Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Related Categories: Santa Cruz Indymedia | Education & Student Activism | Environment & Forest Defense | Government & Elections | Police State & Prisons
Judge rules that University violated First Amendment Rights
Judge Paul Burdick ruled Monday that the University's lawsuit was an attack on the first amendment rights of at least two tree sit supporters. A motion to strike tree sit Media Support person Jennifer Charles and tree sit supporter Oliver Schmid from the lawsuit was granted.
TREE-SIT MEDIA SUPPORT
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Date: March 10, 2008
CONTACTS:
Jennifer Charles (831)430-6791, LRDPaction.media [at] gmail.com
G. Dana Scruggs, Esq, (831) 457-1700, dana [at] csfwlaw.com
Judge rules that University violated First Amendment Rights
Judge Paul Burdick ruled Monday that the University's lawsuit was an attack on the first amendment rights of at least two tree sit supporters. A motion to strike tree sit Media Support person Jennifer Charles and tree sit supporter Oliver Schmid from the lawsuit was granted.
"I am glad that the court protected my first amendment right to speak out against the University's plan to sacrifice a precious forest habitat," said Charles. "It is a shame that the University had to waste so much taxpayer money trying to smother my free speech."
Because the case involved the first amendment, the University will be asked to pay Charles' and Schmid's lawyers fees, on top of the money spent serving the injunction and on the University's own lawyers.
The judge also granted a much more narrow and specific preliminary injunction than the university had requested against the remaining seven defendants. Instead of the vague language of "aiding and abetting" the tree sitters and an order to stay away from all trees on campus, the seven people on the lawsuit are forbidden to be in the trees, to place any objects in the trees or in the parking lot, or from providing food and supplies to the people in the trees. The ruling by no means ends the tree sit, as only the people named on the injunction, and others served, are not allowed to give humanitarian aid to the tree sitters.
Three clusters of redwoods have been inhabited since November 7, 2007, when over 500 students, alumni, and community members rallied in opposition to the University's plans to destroy 120 acres of forest. Other tree sits have been added, using the same technique of carefully securing pre-built platforms to several redwoods without harming the trees. Tree sitters have continued their vigil through police attacks, winter storms and ninety-mile an hour winds.
The tree sit is necessary at this time because of the University's failure to meaningfully address the concerns of Santa Cruz city and county officials, community members, environmentalists and UCSC faculty and students. Instead of acting upon the concerns of the thousands of people who have voiced opposition to increased University construction, the university has pursued a lawsuit against tree sit supporters since December.
"The tree sit is civil disobedience and is a reaction to outrageous UCSC development plans in the forest of upper campus, which few people support," said Professor Zack Shlessinger. "We all complain about the impacts of UC expansion. Tree sitters are the people doing something about it, who have the courage to stand up and say these plans are not acceptable."
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Date: March 10, 2008
CONTACTS:
Jennifer Charles (831)430-6791, LRDPaction.media [at] gmail.com
G. Dana Scruggs, Esq, (831) 457-1700, dana [at] csfwlaw.com
Judge rules that University violated First Amendment Rights
Judge Paul Burdick ruled Monday that the University's lawsuit was an attack on the first amendment rights of at least two tree sit supporters. A motion to strike tree sit Media Support person Jennifer Charles and tree sit supporter Oliver Schmid from the lawsuit was granted.
"I am glad that the court protected my first amendment right to speak out against the University's plan to sacrifice a precious forest habitat," said Charles. "It is a shame that the University had to waste so much taxpayer money trying to smother my free speech."
Because the case involved the first amendment, the University will be asked to pay Charles' and Schmid's lawyers fees, on top of the money spent serving the injunction and on the University's own lawyers.
The judge also granted a much more narrow and specific preliminary injunction than the university had requested against the remaining seven defendants. Instead of the vague language of "aiding and abetting" the tree sitters and an order to stay away from all trees on campus, the seven people on the lawsuit are forbidden to be in the trees, to place any objects in the trees or in the parking lot, or from providing food and supplies to the people in the trees. The ruling by no means ends the tree sit, as only the people named on the injunction, and others served, are not allowed to give humanitarian aid to the tree sitters.
Three clusters of redwoods have been inhabited since November 7, 2007, when over 500 students, alumni, and community members rallied in opposition to the University's plans to destroy 120 acres of forest. Other tree sits have been added, using the same technique of carefully securing pre-built platforms to several redwoods without harming the trees. Tree sitters have continued their vigil through police attacks, winter storms and ninety-mile an hour winds.
The tree sit is necessary at this time because of the University's failure to meaningfully address the concerns of Santa Cruz city and county officials, community members, environmentalists and UCSC faculty and students. Instead of acting upon the concerns of the thousands of people who have voiced opposition to increased University construction, the university has pursued a lawsuit against tree sit supporters since December.
"The tree sit is civil disobedience and is a reaction to outrageous UCSC development plans in the forest of upper campus, which few people support," said Professor Zack Shlessinger. "We all complain about the impacts of UC expansion. Tree sitters are the people doing something about it, who have the courage to stand up and say these plans are not acceptable."
Add Your Comments
Comments (Hide Comments)
Monday Mar 10th, 2008 4:19 PM
May this be foreshadow of victory to come. I am so proud of the brave and dedicated people defending the forest. Thank you. In solidarity, laurel.
Monday Mar 10th, 2008 6:45 PM
Isn 't the main point of Burdick's decision that seven people and unnamed others are forbidden to be in the trees, to place any objects in the trees or in the parking lot, or to provide food and supplies to the people in the trees?
Is it really productive to bury and prettify this point?
While others are not currently named, it seems likely that Burdick's decision will embolden the UCSC PD to move on sitters and supporters, no?
I support the treesit, but I also support candid and straightforward reporting.
This is a reason I support restoring the deleted and hidden news sections to indybay comments as well as letting folks who get censored (and the rest of us) know why.
What can supporters do now to be helpful? Are activists concerned that those showing up at the treesit will get arrested for throwing coconuts to those in the trees? Is it likely that UCSC will move on the treesitters, and has anyone proposed protective strategies?
Just wondering.
Is it really productive to bury and prettify this point?
While others are not currently named, it seems likely that Burdick's decision will embolden the UCSC PD to move on sitters and supporters, no?
I support the treesit, but I also support candid and straightforward reporting.
This is a reason I support restoring the deleted and hidden news sections to indybay comments as well as letting folks who get censored (and the rest of us) know why.
What can supporters do now to be helpful? Are activists concerned that those showing up at the treesit will get arrested for throwing coconuts to those in the trees? Is it likely that UCSC will move on the treesitters, and has anyone proposed protective strategies?
Just wondering.
Monday Mar 10th, 2008 7:49 PM
Posting on this small issue of Ms. Charle's victory while ignoring the much larger and more relevant rulings that the tree sitters lost belittles the relevancy and credibility of your reporting.
Monday Mar 10th, 2008 10:16 PM
The 7 people served an injunction were not tree-sitters, so what makes people think the judge ruled that the tree-sit must end? The Sentinel reports that there are immediate "questions about who the order affects and how the university might enforce it." The same article revealed that "there are no plans to exit the trees.." http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_8523279
By all indications thus far, it appears the tree-sit on Science Hill will continue and it will be supported by students, staff, faculty and the greater Santa Cruz community. The UC is a corrupt institution that needs to be fixed before it is allowed to expand! The UC needs to be accountable to the students, faculty, staff, community, state and the world!
Failing California’s Communities: How the University of California’s Low Wages Affect Surrounding Cities and Neighborhoods
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/02/02/18476618.php
Students and Workers Block Road at UCSC to Protest Poverty Wages
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/02/29/18482702.php
Five years ago, George W. Bush started a war against the Iraqi people. His justification? “Weapons of mass destruction.” A lie. But we know where the WMDs are. Every single nuclear weapon in the U.S. arsenal was designed by the University of California.
The UC Regents plan to vote to raise student tuition 10%. Join students from across California on March 19th in demanding that UC fulfill its public mission of serving all of California, including low-income students and underrepresented minorities. We demand:
No fee increases and eliminate the discriminatory SAT!
Plus: we demand fair wages for UC workers, free speech for student activists, stop police brutality, release the 13,000 Native Remains at Cal, cancel the UCSC LRDP, permanent Multicultural Center at Cal, democratize the Regents, and more....
Stand up for a just, diverse, peaceful University - one that is democratically governed and promotes the common welfare, free from the corrupting influences of militarism and corporate interests.
See you there!
Location: UCSF Mission Bay.
Rideshare from Santa Cruz: UCsolidarity [at] gmail.com
presented by The Coalition to Free the UC, Students Against War, & Direct Action to Stop the War
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2008/03/02/free-the-uc-day_net_small.jpg
By all indications thus far, it appears the tree-sit on Science Hill will continue and it will be supported by students, staff, faculty and the greater Santa Cruz community. The UC is a corrupt institution that needs to be fixed before it is allowed to expand! The UC needs to be accountable to the students, faculty, staff, community, state and the world!
Failing California’s Communities: How the University of California’s Low Wages Affect Surrounding Cities and Neighborhoods
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/02/02/18476618.php
Students and Workers Block Road at UCSC to Protest Poverty Wages
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/02/29/18482702.php
Five years ago, George W. Bush started a war against the Iraqi people. His justification? “Weapons of mass destruction.” A lie. But we know where the WMDs are. Every single nuclear weapon in the U.S. arsenal was designed by the University of California.
The UC Regents plan to vote to raise student tuition 10%. Join students from across California on March 19th in demanding that UC fulfill its public mission of serving all of California, including low-income students and underrepresented minorities. We demand:
No fee increases and eliminate the discriminatory SAT!
Plus: we demand fair wages for UC workers, free speech for student activists, stop police brutality, release the 13,000 Native Remains at Cal, cancel the UCSC LRDP, permanent Multicultural Center at Cal, democratize the Regents, and more....
Stand up for a just, diverse, peaceful University - one that is democratically governed and promotes the common welfare, free from the corrupting influences of militarism and corporate interests.
See you there!
Location: UCSF Mission Bay.
Rideshare from Santa Cruz: UCsolidarity [at] gmail.com
presented by The Coalition to Free the UC, Students Against War, & Direct Action to Stop the War
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2008/03/02/free-the-uc-day_net_small.jpg
Tuesday Mar 11th, 2008 6:03 AM
Then-Mayor Wormhoudt and the County Public Health Department, embarrassed by a vigil at the Town Clock supporting homeless people seeking an end to the Sleeping Ban in 1989 secured a TRO (Temporary Restraining Order) banning named and unnamed individuals (Sandra Loranger and Jane Imler were the most famous) from feeding the homeless. There was never a case of sickness or unsanitary food proven. We fed people for months there. Neither Loranger nor Imler were ever convicted of violating the order--though they continued to do so. (Loranger was convicted of violating an inapplicable state code banning the serving of food to "strangers" more than three days in a 90 day period).
In 1996 Mayor Mike Rotkin tried to secure an injunction to ban a peaceful vigil at City Hall during the night (which went on from March to November 1996 in protest against the Sleeping Ban). His attempt to secure a total nightime prohibition failed, but he did get Judge Stevens to make each instance of sleeping or having too big a sign at City Hall a $1000 misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months in jail. No one was ever convicted of violating the injunction, though many did. (A 2006 law passed by the Rotkin-Mathews Council now allows Dannettee Shoemaker, the Parks and Recreation boss, to close City Hall grounds at night without an injunction or any kind of public process.)
In the winter of 2000-2001, then-Mayor Tim Fitzmaurice secured a bogus injunction banning myself, Becky Johnson, and Bernard Klitzner from visiting city council offices. We had been conducting a peaceful legal lobbying effort called the Koffee Klatch, where we provided coffee and pastries every morning to homeless people in the winter, who came to lobby Fitzmaurice for expanding shelter or dropping the Sleeping Ban. The City and the courts dragged out injunction proceedings until late spring, when it was finally dismissed at trial
Injunctions were also traditionally used to block strikes and pickets in labor disputes.
They tie people up in court and intimidate others from joining you.
If the tree sitters and their supporters choose not to be intimidated, more power to them!
In 1996 Mayor Mike Rotkin tried to secure an injunction to ban a peaceful vigil at City Hall during the night (which went on from March to November 1996 in protest against the Sleeping Ban). His attempt to secure a total nightime prohibition failed, but he did get Judge Stevens to make each instance of sleeping or having too big a sign at City Hall a $1000 misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months in jail. No one was ever convicted of violating the injunction, though many did. (A 2006 law passed by the Rotkin-Mathews Council now allows Dannettee Shoemaker, the Parks and Recreation boss, to close City Hall grounds at night without an injunction or any kind of public process.)
In the winter of 2000-2001, then-Mayor Tim Fitzmaurice secured a bogus injunction banning myself, Becky Johnson, and Bernard Klitzner from visiting city council offices. We had been conducting a peaceful legal lobbying effort called the Koffee Klatch, where we provided coffee and pastries every morning to homeless people in the winter, who came to lobby Fitzmaurice for expanding shelter or dropping the Sleeping Ban. The City and the courts dragged out injunction proceedings until late spring, when it was finally dismissed at trial
Injunctions were also traditionally used to block strikes and pickets in labor disputes.
They tie people up in court and intimidate others from joining you.
If the tree sitters and their supporters choose not to be intimidated, more power to them!
Tuesday Mar 11th, 2008 8:42 AM
Read the article. The judge did not rule that the UCSC violated anyones 1st amendment right he ruled that the lawsuit went against the 1st amendment rights of 2 protestors. Lets get a little more factual with our headlines. It is getting worse than the splashy headlines favored by yellow journalism tabloids.
Tuesday Mar 11th, 2008 8:47 AM
We forget too easily and two fast. And the record rapidly gets distorted by those in power to tell a different story.
Tuesday Mar 11th, 2008 12:36 PM
While I am a fervent supporter of people's right to free speech, the title of this article is flat out not true. The judge did not find UCSC violated anyone's right to free speech. He only ruled that UCSC did not supply sufficient evidence that some people's involvement went beyond the right to free speech. There is a BIG difference. The ruling yesterday was actually a big strike against the tree sitters. The two university claims that were dismissed were also not a victory. Those two individuals are not off the hook yet.
I was also very disappointed to find out that Jennifer Charles has not been using her real name. If you believe in something with such passion you should not be ashamed to attach your true identity to it. If you are going to name others by their real name you should be willing to offer the same of yourself.
I was also very disappointed to find out that Jennifer Charles has not been using her real name. If you believe in something with such passion you should not be ashamed to attach your true identity to it. If you are going to name others by their real name you should be willing to offer the same of yourself.
Tuesday Mar 11th, 2008 9:22 PM
I recently heard that not only was Jennifer Charles not using her real name, but that Cher was not either. Is this true????!!!! Some people told me that a LOT of people use a taken name to protect their privacy, but I don't believe that. It can't be.
In fact there seems to be a WHOLE wikipedia article about Pseudonyms, which in any case I can IMAGINE is a sign of UNTRUTH , FALSEHOOD, and FLAMING PANTS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumed_name
It says: Pseudonyms are often adopted by resistance fighters, terrorists and guerrillas to make enquiries more difficult, to create and maintain an aura of mystery, and to protect their families from reprisal, although other reasons often may exist. The expression nom de guerre (/nɔ̃ də ˈgeʀ/, "war name") is often used for such pseudonyms.... Others in public life have adopted pseudonyms for many reasons.
That Lying Website said that even Robin Hood used a false name. And John Wayne. And Jon Stewart. And Paul McCartney. And Lenin! Along with Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and Malcolm X! And everyone who uses a "handle" in instant messenger. And your mama if she used her husband's name without legally changing it.
I agree wholeheartenly! Because Jennifer "I'm too chicken to face the music" Charles uses another name, it should be clear to ALL that we can't trust a word she's ever said.
This confirms what I thought all along! That ALL tree-sitters and supporters are self-aggrandizing cowards, in it for the glory and notoriety, not for the trees!!!!!!!!!
In fact there seems to be a WHOLE wikipedia article about Pseudonyms, which in any case I can IMAGINE is a sign of UNTRUTH , FALSEHOOD, and FLAMING PANTS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumed_name
It says: Pseudonyms are often adopted by resistance fighters, terrorists and guerrillas to make enquiries more difficult, to create and maintain an aura of mystery, and to protect their families from reprisal, although other reasons often may exist. The expression nom de guerre (/nɔ̃ də ˈgeʀ/, "war name") is often used for such pseudonyms.... Others in public life have adopted pseudonyms for many reasons.
That Lying Website said that even Robin Hood used a false name. And John Wayne. And Jon Stewart. And Paul McCartney. And Lenin! Along with Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and Malcolm X! And everyone who uses a "handle" in instant messenger. And your mama if she used her husband's name without legally changing it.
I agree wholeheartenly! Because Jennifer "I'm too chicken to face the music" Charles uses another name, it should be clear to ALL that we can't trust a word she's ever said.
This confirms what I thought all along! That ALL tree-sitters and supporters are self-aggrandizing cowards, in it for the glory and notoriety, not for the trees!!!!!!!!!
Wednesday Mar 12th, 2008 9:55 AM
So nice that there can be adult back and forth in these comments.
Cher is an entertainer supplying a fantasy to those that seek it. Do you view this as entertainment?
Cher is an entertainer supplying a fantasy to those that seek it. Do you view this as entertainment?
Wednesday Mar 12th, 2008 10:01 AM
You are both wrong. It was the Sentinel who mistakenly heard Jennifer's name as "Charles" and printed it. They never corrected it in subsequent articles. Jennifer is stand-up and unafraid to use her real name in any context.
Wednesday Mar 12th, 2008 10:11 AM
Then why does the press release at the top of this article, released by her and her lawyer, say Jennifer Charles? I don't think the Sentinel sent out that release.
Wednesday Mar 12th, 2008 10:29 AM
"often adopted by resistance fighters, terrorists and guerrillas"
-OK, Rico, so which one are you? This was a very honest admission on your part and gets to the heart of the matter. If you are totally rejecting the rule of law and consider yourself to be a "resistance fighter, terrorist, or guerilla", then you have moved entirely outside the system.
However, the treesitters are claiming to be a "nonviolent/civil disobedient" movement. Therefore they do not fall into the categories of "resistance fighters, terrorists, and guerillas". Therefore, why should they wear masks? Don't they want to be on record as opposing the institution they are protesting?
Also, how can people be celebrating a court's decision (that only protected two of the protestors), yet rejecting it's authority to make the REST of the decision which the treesitters don't like? I thought you were "resistance fighters, terrorists, and guerillas", why would you care what the state thinks or does, even if it supports you in some cases?
-OK, Rico, so which one are you? This was a very honest admission on your part and gets to the heart of the matter. If you are totally rejecting the rule of law and consider yourself to be a "resistance fighter, terrorist, or guerilla", then you have moved entirely outside the system.
However, the treesitters are claiming to be a "nonviolent/civil disobedient" movement. Therefore they do not fall into the categories of "resistance fighters, terrorists, and guerillas". Therefore, why should they wear masks? Don't they want to be on record as opposing the institution they are protesting?
Also, how can people be celebrating a court's decision (that only protected two of the protestors), yet rejecting it's authority to make the REST of the decision which the treesitters don't like? I thought you were "resistance fighters, terrorists, and guerillas", why would you care what the state thinks or does, even if it supports you in some cases?
Wednesday Mar 12th, 2008 11:48 AM
Enuf said.
I saw this episode and it was boring enough the first time without having endless reruns.
Please please reference the what, now? dozens? hundreds? of very satisfactory discussions of why someone in their right mind would wear a mask at the tree sit or a march or a demonstration or use a pseudonym.
I'd provide references if I didn't think you were beating this dead horse in willful ignorance and an attempt to sway newcomers with the tired argument that...
HIDING YOUR IDENTITY OR WEARING A MASK IS TANTAMOUNT TO ADMITTING GUILT.
The university is a powerful institution. If students choose to hide their identity while fighting their own school, I totally understand. Do you think UC is above punishing people for speaking out? How about participating in an effective demonstration that affects the heart of their business (which is less and less about undergraduate education, by the way)? Do you think the long arm of UCSC is not going to use the huge academic, financial, public relations, law enforcement, employment, and judicial means at their disposal to shut people up? Please. No one can be that naive, right?
This is not a battle amongst equals. Not two equal-players sitting down for a reasoned and measured debate, nor one institution facing off against another.
When people of considerably less power face off against an institution of far greater resources, asymmetrical tactics are the result.
Yes, people mask up (with names or bandannas). No, it doesn't mean anything other than they chose to hide their identity.
But beyond the mask issue, in Burdick's decision:
* UC was asking for a blanket decision to declare the tree-sit illegal (something that Blumenthal and EVC Kliger have been stating as a given for months), but didn't receive anything close.
* The judge restricted only the co-defendents from entering or supplying the trees, not the unnamed people in the trees or supplying them from the ground.
* He used the term "overreaching" in terms of UC's attempts to include two outspoken critics as co-defendents in the lawsuit.
* UC initially asked for civil penalties, i.e., monetary responsibility for their reaction to the protest, but dropped that after the judge indicated that he wouldn't likely support that.
So while things can and likely will change in the future, it seems pretty reasonable for tree-sit supporters to call this a victory.
But! I hear you saying, they didn't use their real names! They wore masks! They must be guilty! Their terrorists!
Sigh.
I saw this episode and it was boring enough the first time without having endless reruns.
Please please reference the what, now? dozens? hundreds? of very satisfactory discussions of why someone in their right mind would wear a mask at the tree sit or a march or a demonstration or use a pseudonym.
I'd provide references if I didn't think you were beating this dead horse in willful ignorance and an attempt to sway newcomers with the tired argument that...
HIDING YOUR IDENTITY OR WEARING A MASK IS TANTAMOUNT TO ADMITTING GUILT.
The university is a powerful institution. If students choose to hide their identity while fighting their own school, I totally understand. Do you think UC is above punishing people for speaking out? How about participating in an effective demonstration that affects the heart of their business (which is less and less about undergraduate education, by the way)? Do you think the long arm of UCSC is not going to use the huge academic, financial, public relations, law enforcement, employment, and judicial means at their disposal to shut people up? Please. No one can be that naive, right?
This is not a battle amongst equals. Not two equal-players sitting down for a reasoned and measured debate, nor one institution facing off against another.
When people of considerably less power face off against an institution of far greater resources, asymmetrical tactics are the result.
Yes, people mask up (with names or bandannas). No, it doesn't mean anything other than they chose to hide their identity.
But beyond the mask issue, in Burdick's decision:
* UC was asking for a blanket decision to declare the tree-sit illegal (something that Blumenthal and EVC Kliger have been stating as a given for months), but didn't receive anything close.
* The judge restricted only the co-defendents from entering or supplying the trees, not the unnamed people in the trees or supplying them from the ground.
* He used the term "overreaching" in terms of UC's attempts to include two outspoken critics as co-defendents in the lawsuit.
* UC initially asked for civil penalties, i.e., monetary responsibility for their reaction to the protest, but dropped that after the judge indicated that he wouldn't likely support that.
So while things can and likely will change in the future, it seems pretty reasonable for tree-sit supporters to call this a victory.
But! I hear you saying, they didn't use their real names! They wore masks! They must be guilty! Their terrorists!
Sigh.
Wednesday Mar 12th, 2008 1:16 PM
Robin Hood is a make believe person whom others have used as a pseudonym.
John Wayne and Jon Stewart didn't think their names would be well received well by the public so changed them. Not out of protecting themselves. And they did it to make money.
Paul McCartney used a psuedonym so he could write music for other people. Not to protect himself from harm or the police, but because of contract issues.
Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, ah... the Federalist Papers and the name Publius. A show of respect for a roman consul, not a name to hide behind. People knew it was them.
Lenin! Great example.
John Wayne and Jon Stewart didn't think their names would be well received well by the public so changed them. Not out of protecting themselves. And they did it to make money.
Paul McCartney used a psuedonym so he could write music for other people. Not to protect himself from harm or the police, but because of contract issues.
Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, ah... the Federalist Papers and the name Publius. A show of respect for a roman consul, not a name to hide behind. People knew it was them.
Lenin! Great example.
Thursday Mar 13th, 2008 12:16 PM
Guess what! Most of YOU post your comments under false names!
And unless you've read the court documents, you don't actually know what the judge said. Charles and Schmid won a SLAPP suit, which means that they countersued the UC for trying to stifle their first amendment rights. From http://www.casp.net/ :
"SLAPPs — Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation — are civil complaints or counterclaims (against either an individual or an organization) in which the alleged injury was the result of petitioning or free speech activities protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. SLAPPs are often brought by corporations, real estate developers, or government officials and entities against individuals who oppose them on public issues. Typically, SLAPPs are based on ordinary civil tort claims such as defamation, conspiracy, and interference with prospective economic advantage.
While most SLAPPs are legally meritless, they effectively achieve their principal purpose: to chill public debate on specific issues. Defending a SLAPP requires substantial money, time, and legal resources and thus diverts the defendant's attention away from the public issue. Equally important, however, a SLAPP also sends a message to others: you, too, can be sued if you speak up.
Every year thousands of people are hit with SLAPPs for such activities as writing a letter to a newspaper, reporting misconduct by public officals, speaking at public meetings, filing complaints with officials over violations of labor laws or health and safety laws, "whistleblowing" in corporations, or organizing tenants."
And unless you've read the court documents, you don't actually know what the judge said. Charles and Schmid won a SLAPP suit, which means that they countersued the UC for trying to stifle their first amendment rights. From http://www.casp.net/ :
"SLAPPs — Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation — are civil complaints or counterclaims (against either an individual or an organization) in which the alleged injury was the result of petitioning or free speech activities protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. SLAPPs are often brought by corporations, real estate developers, or government officials and entities against individuals who oppose them on public issues. Typically, SLAPPs are based on ordinary civil tort claims such as defamation, conspiracy, and interference with prospective economic advantage.
While most SLAPPs are legally meritless, they effectively achieve their principal purpose: to chill public debate on specific issues. Defending a SLAPP requires substantial money, time, and legal resources and thus diverts the defendant's attention away from the public issue. Equally important, however, a SLAPP also sends a message to others: you, too, can be sued if you speak up.
Every year thousands of people are hit with SLAPPs for such activities as writing a letter to a newspaper, reporting misconduct by public officals, speaking at public meetings, filing complaints with officials over violations of labor laws or health and safety laws, "whistleblowing" in corporations, or organizing tenants."
Thursday Mar 13th, 2008 2:35 PM
Does anyone have any proof of this SLAPP finding? There's no mention of it online, in the press, or on the site provided above. If this is true there should be proof of it.
Friday Mar 14th, 2008 7:15 PM
Rico,
We both know that the only reason the judge didn't specifically include the people in the trees was because a positive identification wasn't yet possible.
For you to try to portray that as any kind of victory is funny stuff. Reminds me of that comedy routine where the guy says "First I nailed him in the fist with my chin, then I popped him in the knee with my groin. Yup, I really kicked his ass".
We both know that the only reason the judge didn't specifically include the people in the trees was because a positive identification wasn't yet possible.
For you to try to portray that as any kind of victory is funny stuff. Reminds me of that comedy routine where the guy says "First I nailed him in the fist with my chin, then I popped him in the knee with my groin. Yup, I really kicked his ass".
Saturday Mar 15th, 2008 2:18 PM
The way the injunction reads (as I understand it) it says the named defendants and those who are committing illegal acts who are aware of the injunction. In his radio interview Owl mentions the injunction, the judges ruling and other aspects of the injunction. This would mean that he and the other tree sitter in the interview are aware of the injunction which means they are subject to it.
Friday Apr 4th, 2008 8:56 PM
I believe that there is also a general injunction against anyone who aids and abets the tree sitters. This is a common tactic of dictators, to squelch dissent by punishing a few and amping up the risks for everyone else. The article says that only those sued are prevented by law from helping in the tree sit protest, and I do not believe this to be the case. I will try to verify this, but beware. I also think that if you are discouraged by this, don't let your energy stop there, the regents will have succeeded if you give up. Maybe you decide not to bring food, but there is much you can do legally. We must be vocal, contacting not only the decision makers: President Yudof of UC, the Regents, Local Campus Administrators (and Faculty, some actually support the expansion because it includes research and postgrad boosts), about our view for the future and how it doesn't include making the university larger, especially at the expense of oxygen providing, rainwater catching, air conditioning trees, but we must also group together and decide on action in groups. People power comes from numbers. If you and 20 others who can't bring food to the tree sitters without breaking the law decide to bring it to the chancellors office, it would certainly bring attention to this situation. Get creative, keep moving, remember if you stop, we all lose, and the planet gets a little warmer, not to mention the degradation of undergradeducation with a large university, and impact on the ever-shrinking water supply. There are many things to do that are legal, and though the treesit is obviously essential as things are right now, if you are scared by their retribution, let that energize you. Show the regents how their attempt to control and ignore you has led you to do even more to show the ignorance of their ways, ideally they'll wish they just listened to you in the first place.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$ 100.00 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