Author Archives: huffsantacruz
Latest Update in the Corrspondence Around the Rights of Street Artists with City Attorney Barisone
NOTE TO ALL: I’ve just renewed my request to City Attorney John Barisone to clarify what I was told he clarified several years ago when he advised a street artist. That artist brought him a copy of the White v. City of Sparks decision protecting the right of artists to sell their art on the street without permits, and Barisone reportedly agreed, stopping a potential lawsuit.
However, as mentioned in the earlier e-mail below, police have ramped up their campaign against performers and artists (or those they choose to disfavor), and a clear quick response has become more important.
Please let me now if you’ve experienced or heard any problems with police/host/security guard harassment downtown for political, cultural, artistic, or musical activity in public spaces. Give as many specifics as possible (time, date, cops names, conversation involved, citation (if any), place, etc. etc.).
Thanks,
Robert Norse
From: rnorse3@hotmail.com
To: rnorse3@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: City of Sparks v. White
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 11:09:29 -0800
John: I just received word from the street artist who got the bogus panhandling citation that he wasn’t going to fight it, but would do community service. However, he also intends to put price tags on his work, given the White v. City of Sparks decision.
Please let me know what your thoughts are before he gets another ticket.
Thanks,
Robert
From: rnorse3@hotmail.com
To: jbarisone@abc-law.com
Subject: RE: City of Sparks v. White
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 08:39:52 -0800
Thanks, John.
From: JBarisone@abc-law.com
To: rnorse3@hotmail.com
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 07:01:01 -0800
Subject: RE: City of Sparks v. White
I haven’t gotten to this yet.
From: Robert Norse [mailto:rnorse3@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 7:51 PM
To: John Barisone
Cc: Robin the rightsfinder; Jonathan (!) Gettleman; David Beauvais; lioness@got.net; Ed Frey; J.M. Brown; Alexis of Pier 5; Ricardo Lopez; Joe the strummer; Tom Noddy; Brent Adams; Coral (!!!) Brune; Free; John Malkin
Subject: RE: City of Sparks v. White
John: Did you receive this e-mail?
If so, can you advise me of whether the SCPD current acknowledges and follows the City of Sparks v. White exemption of artists from permits and their right to display price tags on their work.
It’s been nearly a week. I’m concerned you may have mislaid my e-mail.
Thanks,
R
From: rnorse3@hotmail.com
To: jbarisone@abc-law.com
CC: circulation999now@yahoo.com; jonathangettleman@yahoo.com; davebeau@pacbell.net; lioness@got.net; edwinfrey@hotmail.com; jammbrow@gmail.com; alexis@pier5law.com; riclopez35@yahoo.com; talljar@gmail.com; tnoddy@aol.com; compassionman@hotmail.com; coralbrune@hotmail.com; overthrowproperty@yahoo.com; jsmalkin@hotmail.com
Subject: City of Sparks v. White
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 11:05:27 -0800
John:
You may remember Robin coming in to secure an agreement from you that he could resume displaying his artwork on the sidewalk without a permit and without harassment from the SCPD even though he attached price tags. This was several years ago in response to the City of Sparks v. White (http://
Several artists have told me that “Hosts” and SCPD officers have been telling them they’ll be cited if they do what you apparently oked for Robin. I know Robin also requested an explicit change in the law and to my knowledge and his you never recommended or created it.
I want to know if you’ve change your position here and now regard art work as not First Amendment-protected (as far as explicit pricing goes). What is the current policy and direction to the SCPD?
This clarification is particularly important because some police officers are not merely banning explicit pricing, but also claiming that showing artwork without a business license is “panhandling” even if it’s done for donation in accord with the explicit exemption of MC 9.10.010(a) which states “A person is not soliciting for purposes of this chapter when he or she passively displays a sign or places a collection container on the sidewalk pursuant to which he or she receives monetary offerings in appreciation for his or her original artwork or for entertainment or a street performance he or she provides.”
Please let me know what the status of the White decision is regarding city policy as well as assurance that MC 9.10.010(a) is still active law.
Hope you are well.
Robert
(831-423-4833)
City Council Inflicts Take Back Santa Cruz Agenda on the Town
The Sentinel’s police-puffing, sensationalist, and slanted coverage of Tuesday’s Santa Cruz City Council meeting’s discussion of its “Public Safety” Committee report is at http://www.santacruzsentinel.
SC Patch has its equally police-palsy coverage at http://santacruz.patch.com/
What is made clear is that Robinson and Comstock are gunning for Needle Exchange even on the outskirts of the City. They made pointed attacks on the Emeline St. increased distribution “not being authorized” by the County. (It’s being done 3 times a week now rather than once.) This misguided attack savages an inadequate but obviously necessary attempt by the County to make up for the behind-closed-doors shut-down of Needle Exchange at Barson St. That closure was the only real action that City Council has taken–all behind closed doors, without public comment, and in line with the Take Back Santa Cruz agenda. The rest is blather, attempts to manage the situation through meaningless resolutions delayed into the future.
That absurd and politically-motivated move will probably at least double the number of discarded used needles. Beefing up the police force (instead of redirecting their priorities) is another bonehead psuedo-public safety move. It is, of course, again in line with TBSC’s “bigotry first” approach, holding homeless camps, homeless services, and “drug tolerance” responsible for crime and drug use. This J. Edgar Hoover approach is the 21st Century equivalent of Reefer Madness and deadly dangerous as well as being wildly irresponsible.
Some ideas for action: Going back to civil disobedient needle distribution (which originally established it as a legal option). Marches to the offices of Robinson and Comstock protesting their crazy attacks on needle exchange—which have “kill those addicted and infect the community” consequences. Mobile public pickets in front of businesses or at tourist locations advising tourists that not only are they visiting a homeless-hating town, but they’re also more likely to find needles in their soup.
One of the interesting things to notice about Deputy Vice-Chief Clark’s comments in recent Sentinel articles are his attempts to reassure people that Santa Cruz is a “safe” community, indicating the nervousness of the DTA and SCPD regarding the recent right-wing hysteria around the needle issue. They’d like to use it to buff up their force, increase police power–but not really address the real (and often valid) issues that the Needlemaniacs are raising–trash, bad police priorities (with crime in the neighborhoods), & inadequate needle disposal.
The toxic link here is of course with homeless people–who are being blamed (with no stats supporting the claim).
The Latest from Looneyland: S.C. City Council Goes Medieval
From what I heard and saw, in spite of a few good questions from Lane and Posner, there was no challenging of the abusive behind-closed-doors decision to shut down 1/2 of needle exchange (the half on Barson St.). There were no stats justifying the shutdown presented (though the property owner gave one anecdotal incident where he said he found some clean needles near a point of break-in). No stats for the number of people actually injured by needles. No comparative stats of harm created by restricting needle exchange in terms of the spread of disease.
Just more cops, more drug war, and more stalling by City Council–in terms of any public discussion. It also seems that the Council majority without a vote is acting unilaterally through Terrazas in its planned selection of a Task Force–to be chosen by the Mayor and then operate without public hearings. Terrazas gave a long-winded evasive response to Lane and Posner’s questions, but he finally got the clear answer–it’ll meet in secret, probably selected by the Mayor.
Another issue that was left hanging was whether the Task Force would assume that needle exchange would not be in the downtown or residential area before it started. At this writing the Sentinel (useless sensationalist smearsheet that it’s been on this issue) hasn’t come out with a story.
The S.C. Weekly reporter, however, was so pissed at the steady pattern of prejudice and fearmongering that he got up and made a statement supporting accessible needle exchange himself.
“More conservative” liberals like Mike Rotkin and Steve Pleich declined to endorse needle distribution or “1 plus” needles exchange where more needles were given out than returned, one of the big demands of Analicia Cube, her rep Pamela Comstock on City Council, and Take Back Santa Cruz.
No one made any serious proposals for a shift in the Drug War mentality, though there was lots of meaningless talk about compassion, and drug treatment–but the money, of course, would go for more cops to jail more users to fill up more jails to be released again with no housing to pick up their drug activity, etc.
A number of people denounced the Homeless (Lack of) Services Center as a demonic drug den that had to be shut down. There were angry claims that “most needles and debris” were found within 1/4 mile (or a mile–pick your source) of the HLOSC. I think it was the last speaker, a woman claiming to be a social worker demanded that homeless services be available only to those who registered and were local. I guess tatooing folks on the wrist with ID numbers would be optional.
Not sure what a Strategy for Sanity looks like, but I’ll be pondering it.
And as for whether some drug abusers and needle droppers are homeless–sure. But to let that be the excuse to criminalize homeless survival camps generally is the kind of is a form of badly misguided hatecrime.
The recommendations naturally had nothing specific about putting in bathrooms, requiring pharmacies to have safe needle disposal facilities, or (shudder) establishing safe campgrounds. There was some talk (and that’s what it’ll remain–talk) about how without real housing options, there’s no real drug treatment programs.
And in spite of all the Lane-Martinez buzz about 180/180, this program will impact only a small number of folks.
Looks like homeless people will have to look to themselves and other allies for protection. If Ammiano’s homeless Bill of Rights isn’t too badly weakened (which I fear it may be), that may be a new avenue.
HUFF meets tomorrow 10 AM Sub Rosa Cafe 703 Pacific. Free needles…er…coffee.
FOR THE EARLIER ARTICLE AND SUBSEQUENT COMMENTS GO TO: http://www.indybay.org/
Drug War Paranoids Move To Cut Back Needle Exchange [3 Attachments]
at http://www.indybay.org/
The recommendations can be found on-line at http://www3.cityofsantacruz.
Most of these recommendations are a defensive response to an onslaught by right-wing pro-Drug Prohibition War, anti-homeless activist groups like Take Back Santa Cruz. Homeless people and their “illegal” (i.e. survival) camps are being blamed for needles, break-in’s, endangering children, and all kinds of other bogus accusations completely unsupported by objective stats. Cuts are being proposed in the paltry homeless services being provided. Expansion of an anti-homeless SCPD is proposed. And an absurd and misguided contraction of Needle Exchange is being used as the prime scapegoat.
I include the attached petition, which, while inadequate in not including opposition to the counter-productive 1-for-1 exchange, does push back slightly against the paranoid mind set which is active locally. I’m also including a guest editorial in the Sunday Sentinel that presents what sounds like a good case for opposing the 1-for-1 (no needles given out unless dirty needles returned) proposal.
There’s likely to be quite a crowd of misguided Drug War heavies down at City Council tomorrow, but it would be productive to show up anyway. The city’s failure to provide public restrooms, adequate disposal facilities, refund and expand needle exchange, & establish safe and legal campgrounds is, of course, largely being ignored by city bureaucrats and politicians (though even some right-wing critics are calling for some of these services).
The Santa Cruz Sentinel has been ramping up the hysteria with various front-page “needle” stories with its main editorial on Sunday leading the charge. Read it and heave: http://www.santacruzsentinel.
Real solutions like Injection and Inhalation Centers (http://supervisedinjection.
Homeless people are perhaps the most vulnerable population for the diseases likely to result from this latest Cold War-style attack on harm reduction measures.
R. Norse
Fresno Homeless Evictions Loom…on Valentine’s Day
Monday Feb 11th, 2013 5:43 PM
The photo below shows the north end of the Monterey and E street homeless encampment.
One homeless man told me this afternoon (Monday, February 11) that the owner of the property said he would be bulldozing the vacant lot on Thursday and everything would be destroyed. “He told me to get the fuck out of here,” he shared with me as he sorted through recycled items sitting in several shopping carts on the property. When I asked if he was sure it was the owner, he said “well, he had the police with him, so it looked pretty convincing to me.”
Unlike other evictions by the City of Fresno, there are no signs posted to notify the residents of the demolition that is to come. Julie (not her real name), said someone had posted an eviction notice about a month ago, but those were torn down within an hour or two. The owner told her that he did not have to post notices because it is his property.
There was an eviction that took place in the spring of 2012 at another homeless encampment, behind the grain silos near Palm and H street, that was similar. This was private property, the owner made numerous attempts to force the homeless to move, and eventually put a fence around the property to force the eviction. Many of the homeless people from that encampment moved about 200 feet south and occupied a different vacant lot. They have not been threatened with eviction again, as far as I know.
Most of the residents at the Monterey and E street homeless encampment who are being threatened with eviction said they were planning on moving, but I was told that not everyone would pack up and move. I was told that it is only the north end of the encampment that has been threatened with eviction. The dividing line is Monterey street. Everything north of Monterey street will likely be destroyed on Thursday. Everything south of Monterey street is said to be safe from the demolition.
Can the owner of a vacant lot take and immediately destroy homeless peoples property? Did the City of Fresno threaten the owner with legal action if he did not move against the homeless? Will FPD officers participate in the demolition or arrest anyone if they resist? Observers are needed starting early Thursday morning. If you can help, meet at the encampment starting at 7 a.m. on Thursday. Bring your video or still camera to document what takes place. If you can’t come until later, let me know so we can coordinate having someone there all day.
Demolitions of homeless encampments in October and November of 2011 resulted in over 30 lawsuits against the City of Fresno claiming that the city violated homeless peoples legal rights by taking and immediately destroying their property. Those cases are working their way through the court. Without this litigation it is likely that the city would have been more aggressive in their attacks on the homeless. A new strategy of forcing property owners to evict the homeless may be emerging as City Hall seeks to avoid additional lawsuits.
###
Mike Rhodes is the editor of the Community Alliance newspaper. He can be reached by email at editor [at] fresnoalliance.com .
Venice program gives the homeless a place to keep belongings
By Martha Groves, Los Angeles Times
February 10, 2013, 8:25 p.m.Bone-chilling fog swirled along Venice Beach one recent afternoon when Robert and Nani Valencia and Ana Maria Reyes stopped by the long, metal storage container beside the sand.After they showed IDs and claim checks, a volunteer wheeled out two blue recycling bins in which the three recent arrivals from Texas had stashed their suitcases. They pulled out toiletries, sweaters and blankets and stuffed them into reusable grocery bags.“It makes us feel a lot better to store our things here,” said Nani Valencia, 37. “When you have all your [suitcases] with you, people treat you like you have rabies.”With bags in hand, she, her husband and his 64-year-old mother joined dozens of others waiting for a bus to take them to a shelter. The three would rest, eat dinner and have a shower that night at the West Los Angeles National Guard Armory on Federal Avenue; most of their meager possessions would remain locked up at the beach.In the wake of court rulings that bar cities from randomly seizing and destroying homeless people’s property, communities such as Venice are seeking long-term storage options to keep their streets and alleys clean.“We’re not going to let [homeless people] keep items on the beach anymore,” said Los Angeles Councilman Bill Rosendahl, who represents Venice. “We’re going to bag and tag [them]. We want to make it inconvenient but within the law.”Contributing to the problem was a rule governing use of the city’s Westside winter shelter.Homeless individuals who choose to sleep at the shelter are allowed to take with them only the items they can carry on their laps. And some were reluctant to leave their possessions for fear they would be stolen or seized. That meant many of the shelter’s 160 beds went unused.Rosendahl and a local social services agency — Venice Community Housing Corp. — launched a pilot program late last month called Check-in Storage. The initiative allows individuals to store personal belongings in the container for a week at a time and retrieve them between 3 and 5 p.m. daily. (The program is slated to end March 1, when the shelter closes.)To publicize the service, volunteers and social service agencies distributed bright orange fliers: “If your stuff will fit into a big trash can,” they read, “bring it to our storage container.” The flier noted that the program would not accept medicine, identification, weapons or “anything illegal.”The storage option, said Steve Clare, executive director of Venice Community Housing, is modeled on successful programs in downtown L.A.’s skid row and cities including San Francisco, San Diego and Costa Mesa.In September, a federal appeals court ruled in a lawsuit filed against the city of Los Angeles that seizing and destroying property left temporarily unattended on public sidewalks was unconstitutional. Personal possessions may be removed only if the items pose an immediate threat to public safety or health or constitute criminal evidence, a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found.Even then, the city must notify owners where they can pick up their property.On the afternoon the Valencias and Reyes retrieved some items, about half of the 25 bins were in use. Also there for safekeeping was a Schwinn bicycle. Its owner, Love Sha Un of Nigeria, came by to check on his $215 purchase and thank the volunteers. Without the storage option, he said, “it might have gone missing.”Not everyone is pleased with the program.Mark Ryavec, a Venice resident who lobbied against overnight parking by RV dwellers, said the city should have sought a permit from the California Coastal Commission before plopping a storage container at the beach. Marc Saltzberg, vice president of the Venice Neighborhood Council, said the program was implemented without a public process that would have enabled residents and other interested parties to weigh in.Rosendahl said he hoped to notify street denizens of a new location by the end of February and have a new program up and running by March. He said he was working with the Los Angeles city attorney’s office to ensure that any seizures of items would be done legally.
Destruction of Local Homeless Survival Camps in Felton: Another Disgraceful Episode
Norse’s Notes: Instead of ordering that the campsites be cleaned up, the real motivation of the vigilantes and sheriffs seems to be to drive away any and all homeless survival campers.
Too bad no one documented the three truckloads of “trash” with video. When that was done in Fresno, the City lost a two million dollar lawsuit, and actually had to start at least giving token acknowledgment of state law regarding seized property.
More to the point would be establishing emergency campgrounds for folks who need to be outdoors (95% of whom have no legal shelter). Even more addressing the underlying conditions that create this crisis.
If folks were serious about clean-up’s, the county would provide portapotties, dumpsters, trashbags, and legalization of clean camps. If they were serious about ending unsafe needle disposal, they’d take local initiatives to end the insane Drug Prohibition war and at the very least expand (rather than contract) harm-reduction programs like needle exchange.
While it’s always encouraging to see community members getting together to clean-up areas that the city and county decline to address, that must not involve scapegoating a whole class of people. T.J. Magallanes, who created The Clean Team website, has said and written this repeatedly. But “Take Back Santa Cruz” type hardliners prefer to use the homeless as a political football here and blame them as a means of attacking a power structure (that deserves to be attacked, incidentally).
Screaming about “tolerance for drugs” and “illegal” homeless camps (when virtually all survival camping is illegal) is just blind bigotry and the kind of desperation that ensues when folks fail to identify the real enemies who run the show.
The KSBW news brief on this suggests the sweeps are “controversial” only in that they “aren’t effective” and folks seem to keep coming back. Sort of reminds me of the homeless = vermin approach, used to describe insurgents, terrorists, 1930’s Jews, etc. Dehumanizing people is a nice way of covering your fascist ass.
It’s also a pity that the “service providers” in the area didn’t speak out against this destruction of homeless survival camps. Maintaining the illusion that there are shelter alternatives when there are not. The sheriffs don’t even pretend there are. And won’t be even if the pretty-pretty 180-180 program gets fully funded.
There are thousands of homeless in the county. Is the plan to drive them all out into the rain and make them internal refugees?
I wrote more in the comments that follow this article, which is primarily window-dressing for the sheriffs and demonization of the campers, though as of yet those comments haven’t appeared (other than one brief sentence). See http://www.santacruzsentinel.
Three truckloads of trash hauled from Felton campsites
By Stephen Baxter
FELTON — Three deputies and four Santa Cruz County Jail inmates hauled out three truckloads of trash from illegal campsites near Zayante Creek and the San Lorenzo River on Thursday.
Responding to some residents’ complaints and a pile of garbage and human waste at the Graham Hill Road Bridge over the San Lorenzo River, deputies posted notices to vacate the campsites in January.
Since then, much of the debris was removed or swept down the river with last month’s rain, sheriff’s Sgt. John Habermehl said.
Thursday, they hauled out dirty clothing, alcohol bottles, bicycle parts and a broken kayak, among other items.
“It’s not so much that somebody decided to pitch a tent,” Habermehl said. “We try to address the criminal behavior — the illegal dumping, the drug and alcohol issues, and the waste in our rivers.”
He added that the cleanups are a matter of maintenance rather than a long-term solution: “If we don’t do something about what’s out there, it’s just going to get worse.”
The action follows similar Sheriff’s Office sweeps near Highway 9 in September and by Santa Cruz police during the fall and summer of 2012.
No one was cited and no syringes or other drug paraphernalia were found on Thursday, deputies said. The inmates who participated volunteered from the Rountree Detention Center, a medium-security facility.
At a second cleanup site under the Conference Drive Bridge at Zayante Creek, deputies were
surprised to find a relatively clean area with several trash bags left by campers.
Light rain fell on the crew as it loaded food wrappers and dirty clothing into a Santa Cruz County flatbed pickup and a truck loaned by the Mount Hermon Christian Conference Center.
Don Cox, a homeless 53-year-old Air Force veteran, watched the crew work in the rain. He said he camped in the Felton area for years and noticed new people who came from Santa Cruz because of recent cleanups in that city.
“A bunch of them who’ve come down here are drug addicts and thieves,” Cox said.
Having been a mechanic and tow truck driver, he said he is trying to attend job-training classes at Cabrillo College and find a place to live with his veteran benefits.
“It’s not like I’ve chosen to be out here and be a bum,” he said. “I’m too old to be on the streets.”
“They’re really kind of picking on us,” he said of Thursday’s cleanup.
Another woman, Amanda Livingston, 22, saw the deputies and inmates work under the Graham Hill Bridge.
She said one of the men went to Santa Cruz to collect a check Thursday morning, so she scrambled to round up his gear and a bag of prescription drugs before it was removed.
“I’ve been telling him that they’re going to clear the camp,” she said. “He didn’t believe me.”
Originally from Michigan, Livingston said the bridge offered her some shelter during the rain storms earlier in the winter. She and others cooked, drank and tried to stay dry, she said.
Above the bridge, some employees at nearby businesses said they appreciated the cleanup.
“I think it’s definitely necessary but it’s pretty lame that it has to be done in the first place,” said 21-year-old Adam Pomianowski, who works at Budget Truck Rental at 6440 Graham Hill Road. “This is a river running through our little town. I’m glad someone’s paying attention.”
MORE COMMENTS at: http://www.santacruzsentinel.
Armed Bigots on the March in Felton
Norse Note: What drugs? What “illegal behavior”? What provision for alternative shelter is being made? Isn’t what’s really going on here destruction of people’s survival campsites without warrant or specific justification? Why bother to ask–when you can just scowl “drug-infested” and “clear” people and their possessions like so much garbage?
Drug-Infested Camps to Be Cleared Thursday
- By Jacob Bourne
The Felton camps, along the Mt. Hermon Road and Gram Hill Road corridor, were identified by community members and are hotbeds of “ongoing criminal activity in the area,” Sergeant John Habermehl said in a press release.
From 8 a.m. until 1 p.m., the camps, which are located under county bridges and touch private property, will be cleaned up with assistance of minimum security community corrections inames under the supervision of sheriff’s deputies.
Over the past few weeks, the sheriff’s office has posted signs at each camp asking people to vacate.
“The goal of the Sheriff’s Office will be to remove the refuse and eliminate criminal activities caused by these campsites,” Habermehl said. “Roaring Camp has graciously donated the use of their dumpsters for disposal of debris removed from the targeted areas.”
What Your $100,000+ is paying for: Transcript of the Santa Cruz 11 Preliminary Hearing 1-7
Wednesday Feb 6th, 2013 3:35 PM
On Monday January 7th and Tuesday January 8th, D.A. Bob Lee, through his underling Rebekah Young, dragged the Santa Cruz Eleven [SC-11] into yet another round in court. Actually only seven defendants were there for the Preliminary Hearing, the other four had already been cleared of all charge. This is a proceeding where the prosecution is supposed to present enough evidence to convince the judge there is probable cause to forward the cases to (a second) arraignment and thence to trial. The record is an important one–for it’s supposed to reveal a significant portion of the prosecution’s case.
Not to mention that the context of the case was a massive peaceful protest against Wells Fargo Bank, a criminal of a much taller order than any of those (unnamed and unknown) who left graffiti in the building and damaged some of the furniture.
I have written about this extensively. Most recently at “Laurendeau Arraigned Yet Again As D.A.’s Merry-Go-Round Twirls On” at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/01/31/18731105.php?show_comments=1#18731256 .
I posted Judge Burdick’s order fining the D.A.’s office Rebekah Young’s repeated failure to follow court orders to release evidence to the defense (and then lying about it–though Burdick far too charitably found she was “in good faith”) at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/01/23/18730704.php (“Another Ridiculous Round of Arraignments”).
Analyst, photographer, and (former) SC-11 defendant Alex Darocy has a good article on the Preliminary Hearing which had quite a supportive turnout (“Santa Cruz Eleven Down to Four and Conspiracy Charges Dismissed at Preliminary Hearing ” at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/01/10/18729819.php). My comments and those of others follows his visually rich story.
Posted here in all its 200+ page splendor is the transcript of the Preliminary Hearing for the 7th held in January.


