act which allow redaction and again requesting you specify which section applied and whether an investigation is in progress.
We are nearing or past the 10-day deadline since the Public Records Act was filed and you have not responded. Please advise me if you need more time, and if so, why.
Otherwise, please follow the law and respond immediately.
Additonally, I have not heard back from you as to whether it is currently SCPD policy to require the public to pay to see records that I understand are public and should be available for inspection without charge. Please clarify whether this is your current policy, as I requested in my December 10th letter.
Thanks,
Robert Norse
(423-4833)
P.S. I am forwarding a copy of this to your superior Deputy-Chief Vogel--which I ask him to treat as a formal complaint in the event that I do not hear from you within the next day or two.
MORE BACKGROUND ON THE ROTKIN'S ARREST-THE-SIGN POLICE CALL, THE SANTA CRUZ ACLU, AND THE SLEEPING BAN
ACLU of Southern California Wins Historic Victory in Homeless Rights Case
http://www.aclu.org/rightsofthepoor/housing/25070prs20060414.html
Activists ask ACLU to help end sleeping ban
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/08/26/18443532.php?show_
Rotkin Responds to the ACLU Scandal: Signature Hypocrisy of Phoney "Progressive" Politics -
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/09/08/18446314.php
BACKGROUND ON SCPD RECORDS MANAGER TRISHA HUSOME'S PAST BEHAVIOR IN PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUESTS
A Torturous Tale of Seeking Public Records from the SCPD
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/09/23/18449208.php?show_comments=1#18449209
Add Your Comments
Comments (Hide Comments)
Sunday Dec 30th, 2007 11:34 PM
On Friday night, I posted the following story. It remained at the bottom of the screen buried in the "Breaking News" section.
Last night, I sent the indymedia gnomes an e-mail, asking them to place it in the local section since it concerns local issues and has lots of local references.
They apparently have refused--without comment as usual.
I've had this problem before when stories with local importance were buried at the bottom of the screen when they should have been put in the local section.
Another obvious example would be "Crippled Measure K (Lowest Priority Enforcement Marijuana by SCPD) meets 6 PM today" at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/11/14/18461217.php --dumped at the bottom of the screen where it's less likely to be read and acted on.
There have been other examples of this kind of deliberate downgrading of articles. I've politely requested the articles be moved up to the local section or an explanation given as to why not. In virtually all cases, these requests are ignored.
Since indybay.org/santacruz is an open publishing site (with significant restrictions), how about a little more openness here?
Have others had similar experiences?
The Perils of Filing an Appeal
by Anonymous (posted by R. Norse)
Friday Dec 28th, 2007 10:18 PM
The following story, e-mailed to me by a friend, is a well-written, encouraging, and illuminating tale of the troubles you may face filing a appeal. It describes the combination of ignorance, pigheadedness, arrogance, and obstruction that can and do happen. These kind of hostile roadblocks are raised even in relatively simple matters where the law is on your side--perhaps particularly where the law is on your side. At this time, the author prefers to remain anonymous.
STRUGGLING TO FILE AN APPEAL
I filed the appeal today re my trial from November 29th. Just got back about half an hour ago.
This is just astonishing, when I got to the Superior Court clerk's window to file the documents the clerk wasn't sure if they endorsed appeals or whether I was at the right place. This IS the building where the Appellate Department is located but apparently they're not aware of this fact. He needed to go find a Supervisor. The Supervisor came out and they pow wowed for a bit and I guess were able to determine that I was in the right place but that the clerk who files appeals was at lunch and I had to come back in an hour or I could leave them and pick them up later. I sorta insisted that wasn't reasonable and I just needed the papers endorsed so I could go file them with the other parties. Reluctantly, they endorsed them, all but one that is.
Just as the clerk began to file stamp the documents he handed back one of the copies without endorsing it. I pushed it back through the window and said I needed it endorsed for my records and he said they only endorse the original and two copies per their policy. I had three parties to serve and I needed one for myself and I asked to see the policy to which he referred. He didn't like that request. After stamping the documents he got up and went and got the Supervisor. She reiterated that it was their policy to only endorse three copies and I asked her if I could see the policy. She didn't quite know what to say and looked kinda stunned that someone was questioning her authority and turned and went into a cubicle.
The clerk who file stamped the documents snottily asked if I always questioned policy and I said quite sternly, yeah. I then added that I didn't like being ripped off or misinformed. The second head honcho supervisor came out and admonished me that I wasn't being ripped off. I clarified by stating that I never said I was being ripped off but that I didn't like being ripped off. She stared at me for a little while and then reiterated that it's their "policy" to only endorse the original and two copies. Again, I asked her to see the policy she was referring to. She eventually repeated what the other people said that it's their "policy" as if I was gonna buy it and go away. She then added that I could make a copy of it. I stated that I didn't want to take it apart and copy it. She stated they could make a copy for me for a dollar a page. I smirked and said I didn't think so and that it takes like 10 seconds to endorse and I can take them to where I need to go. I asked her if someone would get fired if they endorsed it and she again said it's their policy.
She then turned and left. She went into her cube and I could over here her and the other supervisor discussing where the policy is. After a few minutes she came back out and informed me they were going to endorse it as a courtesy. I didn't care I just wanted the damn thing file stamped so I could be on my way and take em to where I needed to take em next.
The DA was easy. Next stop, Traffic Court. After half an hour of standing in line I got to the clerk's window and stated I needed to file a document and for her to keep one for the record. Sure enough another know it all and obstructionist clerk. She looked at and after a few moments asked if it was an appeal. I sat there dumbfounded because she spent like 30 seconds staring at the caption page where we find the following: APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF and where the term APPELLANT is located under my name.
I wanted to make a smart ass remark but refrained and simply said yes. She said that I had to pay the fine before I could appeal. I said I just need it endorsed. She reiterated that I needed to pay the fine and I just sat there and stared at her. She got up and left with my paper. After about 5 minutes she came back and again insisted that I have to pay the fine. I said that she needs to review the record. She then was looking at her computer monitor presumably at my matter and didn't see anything to disuade her so I stated that it's on the record. I said that she wasn't in the court room when the commissioner said what he said on the record. She wasn't liking my "tude" very much and then reluctantly endorsed the documents. I then thanked her and left.
This is the kinda crap I constantly run into and which passes for service when I transact with government agencies.
A few inspirational quotes:
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.
Thomas Pynchon
If evidence of a fact is clear, positive, uncontradicted and
of such nature it cannot rationally be disbelieved, the court
must instruct that fact has been established as a matter of law.
Roberts v. Del Monte Properties Co., 111 CA2d. 69 (1952).
They will do whatever we let them get away with.
Joseph Heller
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
For well-documented recent examples of this kind of bureaucratic bullying and stonewalling by Santa Cruz courts and SCPD, check out:
SCPD Covering Up False Police Report From Councilmember Mike Rotkin?
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/12/26/18468941.php
A Torturous Tale of Seeking Public Records from the SCPD
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/09/23/18449208.php?show_comments=1#18449209
Public Records, even just one? Only if you agree to pay!
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/06/30/18431926.php
Not So Public Records
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/06/09/18426312.php
Last night, I sent the indymedia gnomes an e-mail, asking them to place it in the local section since it concerns local issues and has lots of local references.
They apparently have refused--without comment as usual.
I've had this problem before when stories with local importance were buried at the bottom of the screen when they should have been put in the local section.
Another obvious example would be "Crippled Measure K (Lowest Priority Enforcement Marijuana by SCPD) meets 6 PM today" at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/11/14/18461217.php --dumped at the bottom of the screen where it's less likely to be read and acted on.
There have been other examples of this kind of deliberate downgrading of articles. I've politely requested the articles be moved up to the local section or an explanation given as to why not. In virtually all cases, these requests are ignored.
Since indybay.org/santacruz is an open publishing site (with significant restrictions), how about a little more openness here?
Have others had similar experiences?
The Perils of Filing an Appeal
by Anonymous (posted by R. Norse)
Friday Dec 28th, 2007 10:18 PM
The following story, e-mailed to me by a friend, is a well-written, encouraging, and illuminating tale of the troubles you may face filing a appeal. It describes the combination of ignorance, pigheadedness, arrogance, and obstruction that can and do happen. These kind of hostile roadblocks are raised even in relatively simple matters where the law is on your side--perhaps particularly where the law is on your side. At this time, the author prefers to remain anonymous.
STRUGGLING TO FILE AN APPEAL
I filed the appeal today re my trial from November 29th. Just got back about half an hour ago.
This is just astonishing, when I got to the Superior Court clerk's window to file the documents the clerk wasn't sure if they endorsed appeals or whether I was at the right place. This IS the building where the Appellate Department is located but apparently they're not aware of this fact. He needed to go find a Supervisor. The Supervisor came out and they pow wowed for a bit and I guess were able to determine that I was in the right place but that the clerk who files appeals was at lunch and I had to come back in an hour or I could leave them and pick them up later. I sorta insisted that wasn't reasonable and I just needed the papers endorsed so I could go file them with the other parties. Reluctantly, they endorsed them, all but one that is.
Just as the clerk began to file stamp the documents he handed back one of the copies without endorsing it. I pushed it back through the window and said I needed it endorsed for my records and he said they only endorse the original and two copies per their policy. I had three parties to serve and I needed one for myself and I asked to see the policy to which he referred. He didn't like that request. After stamping the documents he got up and went and got the Supervisor. She reiterated that it was their policy to only endorse three copies and I asked her if I could see the policy. She didn't quite know what to say and looked kinda stunned that someone was questioning her authority and turned and went into a cubicle.
The clerk who file stamped the documents snottily asked if I always questioned policy and I said quite sternly, yeah. I then added that I didn't like being ripped off or misinformed. The second head honcho supervisor came out and admonished me that I wasn't being ripped off. I clarified by stating that I never said I was being ripped off but that I didn't like being ripped off. She stared at me for a little while and then reiterated that it's their "policy" to only endorse the original and two copies. Again, I asked her to see the policy she was referring to. She eventually repeated what the other people said that it's their "policy" as if I was gonna buy it and go away. She then added that I could make a copy of it. I stated that I didn't want to take it apart and copy it. She stated they could make a copy for me for a dollar a page. I smirked and said I didn't think so and that it takes like 10 seconds to endorse and I can take them to where I need to go. I asked her if someone would get fired if they endorsed it and she again said it's their policy.
She then turned and left. She went into her cube and I could over here her and the other supervisor discussing where the policy is. After a few minutes she came back out and informed me they were going to endorse it as a courtesy. I didn't care I just wanted the damn thing file stamped so I could be on my way and take em to where I needed to take em next.
The DA was easy. Next stop, Traffic Court. After half an hour of standing in line I got to the clerk's window and stated I needed to file a document and for her to keep one for the record. Sure enough another know it all and obstructionist clerk. She looked at and after a few moments asked if it was an appeal. I sat there dumbfounded because she spent like 30 seconds staring at the caption page where we find the following: APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF and where the term APPELLANT is located under my name.
I wanted to make a smart ass remark but refrained and simply said yes. She said that I had to pay the fine before I could appeal. I said I just need it endorsed. She reiterated that I needed to pay the fine and I just sat there and stared at her. She got up and left with my paper. After about 5 minutes she came back and again insisted that I have to pay the fine. I said that she needs to review the record. She then was looking at her computer monitor presumably at my matter and didn't see anything to disuade her so I stated that it's on the record. I said that she wasn't in the court room when the commissioner said what he said on the record. She wasn't liking my "tude" very much and then reluctantly endorsed the documents. I then thanked her and left.
This is the kinda crap I constantly run into and which passes for service when I transact with government agencies.
A few inspirational quotes:
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.
Thomas Pynchon
If evidence of a fact is clear, positive, uncontradicted and
of such nature it cannot rationally be disbelieved, the court
must instruct that fact has been established as a matter of law.
Roberts v. Del Monte Properties Co., 111 CA2d. 69 (1952).
They will do whatever we let them get away with.
Joseph Heller
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
For well-documented recent examples of this kind of bureaucratic bullying and stonewalling by Santa Cruz courts and SCPD, check out:
SCPD Covering Up False Police Report From Councilmember Mike Rotkin?
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/12/26/18468941.php
A Torturous Tale of Seeking Public Records from the SCPD
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/09/23/18449208.php?show_comments=1#18449209
Public Records, even just one? Only if you agree to pay!
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/06/30/18431926.php
Not So Public Records
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/06/09/18426312.php
Tuesday Jan 1st, 2008 11:17 AM
Frankly Robert, posting endless e-mails, back and forth between two people looks a lot like spam to me, as a reader of this site. I appreciate many of the articles you post, and you do raise some important issues on occasion, but as a reader of this site, I'm not always interested, nor do I have the time to read every detail of the e-mail exchanges you frequently post. Your complaint about the "story" not being promoted sounds very familiar, and makes me think you have a hard time making allies with ANYONE.
Tuesday Jan 1st, 2008 9:12 PM
Yeah, have to admit, that summaries would be nice. I also read NorseNews on occasion. Sometimes great, sometimes long-winded with lots of extraneous material.
I understand the idea of getting things "on the record," though there might be a better way of doing that than posting the entire correspondence to indybay.
Your own Bathrobesphere blog perhaps? Then summary posts to indybay, with links, when it is relevant to the community?
I understand the idea of getting things "on the record," though there might be a better way of doing that than posting the entire correspondence to indybay.
Your own Bathrobesphere blog perhaps? Then summary posts to indybay, with links, when it is relevant to the community?
Tuesday Jan 1st, 2008 9:14 PM
I think it would be best to separate the story from the documentation. Certainly that makes it more readable. The documentation, of course, is the proof, which is also key, but perhaps can be included in a separate e-mail.
In the case of e-mails between a member of the public and a public official trying to stonewall (particularly a police department official), I think the exchange is important (though, indeed, often tedious).
Perhaps I put my criticism of santa cruz indymedia a little too baldly, but I believe I did so after making a reasonable request and being ignored. I do regard santacruz indymedia as an ally, but allies with power who ignore their allies or disregard them may need to be called on what they're doing. Hopefully to encourage better response in the future.
As I've said many times before, I think santa cruz indymedia, with all its faults, plays an important role in this community. Still, I think, in so far as it's possible, if indybay deletes, hides, or downgrades postings--and then are asked about that, they should have the courtesy and transparency to respond.
I would hope the previous poster agrees with me, and in so far as s/he has connections with indymedia, encourages them to do so.
For my part, I'd like to know if others would prefer to have e-mail documentation separated from the stories I post.
In the case of e-mails between a member of the public and a public official trying to stonewall (particularly a police department official), I think the exchange is important (though, indeed, often tedious).
Perhaps I put my criticism of santa cruz indymedia a little too baldly, but I believe I did so after making a reasonable request and being ignored. I do regard santacruz indymedia as an ally, but allies with power who ignore their allies or disregard them may need to be called on what they're doing. Hopefully to encourage better response in the future.
As I've said many times before, I think santa cruz indymedia, with all its faults, plays an important role in this community. Still, I think, in so far as it's possible, if indybay deletes, hides, or downgrades postings--and then are asked about that, they should have the courtesy and transparency to respond.
I would hope the previous poster agrees with me, and in so far as s/he has connections with indymedia, encourages them to do so.
For my part, I'd like to know if others would prefer to have e-mail documentation separated from the stories I post.
Monday Feb 16th, 2009 11:11 PM
As of February 17, the SCPD has refused to provide assurance it will hand over the relevant records if I document the process with an audio recording.
Wednesday Aug 25th, 2010 8:48 AM
About half a year ago, I ran into Deputy-Chief Kevin Vogel--Husome's superior--outside a City Council meeting. I asked him to guarantee that if I returned to the SCPD station for the 3rd or 4th time trying to examine the same Public Records, they would be there and be accessible, even if I had an audio recorder.
Vogel declined to provide that reassurance, simply suggesting I try to make another trip. I told him it was a shame I'd have to return with more witnesses, some media, and a video camera in order to document further police denial of a guaranteed legal right.
In a recent trip (8-24-10) to the SCPD, the issue did come again, though in connection with an attempt to reclaim property stolen by police in their effort to shut down a homeless protest at City Hall.
On that visit, four officers and one lieutenant cleared the lobby of a group of homeless people from Peacecamp2010 demanding their seized property be returned rather than process their requests. A political table, signs, two chairs, and the group's Sleepytime panda bear were not returned as well as important survival gear.
Trisha Husome came out into the SCPD lobby from behind the glass-enclosed (bulletproof?) area to direct Sentinel reporter Dan Coyro not to take photos and apparently agreed, as the photo (and the warning) didn't appear in the Sentinel's later small story on the Peacecamp2010 action. The protesters however declined to stop filming and audioing.
An SCPD video camera covers the lobby, however, so the police themselves do have video-evidence for their purposes. The watchers do not like to be watched.
At that time I was there for another purpose than getting those Public Records, but the attempt to stop the public from documenting their activities with police was still going full-force.
It was interesting that no arrests were made for obvious violations of their "no recording or photoing" policy. This indicated to me that the SCPD knew their posted sign violated clear First Amendment protections and was simply a bullying bluff tactic to discourage documentation of their behavior.
Vogel declined to provide that reassurance, simply suggesting I try to make another trip. I told him it was a shame I'd have to return with more witnesses, some media, and a video camera in order to document further police denial of a guaranteed legal right.
In a recent trip (8-24-10) to the SCPD, the issue did come again, though in connection with an attempt to reclaim property stolen by police in their effort to shut down a homeless protest at City Hall.
On that visit, four officers and one lieutenant cleared the lobby of a group of homeless people from Peacecamp2010 demanding their seized property be returned rather than process their requests. A political table, signs, two chairs, and the group's Sleepytime panda bear were not returned as well as important survival gear.
Trisha Husome came out into the SCPD lobby from behind the glass-enclosed (bulletproof?) area to direct Sentinel reporter Dan Coyro not to take photos and apparently agreed, as the photo (and the warning) didn't appear in the Sentinel's later small story on the Peacecamp2010 action. The protesters however declined to stop filming and audioing.
An SCPD video camera covers the lobby, however, so the police themselves do have video-evidence for their purposes. The watchers do not like to be watched.
At that time I was there for another purpose than getting those Public Records, but the attempt to stop the public from documenting their activities with police was still going full-force.
It was interesting that no arrests were made for obvious violations of their "no recording or photoing" policy. This indicated to me that the SCPD knew their posted sign violated clear First Amendment protections and was simply a bullying bluff tactic to discourage documentation of their behavior.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$ 117.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network