Category Archives: Activist Articles

Judge Burdick issues sanctions against DA’s office

Posted on by

Becky Johnson: One Woman Talking

October 10, 2012

Original Post

Banner from a rally held by the Brown Berets of Watsonville
in support of the Santa Cruz Eleven. 
Photo by Becky Johnson May 4, 2012

by Becky Johnson
Oct 9 2012

Santa Cruz, Ca. — I went to court this morning. There was much confusion. At my August 20th hearing, I had thought that only Franklin “Angel” Alcantara and Cameron Larendeau were required to be at this hearing. But my lawyer called me yesterday, apologized for not being able to come to the hearing himself, and told me one of the other attorneys had agreed to appear on my behalf.

When I got to court, only Angel and Cameron’s names were on the court docket. Wonderful. Someone screwed up again, I thought. I wonder who.

They call our case “The Occupy Case” which is ironic, considering all the arguments that went back and forth to disassociate the 75 River Street Occupation of a long, empty bank building from Occupy Santa Cruz and its encampment in San Lorenzo Park. In the end, OSC stood up and formed a working group to provide support to the Santa Cruz Eleven as we came to be called.

In my own case, I had a lot to do with the encampment in San Lorenzo Park and very little to do with the 75 River Street building takeover, but this case is not about facts and evidence.

We are now down to seven defendants. Bradley Stuart Allen, Alex Darocy, Grant Wilson, and Ed Rector have all had their charges dismissed due to lack of evidence against them. Judge Burdick had also found the case against Cameron and Angel to be lacking evidence, but ADA Rebekah Young refiled against them.  This hearing had been scheduled by Cameron’s attorney, Briggs, and Angel’s attorney Ruben.  But Ruben wasn’t there. Nor was Briggs. Lisa McCaney, appearing on their behalf asked Young “Where is the additional evidence that you said you had to refile charges against my client?” A photograph referred to in a police report has still not been produced.

Young replied that she had been “confused” as to which motion would be resolved that day. She wasn’t the only one!  Burdick had sharp words for Ms. Young.

“Its my understanding that I’ll be ruling on her motion independent of any discovery violations under discussion. Violations of due process and the procedural morass that has brought us to this point.”
This “point” being ten months into the legal process, eight months after sheriff’s came to my home and arrested me while I was cooking pancakes, and still two more months to go just to get to my preliminary hearing. And I am eager to get to that point too, where I believe I will too be able to dispense with the specious charges against me. You see, the DA has no case against me.

“I apologize. I’m not prepared to argue her motion.” What else is new in this case?

“The people here have a right to a preliminary hearing, not an additional discussion and no new facts,” Burdick told her.

“Your honor, I believed the two sole witnesses at the preliminary hearing to be sufficient.”

“She says she has additional witnesses who can identify Mr. Alcantara and Mr. Larandeau but none have been forthcoming,” McCaney charged.

“Work has been extremely sloppy and we don’t have viable opposition papers.” But then inexplicably he said “I’m going to deny the motion to dismiss.”

Burdick asked if there were any other discovery issues. Attorneys complained about an empty file on one of the disks, but Young insisted that that was how the file came from the SCPD. None of the attorneys mentioned that the videos released many months ago did not have soundtracks, but now, on videos released August 20th, the sound was back but without explanation. Of course this meant the attorneys (and defendants) must now go back and watch over 25 hours of videotape again in order to LISTEN to the dialogue of police engaged in while recording to see if there is more evidence there.

Hackett, appearing on behalf of Norse’s attorney David Beauvais said that Beauvais had repeatedly requested for procedural manuals on instructions for police on crowd control, use of tear gas, and their policy concerning 1st amendment issues.

Young answered that the SCPD “has no first amendment policy.” Burdick seemed puzzled by this. “There must be some manual or procedures for crowd control and the use of chemical agents.”

Should it be achieved by subpoena? one of the defense attorneys quipped.

Burdick ignored this and just instructed Young to “look for those.”

Then Burdick announced that he had contemplated what the appropriate sanctions against the DA’s office should be springing from his statement on August 20th. He ruled that the sanctions would be to bill the DA’s office for additional expenses that out of county attorneys only had when they were required to come to attend additional hearings due to Young’s failures to provide discovery in a timely or forthright manner. There would be no relief for defendants dragged to every hearing on threat of arrest, missing work, school, time with loved ones and incurring costs.  Attorneys are paid, defendants are not.

The remaining defendants face a preliminary hearing on January 7th at 9AM in Dept 6. A readiness hearing is scheduled for January 4th also at 9AM.

LINDA LEMASTER TRIAL TO BEGIN WEDNESDAY

In other cases, Linda Lemaster’s 647 ( e) “lodging” trial launches October 15th at 9AM in Dept 1 before Judge Rebecca Connolly. A pre-trial hearing is scheduled for 8:30AM in Dept 1 Oct 10th. Both cases will be heard at Santa Cruz Superior Court, 701 Ocean St. Santa Cruz, Ca. 95060

City’s War on Musicians has one less tool

Posted on by

Becky Johnson: One Woman Talking

October 7, 2012

Original Post

Robert “Blindbear” Facer, an Amish street minister, is issued a $445 citation for “unreasonably disturbing noise” when he kept a 31-year old nearby resident from napping. Jan 6, 2010 Photo by Becky Johnson

NOTE TO READER:  Can u imagine? The LAW that I was convicted under for singing a few songs in the middle of the afternoon in my unamplified singing voice in the FREE SPEECH ZONE no less!! has been found by a Judge OUTSIDE Santa Cruz County to be “unconstitutional”? Surprise. Surprise. Surprise. What’s next? Will the City seek the courts to expunge my conviction? Will they refund the $250 of community service I performed? An apology? Or will they just find another way to drive activists and musicians off of Pacific Ave.? —Becky Johnson, ed.

Judge tosses out part of Santa Cruz noise rule as too vague to meet ‘constitutional muster’

Posted:   10/01/2012 04:57:23 PM PDT
SANTA CRUZ — A federal judge has thrown out a portion of Santa Cruz’s noise ordinance and ordered the city to stop enforcing it.

U.S. District Court Judge Ronald M. Whyte ruled Friday in favor of an Alameda County man arrested in May 2010 after ignoring requests from a police officer to stop preaching loudly downtown. William Hampsmire was cited under the city’s “unreasonably disturbing noise” rule, though the District Attorney’s Office eventually declined to prosecute.

The judge found the ordinance — which bans noise that is “unreasonably disturbing or physically annoying” or “not necessary” to participate in lawful activities — is vague and “fails to pass constitutional muster.” The judge said determining what level of noise is necessary is subjective.
Hampsmire filed suit in the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, in May.

“I certainly think the city should have a noise ordinance, but the ordinance needs to be clear and measurable,” said Mike Millen, a Los Gatos attorney who brought the claim and said he has represented Hampsmire when officers elsewhere have asked him to quiet down.

The judge denied Hampsmire’s claim that his free-speech rights were violated and found no evidence that the arresting officer acted out of an objection to the man’s religious speech.
The case will go to trial unless the parties settle. Millen said he will seek payment from the city for his legal fees, which he estimated at $40,000.

City Attorney John Barisone said the ordinance has been upheld a number of times in state courts, adding, “This is really the first time a judge has had a problem with the language in our law.” He said he will work with the City Council to amend the ordinance for clarity.

The judge’s order does not affect other parts of the city’s noise ordinance, including barring loud noises from 10 p.m. to 8 a.m. Deputy Police Chief Steve Clark said the ruling also does not affect the ability of officers to cite or arrest people whom they believe are using noise to disturb the peace.

Hampsmire was preaching on the sidewalk on Pacific Avenue at Cooper Street about 6 p.m. on a Sunday when a man in an office about 70 feet away complained to police about the loud noise, saying Hampsmire had been speaking for about an hour, according to a court record. Officer Patrick Bayani responded and determined Hampsmire did not need to be so loud, even to be heard across the street, and asked him to move or reduce the noise.

The officer said Hampsmire refused and told him “You’re going to have to arrest me for preaching … for my freedom of religion,” according to the record. The man began preaching even louder after handing his belongings to a woman who was videotaping the incident.

Hampsmire was booked into jail for disturbing the peace and later released, the record said.

The city used the ordinance in 2010 to prosecute advocates for the homeless who sang in protest outside Bookshop Santa Cruz, which is owned by the family of Councilman Ryan Coonerty, a vocal critic of aggressive panhandling and other social problems downtown. The city attorney said Friday’s ruling can’t be applied to previous cases.

Police have issued 121 citations using the rule since 2011, according to city records.

Analyzing Homeless Trash

Posted on by

Becky Johnson: One Woman Talking

September 23, 2012

Original Post

SENTINEL photo by photographer Dan Coyro shows two park rangers approaching a very messy campsite as part of the sweeps which began on July 9th, 2012. Such images are used to villify homeless people and portray the worst case scenario as the norm.

Do Homeless People “trash” the Environment?

What do the number say?
 
 by Becky Johnson
September 23, 2012
Santa Cruz, Ca.  — After a recent beach/inland waterway clean-up by Save Our Shores, the following formula was proffered: Litter Produced = (2.4 oz to 12.9lbs) per volunteer hour x hours worked. Using this standard, we can try to assess how dirty the areas where homeless encampments have been found were/are.
Unifying terms into decimals, we find a range of (0.17 lbs – 12.9 lbs) per volunteer hour collected with an average being 6.4 lbs on Monterey and Santa Cruz County area beaches and inland waterways
SOURCE: Classes of Trash, Monterey County Weekly Sept 20, 2012.
“At the extremes: Carmel River State Beach yielded an average of 2.4 ounces of trash, and Elkhorn Slough produced 12.9 pounds, per volunteer-hour.”  — Laura Kasa, Save Our ShoresSept 20 2012

 A homeless woman is rousted from a large encampment by the Santa Cruz Police Department on December 8, 2011 from San Lorenzo Park. Photo by Chip Scheuer
With this formula in hand, we can work backwards and determine how “trashy” an area was at the time of the clean-up. Since homeless encampments are found primarily in the inland waterway areas, those are the statistics we are most interested in.
Save Our Shoresreports that 550 volunteers picked up 850 lbs of trash (pollution) in 3 hours. So the average person picked up 4.6 lbs of trash at a rate of 1.54 lbs per volunteer hour.

  Photo of Occupy Santa Cruz encampment in San Lorenzo Park Nov 1 2011 Photo courtesy santacruz.com
The San Lorenzo River Clean-up produced 315 lbs of trash by 130 volunteers in 3 hours or 2.4 lbs of trash per person at a rate of 0.8 lbs per volunteer hour. While not as clean as Carmel River State Beach, 0.8lbs per volunteer hour is squeaky clean. Especially compared to the average found throughout the region during the entire beach/waterways cleanup.
Perhaps homeless people are cleaning up more trash than they are leaving?
Or these are areas where Public Works, Caltrans, and Boy Scout groups clean up regularly?
 In any case, groups like Take Back Santa Cruz and editorials by Don Miller in the SENTINEL can’t really claim that the  sweeps are justified because of a clear environmental danger.
City Council candidates Cynthia Mathews, Richelle Noroyan, and Pamela Comstock don’t have any evidence of an “environmental” reason for supporting the homeless sweeps. And Mayor Don Lane‘s silence on the sweeps is deafening.

Letter to the Board of Supervisors on Sweeps of Homeless Encampments

Posted on by

Becky Johnson: One Woman Talking

September 12, 2012

Original Post

Police photo of the destruction of the encampment in San Lorenzo Park on
December 8, 2011 by Santa Cruz Police, Santa Cruz County Sheriffs,  Scotts Valley Police, Capitola Police, UCSC police, Parks & Rec Rangers and First Alarm Security Services. An estimated 160 people were displaced.

 

From: Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom
309 Cedar St. PMB#14 B — Santa Cruz, Ca. 95060
(831) 423-HUFF or (831) 423-4833
to: Board of Supervisors, County of Santa Cruz
701 Ocean St. Santa Cruz, Ca. 95060
Chair: John Leopold Members: Mark Stone, Neil Coonerty, Ellen Pirie, Greg Caput
cc: Phil Wowak, Sheriff, County of Santa Cruz
cc: Dana McRae, County Counsel, County of Santa Cruz
cc: Susan Mauriello, CAO County of Santa Cruz
re: sweeps of homeless encampments in Santa Cruz
September 12, 2012
Dear Chairman Leopold, and members of the Board of Supervisors for Santa Cruz County,
As you know, the City and County of Santa Cruz have inadequate affordable housing available for poor and homeless people. While many public and private shelter options are available and have openings at any one time, they could, in no way, meet the sheer number of those who have no financial resources to purchase legal shelter. So it is with surprise, concern, and dismay that we read weekly accounts of a joint effort between the Parks and Recreation Department, Public Works, and the Santa Cruz Police Department quantifying efforts to sweep areas commonly used for illegal camping. As these campsites are being “abated,” press releases have been issued announcing the number of camps destroyed, citations issued and arrests made.
A related concern exists in County government with the recent sentencing of Gary Johnson and his attorney, Ed Frey to jail for 2 ½ years in Gary’s case and six months in jail for Ed for the “crime” of lodging. PC 647 (e) draws its origins from a tattered history of Black Codes, Jim Crow, and civil war racism which we had thought had been purged from our justice system during reconstruction. This misdemeanor statute, the statewide anti-lodging code has been mis-interpreted by our courts as outlawing sleeping, when a clear reading of the law says nothing of the kind.
We urge you to use your resources to free both Gary Johnson from captivity and to defer any further punishment of Gary or Ed indefinitely. We ask also, that you review whether it is either legal or advisable to use PC 647 (e) at all.
What these events and policies represent are peoples’ lives being uprooted, their meager possessions seized or destroyed, and the persons involved moved along, cited, or arrested.
Let me remind you, two of the three shelters in Watsonville closed recently. This Saturday, Page Smith Community House closes for 5 months, and will be moving its entire population into the Paul Lee Loft. This will leave only the 30 spaces at the River Street Shelter for emergency housing.
In the City, the current City Council are only willing to fund a bus ticket out of town despite critical needs for legal shelter.
With completely insufficient shelter available, homeless people are left to mill around, unable to sit down, lie down, or sleep whether it is daytime or night. Their overall health suffers, sleep deprivation occurs, and many who tend to self-medicate do so more. Even worse for local merchants, is that when these camps are raided and destroyed, their occupants have nowhere to go but into City parks and downtown business areas where they are not wanted at all.
Police raids, and Sheriff’s citations for illegal “lodging” conducted during an obvious shelter emergency, are unproductive, a waste of public resources, and in light of the lack of legal shelter available to these people, inhumane. HUFF has already called for the SCPD, Parks&Rec, and Public Works to CEASE AND DESIST massive abatement practices when no alternative shelter can be offered.
Now we are asking you, our elected representatives, to act to enact policy whereby PC 647 (e) citations will be suspended until the shelter crisis recedes.
“Housing” homeless people in jail for the “crimes” of “living” “sleeping” “lodging” or “camping” represent institutional abuse of persons whose economic circumstances forbid their ability to purchase legal shelter. Those who knowingly continue such practices will ultimately be held accountable for the human misery they are fomenting.
I thank you for your personal consideration of these issues and invite further dialogue. HUFF holds weekly meetings and I would invite all or any of you to attend our next meeting to explain your policy and practices using civil dialogue and an open process.
Sincerely,
Becky Johnson of HUFF

Santa Cruz Eleven brace for a long, dirty fight

Posted on by

Becky Johnson: One Woman Talking

August 20, 2012

Original Post

Santa Cruz, Ca. — Sunday had been upbeat. Defendants and their supporters met on Seabright Beach for a bonfire and cookout. Anyone strolling down the beach would see what looked like a relaxed, peaceful gathering of beach-goers — as all-American as apple pie. Few would guess it was a gathering of eleven people charged with felonies and their supporters fitting in one beach cookout on the eve of what all hoped would be a long-awaited dismissal of specious charges.

However, Monday morning in Judge Burdick’s court that was not to be.

This wasn’t to be the long postponed preliminary hearing. Burdick had cancelled that on Friday. Instead, assistant DA Rebekah Young appeared in court with DA Jeff Roselle and DA David Sherman. Over the weekend, the three had worked to create an evidence list of 13 videos, over 600 photos, a copy of the lease, and the police reports. They purchased 7 hard drives for the seven lawyers representing the seven remaining defendants, including the author. It must be nice to have an unlimited budget.

DAMAGE CLAIMS FROM WELLS FARGO DOCUMENTED

Young was also able to deliver via e-mail the billing sheets for damage alleged to be caused by defendants.

One look at them confirmed why Young had dragged her heels on releasing the documentation for the “vandalism.” Billing sheets had outrageous amounts billed with few details as to what services had been rendered totaling over $25,000. And not a single contractor from Santa Cruz County was hired.

For instance, Wells Fargo manager, Alicia Bucher hired a San Leandro firm to remove furniture damaged beyond repair. The cost? $6,545.41.

Last December, when the SCPD had shut off power and water to the building, protestors had made a make-shift bathroom in a utility closet. The cost to ” remove biohazard” was $6,222.83! The shit heard ’round the world?

Bucher hired a Richmond firm to “detail clean” the property. Protestors report the building was far from pristine when they first entered the building, not having had a tenant for 3 1/2 years, or seen an agent showing it to a potential client in months. The bill? $2,988.00.

She hired a locksmith in Foster City to rekey the building. While protestors used a key to enter the front door, and presumably only had access to the external doors, Bucher opted to have every lock and key replaced in the entire building and at after hours costs totaling $2,430.19.

Despite each and every billing sheet appearing to be padded to the maximum, there was no billing sheet for the graffiti on the air conditioning ducts on the roof of 75 River Street. This is surprising because this was the only damage for which photographic evidence exists. In over 600 police photos turned over to defense attorneys, no other vandalism has been documented.

There are no police photos of any “bio-hazard.” No “broken furniture.” No before and after photos after $2,988.00 worth of cleaning had been completed. No evidence any locks other than those the stolen key fit needed to be replaced. And why did the locksmith ONLY work after midnight?

This is a ridiculously padded account done to foster the claim protestors were out of control vandals rather than concerned activists trying to highlight the waste and blight left in Wells Fargo’s wake for leaving that building empty so long.

Defendants are also being asked to pay for the external fencing which Wells Fargo should have put up before the demonstrators occupied the building.

Why were no local contractors used?Instead Wells Fargo manager, Alicia Bucher contacted and hired contractors from as far away as San Leandro, but not a single Santa Cruz County business benefitted. Bucher herself has an East-bay area code, and no ties to the local community.

Could it be Bucher only used contractors she could manipulate to produce whatever paper-trail she desired? What does that say about Wells Fargo’s integrity generally?

PUNISHMENT PRIOR TO TRIAL

Lawyers, judges, and deputies get paid for what they do. Defendants do not.

“I missed my grandmother’s funeral,” Angel Alcantara revealed. “Her funeral was Friday in Fresno and I had to be here.” How do you put a price on this?

The case grinds on; despite little evidence against those charged and no evidence of vandalism committed by any of the defendants charged,

“It’s a weak case,”David Beauvais, attorney for Robert Norse told Burdick. “It’s time to end this charade.”

But DA Jeff Roselle disagreed.

“Someone broke into…entered private property without permission. Sanction our office but do not dismiss the case. The sanctity of private property has been violated.”

“What about the sanctity of our rights to free speech, to a fair and speedy trial, to dissent?” queried defendant, Gabriella Ripley-Phipps, shortly after the hearing.

Burdick opted to consider what sanctions he might impose but, apparently persuaded by Roselle announced “Serious crimes were committed. My discretion is not appropriately applied by dismissing these cases.”

NEXT COURT DATES:

Jan 4th 9am for prelim set
Jan 7th 9am Preliminary Hearing

Case against Santa Cruz Eleven is crumbling

Posted on by

Becky Johnson: One Woman Talking

August 18, 2012

Original Post

Santa Cruz, Ca. — The case against eleven mostly long-time and well-known activists or alternative media journalists seems to be falling apart.

On Friday, DA Rebekah Young was made to answer for video discovery not delivered, potentially exculpatory evidence not turned over, billing sheets confirming allegations of damages still missing, and promises made not kept.

“She still has not turned over the second videotape mentioned in police reports about my client,” charged defense attorney, Alexa Briggs. “And the first tape is exculpatory as it shows my client, Mr. Laurendau leave the building when warned.”

Judge Burdick cancelled the Preliminary hearing on August 20th and ordered Young to show cause why he should not dismiss all charges.

A 9am hearing is scheduled.

Six Months in jail for SLEEPING? Is this America?

Posted on by

Becky Johnson: One Woman Talking

July 20, 2012

Original Post

URGENT!  Attorney Ed Frey and his client, Gary Johnson, both convicted under PC 647 (e),  the anti-homeless statewide anti-lodging statute for sleeping at a protest against Sleeping Bans, face a certain six months in jail apiece as Frey exhausts his appeal process. Legal, moral, and political support is badly needed. Frey and Johnson could be jailed as soon as Tuesday, July 24th, 2012 when they go before Judge John Gallagher at 8:30AM in Dept. 2


A homeless man sleeps on the benches outside of the Santa Cruz
Main Library as part of Peace Camp 2010 when protesters had
been driven away from City Hall across the street. These benches
have since been removed by public officials.  Photo by Becky Johnson

by Becky Johnson
July 20, 2012

Santa Cruz, Ca. — When Ed Frey envisioned Peace Camp 2010, he was sure of his cause. Sleeping itself is a criminal act within the City of Santa Cruz. It is illegal under MC 6.36.010 section a, to sleep anywhere out of doors or in a vehicle between 11PM and 8:30AM, with few exceptions. And while the City of Santa Cruz does pay for a sizable percentage of services offered to homeless people (some Cities provide nothing), the number of persons enumerated by each census far outnumber the number of spaces of legal shelter available.

But for reasons largely unexplained (thought to be a squabble between City police and County sheriffs) neither Ed, nor protesters Gary Johnson, Eliot Anderson, teepee visionary Robert “Blind Bear” Facer,  “Anonymous” Commander X, Collette Connolly, the former Chair of the Commission for Prevention of Violence Against Women, Linda Lemaster, radio host Robert Norse, and Art Bishoff were charged with the City’s Sleeping Ban. Instead, County Counsel Dana McRae  advised sheriff’s to charge misdemeanor PC 647 (e), as a disturbing the peace charge.

Linda Lemaster in front of the Santa Cruz County Courthouse 2010
Photo by Becky Johnson

A jury trial was held for five defendants including Ed Frey who served as both the defense attorney for his fellow defendants and as his own defense. All, except Anderson were convicted. In Anderson’s case, the jury hung 11 – 1 for conviction. One juror didn’t think Anderson should be compelled to gas his dog in order to sleep in a shelter for one night. The remaining jurors did.

At a sentencing hearing for Gary Johnson and Ed Frey, Judge John Gallagher sentenced both men to 6 months in jail following their refusal to accept 400 hour of community service. In addition, when Johnson asked Gallagher how he could “obey all laws” since illegal lodging is illegal 24/7 and he was homeless, the Judge told him he “could sleep in jail” and ordered him jailed immediately.

When Frey asked for bail in order to file an appeal, Gallagher set bail at $50,000 apiece. Both men went to jail for several weeks. Frey was able to modify the bail to $110 each ( the bail schedule for PC 647 (e) charges) , both men were able to bail out.

Just as Johnson had warned, he was again cited four times for illegal “lodging” and jailed for another 85 days. Now both men, having exhausted their immediate appeal route due to lack of legal resources and inadequate funding, face being returned to jail to serve the remainder of their 6 month sentences.

Neither is accused of having trespassed, littered, or bothered anyone at all. Only sheriffs were disturbed to see protesters against the Sleeping Ban sleeping in direct defiance of the ban as part of a 1st amendment protected protest, and at a traditional public forum. And what was the behavior they testified to as requiring immediate arrest for disturbing the peace? Sleeping at 4:30AM. In fact, sheriff’s testified they had to awaken the sleeping protesters! And six months in jail for sleeping has got to be excessive punishment.

And if an attorney and activist can be jailed for sleeping, how are homeless people treated who have limited legal shelter options?  Thanks to Ed and Gary, we now have a clue.

Those with legal resources, financial or political support, should contact ED FREY here.

Jury Trial date set for Linda Lemaster October 15th

Posted on by

Becky Johnson: One Woman Talking

July 8, 2012

Original Post

 

 

 A depiction of the outrage of the Sleeping Ban as depicted by a local homeless artist.

 

Trial date set in case of Santa Cruz Peace Camp protester Linda Ellen Lemaster

First published:   07/06/2012 08:09:28 PM PDT

SANTA CRUZ – A trial date of Oct. 15 was set Friday for Linda Ellen Lemaster, a community activist involved in a controversial homeless protest in 2010 on the steps of Santa Cruz County Superior Court and City Hall.

Lemaster, a homeless activist and projects facilitator for the Santa Cruz group Housing Now!, is charged with illegal lodging for her participation in the demonstration. The protest, called “Operation Peace Camp 2010,” gathered activists opposing parts Santa Cruz’s camping ban.

The occupation comprised a group of more than 50 people who slept and held signs on the courthouse steps. It lasted three months, before deputies began warning, ticketing and arresting protesters under a criminal misdemeanor law for unlawful lodging.


Attorney Ed Frey, Robert “Blind Bear” Facer, and Linda Lemaster confer at City Hall
during Peace Camp 2010, a protest against Sleeping Bans. Photo by Becky Johnson

Lemaster appeared in court with friends Friday. Her attorney Jonathan Gettleman said he filed a writ of habeas corpus with the 6th District Court of Appeals in San Jose. The 53-page writ requests the court to hear and dismiss Lemaster’s case, linking it to the protection of freedom of speech under the First Amendment.

“This matter is very serious as far as we’re concerned,” Gettleman said. “This case could really injure people’s ability to engage in protests.”

Gettleman said the illegal lodging law was misused to put an end to the protest and violated the constitutional right of people to assemble peacefully and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Gettleman said he not only hopes to clear Lemaster, but also to make the illegal lodging law unconstitutional. The federal court should decide whether to hear the case in the next few months, before the beginning of the Santa Cruz trial in October.

In a previous case related to the protest, two other activists, Ed Frey and Gary Johnson, were sentenced to six months in County Jail last October.

DA Rebekah Young loses 2nd motion to dismiss Judge Burdick

Posted on by

Becky Johnson: One Woman Talking

July 8, 2012

Original Post

NOTE TO READER: As one of the defendants in this case, my June 25th preliminary hearing was postponed because of Young’s motion where she admitted she “misread 170.6.” Now I must wait until August 20th to clear my name. My first preliminary hearing had been scheduled for March 5th, but was postponed then because Judge Ariadne Symons took 5 court hearings to appoint me a public defender. My fellow defendants and I have been dragged through the mud for months now, smeared as “trespassers” and “vandals” for our mostly peripheral connection to a non-violent peaceful occupation of a long empty bank building. That DA Bob Lee is overcharging in this case, is only one issue. With Councilmember Katherine Beiers, City Manager Martine Bernal, SENTINEL photographer, Schmuel Thayer, and Santa Cruz Patch reporter, Alex Huebner reported to have been in the building, defendants claim selective enforcement.  Finally, the prosecution of high profile alternative media journalists with serious felonies signals a creeping fascism which chills protest and freedom of speech. Does DA Bob Lee represent the cause of the citizens of Santa Cruz or does he really work for Wells Fargo, making sure empty buildings in our community remain unavailable for years at a time?   — Becky Johnson, Ed. and defendant, santacruzeleven.org

Police photo of protesters taken at 4:24PM November 30, 2011

Motion to disqualify judge denied in

 

Santa Cruz bank takeover case

Posted:   07/05/2012 01:09:29 PM PDT

Found online here.

SANTA CRUZ – A judge has denied a prosecutor’s motion for a new judge in the case of the takeover of a former Wells Fargo bank last year. Assistant District Attorney Rebekah Young had sought to disqualify Judge Paul Burdick from presiding over the cases of the five defendants whose preliminary hearings have not yet taken place. Burdick previously dismissed the charges against six of the 11 people initially charged in connection with the nearly-three-day occupation of 75 River St., a vacant former bank in downtown Santa Cruz.

Defense attorneys for Gabriella Ripleyphipps, Becky Johnson, Robert Norse, Brent Adams and Desiree Foster had objected to the motion to disqualify Burdick, calling it “untimely.”
Burdick sided with the defense and will remain the presiding judge for the preliminary hearing, which is set for Aug. 20. All five face felony counts of conspiracy and vandalism, as well as misdemeanor trespassing.

Those charges were dismissed earlier this year against Bradley Allen, Alex Darocy, Edward Rector, Grant Wilson, Franklin Alcantara and Cameron Laurendeau. Young later re-filed the charges against Laurendeau and Alcantara, and their new preliminary hearing will be heard by Judge Ariadne Symons later this month.

A group declaring themselves to be “acting anonymously and autonomously but in solidarity with Occupy Santa Cruz” took over the building late last year with the announced intentions of turning it into a community center in protest of the banks’ role in the national economic downfall. Amid numerous police negotiations, the group left the building peacefully after close to 72 hours.

Follow Sentinel reporter Jessica M. Pasko on Twitter: @jmpasko96

NEXT COURT DATES: July 23 2012 preliminary hearing  — Dept 7 –Franklin “Angel” Alcantara and Cameron Laurendeau

August 20 2012 preliminary hearing — Dept. 6 — 9AM — Robert Norse Kahn, Desiree Foster, Gabriella Ripplyphipps, Brent Adams, and  Becky Johnson

Judges affirm that sleeping at any time or place is illegal

Posted on by

Becky Johnson: One Woman Talking

July 1, 2012

Original Post

 Attorney Ed Frey is arrested for sleeping on August 7, 2010 as part of Peace Camp 2010
protest against sleeping bans. Photo by Bradley Stuart

Santa Cruz Superior Court Appeals Panel

affirms 6-month sentence for Sleeping

Santa Cruz, Ca. — A two-judge panel has affirmed the conviction of Ed Frey and Gary Johnson for sleeping.  The law, PC 647 (e), the statewide anti-lodging law, outlaws illegal lodging. But it was clear from evidence introduced at trial, statements by Judge John Gallagher, and finally statements by the two appeals Judges, Paul Marigona and Timothy Volkmann, that “sleeping” equals “lodging” for “the people.”
The judgement upholds the conviction for the two men, and Gallagher’s draconian sentence of 6 months in jail for sleeping for each man. Unmentioned at the appeals hearing was that Gallagher had also set bail at $50,000 each, a bail that was later modified to $110, which was the bail schedule all along for this “crime.”

Of course the “crime” in the case of PC 647 (e) violations is to use the extremely broad activity of “lodging” as an arrestable crime against homeless people who have no other choice than to live in public places, and against protestors, in this case, set against the backdrop of Occupy Santa Cruz.

A homeless man sleeps as part of Peace Camp 2010, in front of the Santa Cruz County Courthouse
on July 12, 2010  photo by Becky Johnson

Appeals Court Judge, Paul Marigonda began in support of denying the appeal by claiming the defendants were claiming “a right to sleep anywhere.” He claimed that neither County law nor the 9th Amendment to the Federal Constitution did not provide “any such right. That government provide any such place to sleep, is not there either.”

Marigonda then referenced three sources. He said that “lodging can be setting up in a place with the intention of spending the night,” language which he cribbed from section “c” of the Santa Cruz City Ordinance 6.36.010 Camping prohibited.

“It can be to occupy a place temporarily,” which Marigonda got from a regular dictionary.
“It can be to settle in or live in a place temporarily, that may include sleeping,” which is the definition Judge John Gallagher cobbled together to give to the jury that convicted Frey and Johnson in May of 2011. He asserted that “time, place and manner restrictions” were “entirely reasonable.”

Marigonda then addressed the six month sentence handed down to the two men. “It’s not unusual when the two men involved refused to accept the terms of the probation.”  Frey and Johnson had turned down 400 hours of community service and a 3-year probation including ‘obey all laws’.

A homeless kitten explores at Peace Camp 2010
Photo by Chris Doyon

Johnson, who is homeless, had objected to the ‘obey all laws’ clause saying that he “needed to sleep” and that he couldn’t go three years without sleeping. Gallagher had resolved that by jailing Johnson on the spot telling him he “could sleep in jail.” Frey had called the 400 hours of community service “slavery.” Considering that DA Sara Dabkowski had sought 50 times what a conviction for MC 6.36.010 section a, also known as “the sleeping ban,” the law they were there sleeping in direct violation as an act of civil disobedience.

Ed Frey, who was both a defendant and the defense attorney, began by correcting Marigonda.

“We weren’t attempting to say we had a right to sleep anywhere, we say we have a right to sleep somewhere.  We’re asking the Superior Court to acknowledge that sleeping is a valid form of expression. We’re all physical embodiments. Will we say to anyone who doesn’t have any property rights or access to a physical abode, that you don’t have a right to live?

Judge Timothy Volkmann assured Frey he had read Ed’s brief “four times.” “While sleeping is expressive conduct, it is subject to time, place and manner restrictions.”
“The statute itself says you can’t lodge anywhere in the State. And not at any time in a 24 hour day. And the California State Constitution doesn’t allow cruel or unusual punishment. Has anyone else you know been sentenced to six months in jail for sleeping?”

“You didn’t take advantage of your probation offer,” responded Volkmann.

Marigonda, referencing his experience as “10 years as a prosecutor in domestic violence felony cases” he said it was a common practice to charge the maximum sentence for defendants who refused probation terms. “And it could be just a touch.”

Frey countered, “We generally sentence based on harm to a victim. How did Gary and I harm anyone by sleeping in front of the courthouse when all the workers were home in bed?”

Marigonda: “Judgement of lower court is affirmed in its entirety.”

But Frey and Johnson were not immediately jailed to complete their 6-month terms for sleeping.
Frey sought permission from the court to certify the case for further appeal, which the court granted. However, on Friday, June 29th, the court turned him down. So now he is preparing a writ of Habeas Corpus to appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of California.