A Courageous Copwatcher Gets Trashed in Santa Cruz

Posted on by

Santa Cruz Indymedia | Police State and Prisons

Officer Ahlers is a Bad Cop
by brent is found guilty
Friday Feb 1st, 2013 10:11 PM

Today I was found “guilty” of sitting on the sidewalk and ordered to pay $300.
The only problem is that I didn’t sit down….

scpd-officer-travis-ahlers_9-12-12.jpg
scpd-officer-travis-ahler…

Today I was found “guilty” of sitting on the sidewalk and ordered to pay $300.
The only problem is that I didn’t sit down until SCPD officer Travis Ahlers ordered me to sit down on the sidewalk.

I had been walking south on Pacific Ave. near the intersection of Laurel St. when I saw officer Ahlers talking to a man who was sitting on the ground. He said, “may I search your backpack?” At which point, from a distance of 10’ away I told the man that he didn’t have to allow the officer to search his belongings. “Tell him NO,” I said. Officer Ahlers turned towards me and told me to sit down and produce my ID. I asked him what the charge was and he said, “For sitting on the ground.”
“I wasn’t sitting down until you told me to sit,” I retorted. He said, “that’ll be for a judge to decide.” Later I found out that the man who was sitting down was under formal probation and was able to be legally searched even without being told before-hand. I didn’t know this when I was reminding him of his 4th Amendment right to the privacy of his person and all of his stuff. Had I known this, I would have said nothing to him.

Well today was my day in court. Since this is an infraction and wouldn’t be heard in a regular court I had commissioner Kim Baskett disqualified so that the case would be heard in a regular court and the officer would have to be sworn in. Finally, on my 5th visit to the courthouse since September on this matter the case was seen by judge Timothy Volkman. I was charged with:

9.50.012 SITTING DOWN ON SIDEWALKS IN DESIGNATED CITY ZONES.
No person shall sit upon the following enumerated portions of a public sidewalk: (b)    Within fourteen feet of any building.

The officer said that the ordinance included “squatting” and then offered to tell the judge what the dictionary definition of “squatting” was. The judge declined hearing the definition. I read the ordinance aloud to high-light that it clearly reads “No person shall sit..” The officer said that my buttocks were within 8” of my heels.

With this, the judge found me guilty of sitting on the sidewalk and ordered that I pay $300. The judge said, “this will teach you to leave the police alone while they’re conducting their business.” I said that I’m not being charged with Obstructing an officer, but instead, Sitting on the ground which I obviously didn’t do. The judge said, “I’m siding with the ‘people’ that your are guilty.”

I said that I don’t have the money… I don’t have $10 and I can’t pay. Then I said “I won’t pay. This is not justice. This is a bad cop and you’re a bad judge.” I refused a payment plan or a work program.
I then left the court when the bailiff who was escorting me out said, “If you don’t pay it’ll be twice as much.”

It is true that at the end of this frustrating hearing that I lashed out in classic Brent Adams style. I really couldn’t believe my ears when I was found guilty. Yes, it is just an infraction and yes, its just $300 but isn’t it the principle of the thing? I had not been sitting and yet I was found guilty of sitting down. It is true that I don’t have the money to pay. I will check with the clerks office and try and get on a payment plan or a work program.
I am truly frustrated.

COMMENTS

well done Brent

by V

Friday Feb 1st, 2013 11:06 PM

You did everything right at every step of the way, Brent. You took a stand when you thought you saw injustice, and you made these lying pieces of shit work hard to get you. Unfortunately and surprisingly, they pursued you all the way even despite the legal trickery (well played!) of having the ref disqualified in favor of a real judge. You made them work for this one.

You, sir, are a fighter.

by John E. Colby

Saturday Feb 2nd, 2013 2:20 AM

Brent. Your story is instructive about how little justice there is in our justice system. Unfortunately the incident wasn’t documented on video. Every Santa Cruzan should read about this so they can understand that when they step into a courtroom they are entering a rigged system. When judges and police officers flout the law with such brazen immunity, how can you expect the criminally inclined to respect the same laws, or to even respect the courts and law enforcement?

The public needs to be educated to start recall campaigns against these rogue judges who mete out injustice with impunity. Alternatively, if you can obtain a copy of the transcript for your trial as evidence of misconduct by the judge, you could send it to the news media and the Judicial Council of California to file a misconduct complaint (against this judge). If enough people mistreated by this judge do the same, eventually this judge may feel some heat.

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/02/01/18731166.php?show_comments=1#18731209

by Robert Norse

Saturday Feb 2nd, 2013 12:07 PM

THOU SHALT NOT COPWATCH
Brent got screwed because he challenged the authority of the cop by watching and commenting. He was obviously not really obstructing or interfering (or he would have been charged with that misdemeanor crime). Nor was he sitting. Leaning and squatting–according to the 2002 debates on the Sitting Ban (which specifically considered that question) rejected “leaning”, much as fashion-conscious merchants wanted to include it.

The Sitting Ban has nothing to do with obstructing the sidewalk, obstructing officers, or public safety. It has to do with obstructing poor and counterculture folks (or anyone the merchants find unsightly) and giving maximum discretion to the police so they can move people along. That’s why Measure S was recently defeated in Berkeley. The Berkeley service providers, three members of the Berkeley City Council and the local ACLU mobilized against it.

Of course, we haven’t heard a peep from Ken Cole (head of the Housing Authority), nor Monica Martinez (Executive Director of the Homeless Lack of Services Center), nor the local ACLU, nor–of course–any City Council members. Our City Council unanimously voted to increase the penalties and scope of the Ban in 2009.

Copwatching is legal and important. I spoke with two observers who witnessed the entire “trial”. Judge Volkman reported reprimanded Adams for his copwatching activity, suggesting it was a “lesson” for him. If “shut up, close your eyes, and keep moving” is the lesson, I suggest we fire the teacher.

BANNING CUSTOMARY AND PRESUMABLY FIRST AMENDMENT-PROTECTED ACTIVITY
The current Sitting Ban (so-called since it bans sitting in 90% of the sidewalk in business, downtown, and beach districts) is a nasty ordinance which has never had a real constitutional challenge (as Berkeley’s did).

9.50.012 Sitting Down on Sidewalks in Designated City Zones: In the C-C community commercial, C-N neighborhood commercial, C-B commercial beach, CBD central business district, and R-T tourist residential zoning districts, no person shall sit upon the following enumerated portions of a public sidewalk: (a) At any bus stop; (b) Within fourteen feet of any building. Where any portion of a building is recessed from the public sidewalk, the fourteen feet shall be measured from the point at which the building abuts the sidewalk; (c) Within fifty feet of any ATM machine or cash disbursal machine, or any other outdoor machine or device which disburses or accepts coins or paper currency except parking meters and newspaper vending machines; (d) Within fourteen feet of any fence that abuts a public sidewalk; (e) Within fourteen feet of any drinking fountain, public telephone, public bench, public trash compactor, information or directory/map sign, sculpture or artwork displayed on public property, or vending cart; (f) Within fourteen feet of any street corner or intersection; (g) Within fourteen feet of any open air dining area or cafe extension; or (h) Within fourteen feet of any kiosk.

Since most sidewalks are 10′ wide in all other places than Pacific Ave, this simply bans sitting where there are buildings–period. It’s designed to “clear away the riffraff” and give us the Shopping Mall look. The latest 2009 twist was to include “sculptures” and “directory signs” as creators of 14′ forbidden zones. As well as increasing penalties on “unattended” tickets to create both (a) a new misdemeanor crime (MC 4.04.015) and (b) the right to charge every subsequent infraction crime, no matter how petty or irrelevant as a misdemeanor ((MC 4.04.010(4)).

TICKETS WITHOUT WARNING
Other ordinances that involve the creation of “forbidden” zones have warning provisions. Benches, for instance, have a ridiculous 1-hour restriction.

On those benches that still remain that is–three have recently been removed on Cooper St., perhaps at the behest of the noxious Nextspace, a Coonerty-founded business.

For instance 9.50.12, Sitting down on Public Benches in Designated Zones, which forbids you to “sit down upon or otherwise occupy a public bench or use a public bench to store property for more than a total of one hour during any given twelve-hour period” has a second provision that “No person shall be cited under this section unless he or she has first been notified by a police officer, public officer or downtown host that he or she is in violation of the prohibition in this section, and thereafter continues the violation.”

Not so with the Sitting Ban.

MORE ON THE LAWLESS LAWS AND ABUSIVE COPS
For more fun fuck-you-over ordinances, check out “Deadly Downtown Ordinances–Update” at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/08/29/18657087.php .

For another account of the fun-loving Officer Ahlers, see “Selective Enforcement and Harassment by Santa Cruz Police on Pacific Avenue” at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/09/13/18721560.php

RESTORING THE CONSTITUTION
Since we have a hopeless City Council, responding to the agenda of Take Back Santa Cruz, the SCPD, the SC Neighbors, and the DTA, I’ve fond the best response is to do what Brent tried to do: point out the abusive behavior of the police, hosts, and private security thugs.

When you do this, I suggest you address passersby, keep at least 10′ away from the incident. Take a step back if asked. Document what you’re doing with a phonevid or some other device, and try to have a second witness with you. Often cops will stop and park their running squad cars in the middle of the street to deal with the “emergency” of a “criminal sitter”.

Alerting the public walking by to this has often, I’ve found, shortened the police action and encouraged them to move on to more sensible priorities.

It’s also quite appropriate to fine a formal Internal Affairs Complaint with the Professional Standards Unit of the SCPD or contact the City’s so-called “Independent” Police Auditor with your concerns. You don’t have to be the target of the abuse. You just have to witness what you felt was wasteful, abusive, or uncalled-for police behavior.

FILING A COMPLAINT
An on-line form to fill out when you witness or experience abusive behavior of any kind from the SCPD can be found at http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=9334 . Just make sure you check #5 at the end, indicating it’s a “complaint” and not a “Comment” or any of the other classifications that are essentially irrelevant.

Robert H. Aaronson is the auditor. He wanders in occasionally from his roost in Palo Alto to collect 20Gs a year or more, never bothering to issue a written report that I’ve heard about. Still it makes a record–and that can count later for others who want to make Pitchess Motions in court challenging an officer’s credibility or violent behavior in a future case. Aaronson’s e-mail is not given, but is on the City website as a form at http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/index.aspx?page=983 .His phone is given as 650-565-8800.

Again–the purpose of these is not to expect any kind of justice or accountability. Rather to simply make a record. If you do complain to either Aaronson or the SCPD, please post a copy on line as well.

OTHER COMMENTS CAN BE FOUND AT http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/02/01/18731166.php?show_comments=1#18731183

Anchorage Way Ahead of Santa Cruz ACLU

Posted on by

Civil libertarians challenge Anchorage sidewalk-sitting ban

By Yereth Rosen | Reuters – January 31, 2013

 

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Reuters) – Civil libertarians filed suit in Alaska on Thursday to challenge an Anchorage ban on sitting or lying on public sidewalks they said was enacted partly as a response to one man’s prolonged protest outside City Hall.

The lawsuit, filed in state Superior Court by the American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska, called the 2011 ordinance a violation of the right to free speech and peaceful assembly. The suit also targets a related ban on panhandling in downtown Anchorage.

Jeffrey Mittman, executive director of the ACLU of Alaska, said both prohibitions chill traditional political activity, such as union pickets, as well as artistic expression.

“We don’t want Alaskans to have to wonder, if they go out on the sidewalk to engage in fundraising or to engage in political speech, if they’re going to be arrested or not,” he said.

The exception to the sidewalk-sitting ban – for commercial activities such as street-food vending – is evidence of the law’s flaws, Mittman said. Courts usually grant broader protections to political speech than to commercial activities, he said.
The suit was filed on behalf of a local street musician and performance artist, a 95-year-old peace activist, labor unions, an Alaska Libertarian Party leader and other politically active individuals.
“They wish, as part of their expressive conduct, to be able to sit and lay on the downtown sidewalks and to seek donations free from the threat of municipal sanction,” says the complaint, which seeks an injunction to block the law.
Not represented as a plaintiff is the person whose actions inspired the ordinance, John Martin, who spent much of the past two years camping on a downtown street corner to protest what he said was Mayor Dan Sullivan’s insensitivity to homeless people.
Martin’s critics, who at times included the mayor, said he was creating a public nuisance and hazard to sidewalk traffic.

Anchorage Municipal Attorney Dennis Wheeler said he could not comment immediately on the claims made in the lawsuit. “We just got the copy. We haven’t had a chance to analyze it,” he said.

(Editing by Cynthia Johnston and Eric Walsh)

Council Committee Forwards Bag of Bigotry to Full Council to Rubberstamp What SCPD is Doing Anyway

Posted on by
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/01/29/18730942.php?show_comments=1#18731013

  on the Public Safety Committee meeting of Tuesday Night by Robert Norse  (See web story above)

Wednesday Jan 30th, 2013 9:13 AM

I spent half my time outside the meeting interviewing folks–interviews to be played Thursday 6-8 PM (some of them anyway).

So I missed the final vote, but it seems from the (often questionable) coverage of the Sentinel that not only did the Public Safety Committee rubberstamp the staff’s homeless-hostile and “more cops, less sanity” hysteria-happy agenda, but the City Attorney on secret vote from the Council

I assume the vote was unanimous, though I won’t be sure until I speak with others who were in the room when it was taken (or when I play the tape on Thursday evening and/or Sunday morning).

Quite slimey was the secrecy of the Committee and other members of the Council (like Micah Posner) who didn’t mention the key fact that the Council directed Posner in closed session to shut down a residential needle exchange site. I assume no one in the crowd was aware of it–though it happened yesterday according to the following Sentinel article.

This kind of “creeping criminalization”, which sounds like it’s out of the playbook of Deputy-Chief Steve Clark, and may be a form of abusive “reefer madness”-style Drug Warrioring which is a real step backwards.

I regret that indybay chose to remove a comment critical of me, whose author was straightforward enough to give his name. I encourage those who are not just trolling, but seriously in dispute, to leave comments on the HUFF website under the comment sections at http://www.huffsantacruz.org .

I also appreciate the support from those who like my reporting.

It’s true I mix opinion and fact in my commentaries–but I don’t hide that fact and don’t apologize for it either. Someday when I grow more skillful (probably never), I may be able to use the “facts speak for themselves” approach.. Trouble is that I feel so strongly about my conclusions, that I always have to stick them in, if not lead with them. Still I think these articles are helpful.

The Sentinel story is at http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_22478511/santa-cruz-shuts-down-longtime-needle-exchange-site

New Attack on Homeless Slated in City Council’s “Public Safety” Committee Meeting

Posted on by
Title: New Attack on Homeless Slated in City Council’s “Public Safety” Committee Meeting
START DATE: Tuesday January 29
TIME: 6:00 PM – 8:30 PM
Location Details:
809 Center St.
City Council Chambers
Event Type: Other
Contact Name Robert Norse
Email Address rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com
Phone Number 831-423-4833
Address 309 Cedar PMB #14B Santa Cruz, CA 95060
The right-wing “Public Safety” Committee meeting, normally a tepid “figleaf-for-the-SCPD” affair that meets in a smaller room back of the Council chambers, will be out again in full frock in the larger City Council chambers where the usual Tuesday Council meetings are held.

TOXIC AGENDA
A long and toxic staff report recommends, among other things:

***Authorize new (and costly) police expansion.

***”Oversee” needle exchange (making its use more problematic)

***More First Alarm and SCPD patrols to destroy homeless survival camps

*** Funding in the short-term for more SCPD arrests, citations, and property seizure along the railroad tracks and in the Pogonip of homeless survival campers

***Triple-fine zones for littering, smoking, and other “illegal activity” in parks, beaches and other areas. (Normally this is reserved for New Year’s, Halloween, and 4th of July crowds–now it may be applied to areas where homeless folks hide or gather).

The agenda and full staff report can be found on the City’s website at http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/index.aspx?recordid=4709&page=440 .

FLOODING THE CHAMBERS
Homeless-hostile groups like Take Back Santa Cruz are expected to attend in force as well as nervous city officials eager to “manage” the recent outrage over trash, needles, and inadequate city bathrooms (one of the legitimate concerns being pressed).

Other groups sending out mixed messages about the homeless like The Clean Team (see their facebook page for the latest) will also be there.

NO RECORD MADE FOR SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC VIEWING
Last month’s meeting took over 3 hours and was held in packed chambers. I’m hoping to have the whole thing taped.

The conservative chair of the committee David Terrazas has refused to make sure the meetings are taped and publicly accessible afterwards. City Council meetings are now not only audioed, but videoed and stream on line.

The membership of the committee includes Cynthia “no food for the homeless at the Red Church” Mathews and Pamela “co-founder of Take Back Santa Cruz” Comstock.

ACTION RECOMMENDED
Come and speak up or get shut up.

Probabilities are the crackdown will continue anyway, however, I encourage people to stand up and speak out.

You can also contact the clowns running the circus–Mathews, Terrazas, and Comstock to express your concerns at 420-5020 or on line with contact info at http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/index.aspx?page=436 .

HUFF will meet tomorrow at 10 AM Sub Rosa Cafe 703 Pacific Ave. to discuss a response.

Report abusive SCPD , P&R, First Alarm, and other goonsquad behavior on this website or to HUFF at 423-4833.

Added to the calendar on Tuesday Jan 29th, 2013 5:38 AM

iCal Import this event into your personal calendar.

§Delayed Update

by Robert Norse Wednesday Jan 30th, 2013 9:13 AM
I spent half my time outside the meeting interviewing folks–interviews to be played Thursday 6-8 PM (some of them anyway).

So I missed the final vote, but it seems from the (often questionable) coverage of the Sentinel that not only did the Public Safety Committee rubberstamp the staff’s homeless-hostile and “more cops, less sanity” hysteria-happy agenda, but the City Attorney on secret vote from the Council

I assume the vote was unanimous, though I won’t be sure until I speak with others who were in the room when it was taken (or when I play the tape on Thursday evening and/or Sunday morning).

Quite slimey was the secrecy of the Committee and other members of the Council (like Micah Posner) who didn’t mention the key fact that the Council directed Posner in closed session to shut down a residential needle exchange site. I assume no one in the crowd was aware of it–though it happened yesterday according to the following Sentinel article.

This kind of “creeping criminalization”, which sounds like it’s out of the playbook of Deputy-Chief Steve Clark, and may be a form of abusive “reefer madness”-style Drug Warrioring which is a real step backwards.

I regret that indybay chose to remove a comment critical of me, whose author was straightforward enough to give his name. I encourage those who are not just trolling, but seriously in dispute, to leave comments on the HUFF website under the comment sections at http://www.huffsantacruz.org .

I also appreciate the support from those who like my reporting.

It’s true I mix opinion and fact in my commentaries–but I don’t hide that fact and don’t apologize for it either. Someday when I grow more skillful (probably never), I may be able to use the “facts speak for themselves” approach.. Trouble is that I feel so strongly about my conclusions, that I always have to stick them in, if not lead with them. Still I think these articles are helpful.

The Sentinel story is at http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_22478511/santa-cruz-shuts-down-longtime-needle-exchange-site

§Further Update

by Robert Norse Thursday Jan 31st, 2013 1:18 PM
REPULSIVE SENTINEL EDITORIAL
A noxious Sentinel editorial today endorses an ignorant and prejudiced position on needle exchange at http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/opinion/ci_22484641/editorial-step-forward-needle-exchanges . The noxious and futile moralizing of the editorial and subsequent comments recalls the propaganda of the Anti-Saloon League in its drive to create Alcohol Prohibition in the early years of the 20th Century. That it has taken on an anti-homeless color also makes it particularly off-base and fascistic.

Pretty sad, of course, and recalls the right-wing solutions to abortion and unwanted pregnancy: “abstinence”. Why not call out the cops to go after moms and doctors? Oh, wait, isn’t that now the law in some states?

COMMANDER STEVE CLARK ON STEROIDS
Deputy-Chief Clark’s “more cops and crackdowns” and “ramp up the war on drugs” approach is a proven failure. His “cut off the needles and they’ll go away” nonsense feeds and feeds off a widespread form of magical thinking in the community that blames “excessive Santa Cruz tolerance.” Looking at the Drug War racket that funds cops, courts, jails, and prisons (and, of course attorneys) it’s been clear for years that Prohibition is the real problem. One doesn’t even have to be “compassionate” to understand the common sense that a black market will always find profiteers and customers. And create new criminals, even as the old ones, are stuffed into overcrowded pens. Pretty crazy stuff.

A RESPONSE FROM PLEICH?
I’ve asked Steve Pleich–a long-time needle exchange volunteer to write an informed response and also to speak about the issue on tonight’s Free Radio Santa Cruz show between 6 and 8 PM (streams at http://tunein.com/radio/FRSC-s47254/ , broadcasts at 101.3 FM, archives at http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb130131.mp3).

SENTINEL “CORRECTION”
Today front-page story on the shutting down of the Lower Ocean Needle Exchange “corrects” the Sentinel story the day before that I refer to in the previous update. That Sentinel story claimed it was a unanimous secret vote at the Closed Session of City Council to authorize the City Attorney to threaten and initiate “cease and desist” actions against the landlord allowing needle exchange in his parking lot. Today’s Sentinel comes out with a different tale:

“Barisone said he had not heard about the exchange before this week but said a majority of council members — not a unanimous number as initially reported by the Sentinel — approved beginning code enforcement activity after Lower Ocean neighbors raised concerns about the needle exchange.”

The full Sentinel story (though what the truth is, I don’t know) can be found at http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_22485020/city-attorney-santa-cruz-property-owner-called-end .

MEANWHILE BACK IN THE REAL WORLD…
To find real solutions, you’ve first got to abandon the hype and hysteria and look closely at the effectiveness (or not) of medical approaches in other countries like Injection Rooms, Inhalation Rooms, for hard-drug users.

Unless they choose to hold a special session, there’ll be no City Council meeting until the second Tuesday in February (the 12th).
Sane folks better get ready to deal with a tide of Drug War Insanity.

§Small Correction

by Robert Norse Thursday Jan 31st, 2013 2:25 PM
The paragraph in the original story reads: “Quite slimey was the secrecy of the Committee and other members of the Council (like Micah Posner) who didn’t mention the key fact that the Council directed POSNER in closed session to shut down a residential needle exchange site….”

It should read “directed BARISONE in closed session to shut down what apparently is the only residential needle exchange site, at least the only one in the Lower Ocean neighborhood.” [Capitals added for emphasis]

Sorry for any confusion.

LATEST COMMENTS ABOUT THIS ARTICLE
Listed below are the latest comments posted about this article.
These comments are anonymously submitted by website visitors.

TITLE AUTHOR DATE
I’ve heard say there’s gonna be… RazerRay Thursday Jan 31st, 2013 7:57 PM
Santa Cruz moving towards a Final Solution John E. Colby Thursday Jan 31st, 2013 5:06 PM
This needs a state DOJ investigation Leigh Meyers Wednesday Jan 30th, 2013 12:27 PM
Really, H? S. Rubio Wednesday Jan 30th, 2013 6:55 AM
Specific words Robert Norse Tuesday Jan 29th, 2013 2:43 PM
Thanks for the clarification H Tuesday Jan 29th, 2013 2:23 PM
Clarifying Robert Norse Tuesday Jan 29th, 2013 1:52 PM
Heartless Bastards H Tuesday Jan 29th, 2013 1:02 PM

Santa Cruz Food Not Bombs Returning to Post Office In Spite of Past Police Surveillance & Threats

Posted on by
With possibly rainy weather this Saturday and to because those who eat its meals have come to expect it at the Main Post Office, Food Not Bombs is reportedly planning to return to serve its 4 PM meal under the eaves of the Main Post Office (but out of the way of the entrance).

Police have appeared several times as well as a postal employee unhappy with their presence there.   Though I’m in no way a spokesperson for the local Food Not Bombs, I believe the information in the posting below is correct and urge people to show up there to offer support whether as servers, future food preparers, food donators, reporters, witnesses, or just plain sympathizers.

Speaking for myself, it’s important that people feel entitled to use the public space in ways that benefit the community.  This includes those putting out a political message against the criminalization of poverty and the militarization of the country (Bombs Not Food).  In the past earlier incarnations of Food Not Bombs in Santa Cruz have doggedly stood for those principles, and it’s my understanding that the current group shares these sympathies.

Coming to this feeding in no way commits one to any kind of civil disobedience or confrontation with authorities.   Nor does it exclude  that possibility.  But the more people who  are willing to cook, feed, witness, and eat, the less likely authorities are to try to repress this movement.

Robert Norse

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/01/24/18730745.php

Title: Food Not Bombs To Serve at the Post Office This Saturday
START DATE: Saturday January 26
TIME: 4:00 PM – 5:30 PM
Location Details:
On the steps of the Main Post Office in downtown Santa Cruz where Pacific, Front, Mission, etc. intersect.
Event Type: Other
Food Not Bombs serves weekly every Saturday with what I understand is both a political message and a damn good meal.

In recent weeks police have arrived with the apparent intention of pressing the group to move.

Food Not Bombs met last night and will be serving there again this week.

I am not a spokesperson for Food Not Bombs, but an interested member of the community.

Those interested in joining Food not Bombs, helping to cook or serve should check their Facebook webpage: Santa Cruz Food Not Bombs.

Food Not Bombs encourages supporters to come to their meals.

I think it’s particularly important at this crucial juncture. It would likely be helpful also to bring cameras, video and audio recorders, and friends.

Food Not Bombs needs folks to cook and serve as well as publicize the meal.

To read more about the recent behavior of the police and postmaster around the weekly Food Not Bombs meal go to
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/01/19/18730563.php .

Police and Postal Bureaucrats Crack Down on Food Not Bombs in Santa Cruz

Posted on by
Today at the Meal

by Robert Norse  Sunday Jan 27th, 2013 12:00 AM

POLICE AND POSTAL OFFICIALS DEMAND FNB MOVE OFF “POST OFFICE” PROPERTY
Briefly, two SCPD officers and two postal officials approached the group and demanded they move off the post office property, while proclaiming “concern and appreciation” for the feeding of homeless people. After initially trying to continue feeding at the original location under the eaves of the post office, the FNB workers picked up their tables and moved to the sidewalk.

I recorded some of the interaction between officials and FNB workers. I’ll be playing that tape tomorrow on Free Radio Santa Cruz at 10 AM ( http://tunein.com/radio/FRSC-s47254/ or 101.3 FM). The show will archive at http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb130127.mp3–about 2 1/2 hours into the audio. Call-in at 427-3772.

At the request of FNB workers, Steve Pleich took a leading role in facilitating the withdrawal of FNB from the post office steps to the sidewalk where it continued to feed without further molestation. Officials rejected my request to know the full name of the individual demanding we move and of his superior’s name. Police sergeant D. Forbas kept trying to shield his conversation with Pleich from the listening ears of my recorder and refused to answer questions which I put to him afterwards.

VICTORY,SETBACK,OR BOTH?
Some considered the day’s actions a success–with the meal continuing to be fed, folks continuing to sit on the steps of the post office and eat. Others wondered if this were the first step in a campaign to drive FNB from visible feeding in the downtown. The Food Not Bombs banner was visible, but I didn’t notice any literature present–the group willing for the moment to give up the right to serve and distribute literature in the unused area they had been at for the previous six weeks under threat of trespass arrest.

While the postal inspector insisted that the group was “violating federal regulations”, he declined to say which regulations except for vague claims that FNB was “conducting business”. The claim that FNB was violating the state trespass code seemed a strange one since the area is open to the general public.

THE ISSUES INVOLVED
Food Not Bombs groups in other cities has insisted that it is not simply a charitable organization serving food, but one presenting a clear message (with literature and banners). Such was an earlier FNB message in Santa Cruz in the late 80’s and mid-90’s when Santa Cruz FNB fed in different spots.

FNB workers and some supporters noted that FNB had only moved 20-30 feet, that it was not being told to disperse, that it would continue to “make poverty visible” and feed poor and homeless people, and address further hostile police actions if they arose as they arose.

Similar threats used against Occupy Santa Cruz [OSC] when it was in front of the courthouse in the fall of 2011 resulted in some citations and arrests, but no charges ultimately in court under the trespass code used to intimidate FNB workers today.

Unlike FNB activists decades before OSC activists did not return to reclaim the space in front of the courthouse once threatened with arrest. However, unlike the earlier attack on FNB in Santa Cruz and San Francisco which demanded the groups cease serving food altogether because they “didn’t have a permit”, the current attack so far is only limited to the post office grounds and supposedly has to do with location rather than food serving itself.

For some of the events in the history of the FNB movement, go to http://foodnotbombs.net/fnb_time_line.html .

FOOD SERVER HARASSMENT ELSEWHERE
However, a church group feeding in front of Forever Twenty-One on Thursday afternoon was reportedly the target of SCPD police action against clients sitting within 14′ of buildings.

Ronee and Scott Curry, who regularly conduct Sunday lunch on Pacific Avenue at Soquel and Pacific have experienced some harassment either directly under the “move every hour” ordinance or of their clients hassled for “sitting down”.

Father Joel Miller of the Calvary Episcopal Church experienced a strong attack from former Mayor (and recently reelected City Council member) Cynthia Mathews for his once-a-week Monday dinner at the Red Church, across from Matthew’s historic property (located between the Nickelodeon and Jack’s Hamburgers).

Pastor Dennis Adams was driven away from the downtown by merchant and police hostility several years ago, now doing his meal out at the Homeless (Lack of ) Services Center.

UPCOMING AND INAUSPICIOUS
On Tuesday the Santa Cruz City Council’s Public Safety Committee will be meeting 6 PM in City Council chambers to consider a further crackdown on homeless people among other “safety measures”. Agenda: http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/index.aspx?recordid=4709&page=440 . Staff report: http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=30533 .

DISCLAIMER
The opinions expressed here are my own and do not represent those of Santa Cruz Food Not Bombs as an organization, nor necessarily the views of any of the individuals associated with it.

by Robert Norse

Sunday Jan 27th, 2013 12:03 AM

The FNB meal began around 4 PM Saturday January 26th and was immediately approached by police. Workers moved the meal to the sidewalk within 20 minutes after police and postal officials began their threats. It continued for 1 1/2 to 2 hours on the sidewalk.

FNB is looking for volunteers and can be reached via its Santa Cruz Food Not Bombs facebook page.

Indybay Censoring Homeless Comments

Posted on by

Indybay.org does its own thing—I’ve complained over the years that comments should at best be put in a hidden status where they can be seen if folks want to see them.

However the new HUFF blog does not censor (hopefully).  It’s at http://huffsantacruz.org/wordpress/ .  You, Lee, Mayor Bryant–anyone who wants to can post there (shudder).

R

Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:23:48 -0800
From: walkabouting@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: FNB in Santa Cruz Under Attack
To: rnorse3@hotmail.com; foodnotbombs@earthlink.net
CC: becky_johnson222@hotmail.com; lemasterhearth@hotmail.com; jsmalkin@hotmail.com; compassionman@hotmail.com

It should be noted that the local commentary posted by local homeless is being removed from http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/01/19/18730563.php by the local censors (all too frequent a problem).  The general theme being the local ‘well fed’ using the local homeless as a PR tool in a staged confrontation.  Here is a taste…
I’m all for confronting and protesting unjust laws.  Drawing the uninformed into conflict, not so much (see pre-OccupySantaCruz commentary for a prescient warning).  Censorship, not at all.

—

From: Robert Norse <rnorse3@hotmail.com>
To: Keith McHenry <foodnotbombs@earthlink.net>
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 12:38 AM
Subject: FNB in Santa Cruz Under Attack

Keith:

A police officer and his sergeant superior appeared at the main post office steps today shortly after 4 PM where Food Not Bombs was doing its weekly feeding.

The officer advised the FNBers that they were “trespassing”  (though the post office was open; people were coming in and out; the meal was set off too the side in an area not traveled by the usual customers; and FNB workers noted a previous encounter with Sgt. Azua had seemed to establish there were no violations of the law happening).  He took a number of photos of the workers, who continued to feed people  (30-40 people came through by my casual count in the hour or two that FNB was there).  Santa Cruz FNB had been serving at the post office for the last month.

A sergeant arriving afterwards sought names and information from the workers and stated they were “gathering evidence of trespass” at the request of the postmaster.

Several of the workers were upset by this police intervention.  A number of those served were scared or angry.  The meal continued, but with significant consternation.

The police seemed to indicate they would be returning.

I would encourage you to alert other FNB activists that this is happening in Santa Cruz and they may need support against legal or extralegal police action that seems to now be on the horizon.

I’ll be playing some audio of this on my radio show tomorrow between 9:30 AM and 10:30 AM at 101.3 FM, streaming at  http://tunein.com/radio/FRSC-s47254/   , and archived athttp://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb121007.mp30120.mp3   (about 2 1/2 hours into the audio file).

Please all in (831-427-3772) if  you have any suggestions any time before 1 PM PST.
(831-423-4833)

Thanks,  Robert

Library Coughs Up Complaint Copies–Available at City Hall

Posted on by
Gail  et. al.:  Copies of the library complaints are now available for viewing at the City Council Offices at City Hall–see article below.  Please pass this info on to anyone you think would be interested, and also let me know if you check them out, what your thoughts are.  Thanks for coming to the December and January meetings.  Also, more important, if you hear or see anything in the Main Library, please pass that info along.  Also if anyone develops connections with library staff or a regular homeless library user as a contact, please let me know.  –R

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/12/29/18729056.php?show_comments=1#18730723

I wrote “Bruce Halloway, a member of the public in the audience at the December meeting, several times addressed the Board. On one occasion he remarked that Landers had refused to provide him with access to the previous meeting’s minutes, instead brushing him off and telling him to write out a Public Records Act request and wait 10 days.”

But I learned from Bruce in a later conversation (mentioned above by Bruce) on my radio show that he had actually been searching for earlier minutes–the minutes to recent meetings are on line. Apologies to Teresa and Bruce for this misunderstanding.

Also I was informed last week that a copy of all the complaints made by and to library staff last year in all branches of the library is now available for viewing at the City Council offices at City Hall at 809 Center St. Just tell them you’re looking for the Library Complaints Public Records Act information which Robert Norse requested.

As I understand it, these complaints will only be viewable for another few weeks before they’re returned to the storage archives and will then require another 10 days or more to secure. If anyone takes the time to go through them, please note your thoughts. I’ve only checked over a fraction of them so far.

Robert

Homeless Census – The Fresno View

Posted on by

The homeless census gets a suspicious review from Fresno homeless activist Mike Rhodes below.  If folks have any comments on the Santa Cruz version, please post them on the HUFF website at www.huffsantacruz.org  –R.Norse

To: FresnoHomelessAdvocates@yahoogroups.com
From: MikeRhodes@comcast.net
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 12:26:06 -0800
Subject: [FresnoHomelessAdvocates] Fw: Fresno Homeless Point in Time Count [2 Attachments]

[Attachment(s) from Mike Rhodes included below]

Somebody on this listserv was asking (recently) about the homeless Point in Time count.  The information about this count is below and attached.
As you might already know, I’m not a big fan of this Point in Time count.  My belief is that it is flawed and will not provide us with an accurate count of the homeless.  The methodology itself is such that you can not get an accurate count, so participating in it, to me, seems like participating in the gathering of data that will misinform the community.  It is set up to *under* count the number of homeless people in a city.  That said, if someone wants to participate to find out first hand what it is like, this is your opportunity.  I would be interested to know what you think after your participation.
Mike Rhodes
Editor
Community Alliance Newspaper
PO Box 5077
Fresno Ca 93755
(559) 978-4502 (cell)
(559) 226-3962 (fax)
editor@fresnoalliance.com
www.fresnoalliance.com
—– Original Message —–

Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 11:49 AM
Subject: Fresno Homeless Point in Time Count

Greetings Mr. Rhodes,

 

Every two years the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires communities to take a point-in-time census of their homeless populations to assist with local and national strategic planning.  The homeless census helps our community advocate for resources to preserve and expand our safety net and makes our community eligible for federal funding for homeless services. The count also informs strategic planning as we work toward an end to homelessness.

This year the Fresno Madera Continuum of Care (FMCoC) will be conducting the homeless Point in Time count for a span of 3 days on February 25, 26, and 27, 2013. As Chair of the Outreach and Engagement Committee, I would like to invite you to volunteer with our community as we take to the streets to count and survey our homeless neighbors.  Attached is our flyer providing more information about the Point in Time count and a volunteer application form. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

 

Regards,

Melissa Mikel

 

Melissa Mikel
Homeless Initiatives Coordinator
mmikel@fresnohousing.org

Fresno Housing Authority
1331 Fulton Mall
Fresno, California 93721
559-443-8400 ext 4109
(800) 735-2929 TTY
www.fresnohousing.org

Vibrant Communities. Quality Housing. Engaged Residents.

 

Homeless numbers: Workers fan out for census in Santa Cruz County

By Stephen Baxter

Santa Cruz Sentinel

Posted:   01/22/2013 05:50:28 PM PST

 

SANTA CRUZ — Workers in a homeless census fanned out in the predawn light Tuesday, tallying the homeless on the streets and in hidden campsites across Santa Cruz County.

The biannual census tries to provide a snapshot of the number of homeless in the county so programs and services can be geared toward them. The federal government requires the census for homeless service groups to be eligible for federal money.
This year, for the first time, census participants were asked to estimate age groups in three categories: 17 and younger, age 18 to 25, and age 26 and older.
“We’re trying to get everyone out on the streets,” said Susan Brutschy, president of Watsonville-based Applied Survey Research, which conducts the study.
Santa Cruz City Councilman Don Lane, who participated in Tuesday’s census, added that the federal government has pushed recently for more services for homeless youths.
“I think there’s a real interest in who’s in that category,” Lane said. He added that he appreciated the overall data. “Otherwise, it’s so anecdotal,” he said.
Full results of the census are expected to be released in spring. In the 2011 homeless census, about 2,700 homeless were counted in the county, down from roughly 3,370 homeless in 2005.
Workers in Tuesday’s census met at the Homeless Services Center on Coral Street in Santa Cruz — as well as in Watsonville, Felton and Aptos. Groups typically included a volunteer and a guide

who was homeless to help find sites with which they were familiar.

The groups were assigned areas and given maps before they headed out in cars.
Because there were fewer volunteers and workers this year than in previous censuses — about 50 — some groups were assigned two areas to cover before 10 a.m. Guides were paid $10 an hour.
A 50-year-old homeless woman was paired as a guide with Cheryl Ruby, a counselor at the River Street Shelter in Santa Cruz.
In the 39-degree morning, the two women peered into wooded areas such as the greenbelt between Highway 1 and Plymouth Street in Santa Cruz. They both recognized people they knew who lived on the streets and rode bikes or carried sleeping bags.
“To count the ones camping, you have to be up at 6 a.m. because they’re up,” the woman said. She didn’t want her name used because she has camped illegally.
Outside a fast-food restaurant, doughnut shop and gas station on Ocean Street, they spotted homeless men headed to an 8 a.m. breakfast provided by the Homeless Services Center on Coral Street.
Census workers were told not to talk to their subjects or to rouse them if they were asleep. Safety was the first priority, Brutschy said.
“This is an observational count,” she said. “And we have a lot of ground to cover.”
Ruby and her guide counted about 30 homeless men and two women in their area by about 9:30 a.m. Another group that went to downtown Santa Cruz counted about 150 homeless.
The woman who acted as the guide said she understood why city and Santa Cruz County law enforcement had recently cleaned up the camps.
“I can see why the city’s upset because they leave garbage everywhere,” the homeless woman said. “I don’t leave garbage.”
The woman added that she recently stayed at a shelter and worked in its laundry room — but she was still finding her way. Finding a shower, clean clothes and transportation to appointments are daily challenges.
“It’s hard to get a job when you’re homeless,” she said.
Follow Sentinel reporter Stephen Baxter on Twitter at Twitter.com/sbaxter_sc

By the numbers
Number of homeless in Santa Cruz County according to a homeless census.
2000 3,329
2005 3,371
2007 2,789
2009 2,265
2011 2,771
SOURCE: Applied Survey Research

Another Ridiculous Round of Arraignments

Posted on by

For the original article and extensive comments that follow go to – http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/01/23/18730704.php

by Robert Norse   Wednesday Jan 23rd, 2013 5:40 PM

The prosecution of Franklin “Angel” Alcantara, Brent Adams, and Gabriella Ripplyphipps is heading into its second year with a cost of over $100,000 if you consider the court time and expense spent on the Santa Cruz Eleven cases. Harder to calculate is the loss of reputation for courts, cops, and prosecution (which may actually enable people to view them more realistically), the injury to the defendants, and the chill this case has spread over the activist community. The focus has been shifted from the criminal banksters to the whistle-blowers who have exposed them. But D.A. Bob Lee shows on signs of quitting.

To view the PDF of the court order ordering the D.A.’s office be fined for D.A. Rebekah Young’s misconduct, go to http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2013/01/23/sanctions_against_rebekah_young.pdf .

NO CASE BUT NO END TO THE PROSECUTION
The bogus, costly, and misdirected prosecution of the Santa Cruz Eleven grinds on. Charges against me and all but four of us were dismissed as of two weeks ago after eleven long months and endless court hearings.

Why? Judge Burdick was given no evidence that any of us (1) broke into the bank; (2) conspired to break into the bank; (3) committed felony vandalism; (4) conspired to commit felony vandalism; (5) refused to leave after a properly given police warning, or (6) “occupied” the bank–all “trespass-occupation” charges were dropped. Hence no one is guilty–among those charged.

Even more, none of us–especially those whose charges were dropped–should ever have been charged in the first place. There was insufficient evidence to go to trial and no connection with vandalism–a charge cooked up, it looks like, to shore up what was otherwise a massively overcharged political persecution.

There certainly were people who occupied and committed vandalism. Police chose not to act in a legal or timely fashion to actually deal with legally prosecutable trespass and actual vandalism. That was their choice at the time.

Instead the SCPD turned in reports that indicated a desire to use the case to go after high-profile activists, reporters, and whistle-blowers that they didn’t like. D.A. Bob Lee piled on with a host of ridiculous and unsupportable charges, mainly to act as bagman for Wells Fargo’s outrageously overstated clean-up costs.

ASSISTANT D.A. GONE WILD, GETS UNPRECEDENTED BUT ULTIMATELY MINOR SANCTIONS
He appointed the incompetent and mendacious Assistant D.A. Rebekah Young. Young refused and/or failed to provide the defense with the police videos and other information–in spite of repeated orders from Judge Burdick. For the first time I’ve ever heard of, the court actually (reluctantly) sanctioned the D.A.’s office to the tune of $500 (probably less than 1/100th of the costs to attorneys, defendants, prosecutors, and judges). A cost that is still rising.

Attached to this article is Judge Burdick’s lengthy documentation of Young’s misconduct. Again, Burdick refused to even consider fining Young personally even a fraction of the costs she created. Nor would he adopt an evidenciary sanction (withholding evidence that was not turned over to the defense), nor would he dismiss the charges outright–though her abuses were repeated and glaring. Burdick’s excuse for not doing so was that he didn’t want the State Bar to hear of Young’s misconduct (which would happen if it were over $1000). Prosecution lawyers apparently get the kid glove treatment when they cost tens of thousands of dollars and drag innocent people through the courts.

A STORM OF PROSECUTIONS AFTER A TWO MONTHS DELAY–WHY NO ACTION BACK IN DECEMBER?
Last February, sheriffs came to the homes of three defendants and hauled them off in handcuffs without prior notifications, requiring bail in several cases. A year later, all of these cases had been dropped for lack of evidence, indicating no probable cause for the charges in the first place–to say nothing of the arrests. There has been no explanation for this abusive process, much less apologies or restitution.

Why did the SCPD and D.A.’s office adopt the bizarre procedure of waiting two months to charge the group of activists targeted? The bank occupation had ended peacefully. Occupy Santa Cruz had largely dispersed. The purpose of the subsequent police action seemed largely vindictive and/or political–to “send a message” that regardless of the merit of the charges and the innocence of the defendants, this was a convenient time to chill any possible future protests. For all the activists, this was the first time felony charges–threatening a possible six years in prison–were raised.

Why didn’t the SCPD, if its real purpose was to prevent vandalism and penalize trespass, move on the activists a day or two into the Occupation?

Perhaps the SCPD recognized that this protest was part of a national wave of popular outrage…

(a) against a Wells Fargo leased property–Wells Fargo being one of the biggest thieves and home-wreckers as well as a multi-billion dollar welfare queen;

(b) It was taken as winter descended for 1000-1500 homeless people in a city with shelter for less than 10% of them while vacant bank buildings stood empty downtown year after year;

(c) Legislators and officials were doing nothing substantive to deal with foreclosure fraud and real estate speculation or compensate those swindled, except reward the swindlers with bail-outs. This is still the case. The community was peacefully but forcefully taking to the streets to empower itself to take real action.

(d) The SCPD may have recognized that the broader wave of outrage had broad and deep roots nationally. A hasty response might well have resulted at the very least in toxic publicity (as in the Davis pepper spraying) and successful civil lawsuits, and at the worst serious rioting downtown.

And the SCPD’s restraint did avoid both these dangers for its political and business clients.

They could have been content with this success and the subsequent withering away of the Occupy movement. But no. Instead of moving in with uniformed or undercover officers to document trespass and vandalism when the occupation was happening (after the first day when the danger of violence was far less), they chose to subsequently go after their least favorite activists and those who had been willing to talk with them candidly during the protest. A lazy and despicable tactic.

DEADLY CONSEQUENCES
Vindictive overcharging prosecutions and politically motivated police reports can lead to deadly results–witness the shameful Aaron Swartz suicide. The Santa Cruz Eleven almost lost one of their number the same way.

Obviously all charges must be dropped. Even for those who hate the activists involved, surely saving face for D.A. Bob Lee and Police Chief Kevin Vogel is not an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars. Tying up the courts with this political sideshow takes time, energy, and focus away from real criminal behavior.

Those who equate a political protest against a known corporate criminal like Wells Fargo in a 3 1/2 year vacant building with a Mom-and-Pop home invasion are talking inflammatory nonsense.

Wells Fargo is the real criminal. Lee and Young, acting as bagmen for the bank and cover for the SCPD, need to be fired. The defendants and their lawyers should be fairly compensated for this lengthy and costly circus. In a just society such a witch hunt would have been swept aside long ago.

The Sentinel’s skeletal coverage of this ongoing kangaroo court hippity-hop can be found at http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_22425154/remaining-santa-cruz-11-bank-building-takeover-defendants . My comments (a briefer version of this story) follow in the comments section.

A Sentinel letter by David Silva-Espinoza (no relation to David Minton Silva, the long-time Santa Cruz homeless activist) and comments is at http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/opinion/ci_22372754/you-see-it-jan-15-2013.

The next hearing in the case is for Cameron Laurendeau on Friday February 1st at 8:15 AM in Department 6. For further updates check http://www.santacruzeleven.org .