top
Santa Cruz IMC
Santa Cruz IMC
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

Notes on a Jury Empanelled to Criminalize Sleeping and Protest

by Linda Lemaster (posted by Norse)
Activist, writer, and long-time community member Linda Lemaster was chair of both the Homeless Issues Task Force and the City's Commission for the Prevention of Violence Against Women. She was designated an expert witness in the expensive and discriminatory harassment trial of homeless musicians Anna Richardson and Miguel de Leon last summer. She faces a year in jail and $1000 fine for charges of "lodging" in front of the Courthouse for protesting the City's homeless Sleeping Ban last August. Her trial will begin in late May or early June. Everything following this summary was written by Linda herself whose blog is at http://www.hearthbylinda.blogspot.com/ .
Peace Camp 2010 Defendants in Court~~ Homeless Not Helpless
Trial Begins for Six Peace Camp 2010 "Lodgers"
dateline ~ Santa Cruz ~ Tuesday, April 26, 2011
(from Linda's blog at http://hearthbylinda.blogspot.com/2011/04/peace-camp-2010-defendants-in-court.html)

Day Two for six Peace Camp 2010 survivors: legal agents are still picking jurors and their understudies.

The Honorable Judge John Gallagher predicted this Lodging trial could take up to two weeks. Attorney Ed Frey is representing himself and five other brave, persisting defendants; one person is MIA and the four others are stuck sitting all day, backs against the courthouse wall to Judge's left, watching these proceedings.

California Superior Court of Santa Cruz County, Dept 2, 701 Ocean St. Not a lot revealed so far. The trial resulted from last summer's ongoing demonstration and protest over anti-sleeping laws used to render homeless people into criminals, for sleeping at night. After more than a month, Santa Cruz County's Sheriff was pressured to "clean up" the demo-campers, and so he authorized ticketing sweeps. Groups of Deputies came, first with City of Santa Cruz sleep ban citations, then with California's quit broad lodging law, 647(e).

The demonstration changed but did not go away until weeks into this sudden criminalization in the very place locals gather to redress their government, to inform the general public, and to share their grievances: the lawn and walkway, under the US and California flags, in front of the Courthouse. Next door to the County Government Building.

As I noted earlier somewhere, a Necessity Defense will be allowed for this "lodging" trial. Necessity, related to homeless defendants in California, is a strictly defined list of qualities required to be met (proved), to demonstrate one has NO other sleepy-time recourse besides sleeping outside (in public). This trial will likely have five necessity defense presentations.

In the past three decades, the growing body of clinical evidence regarding harm resulting from a person not getting enough sleep has been glossed over or prevented outright, in courtroom efforts I've witnessed over three decades, and in general around these selectively administered anti-sleeping laws.

In my view, one of the hurdles is trying to get the judges and commissioners, or occasionally a jury, to UNDERSTAND we are not concerned about a one-time, middle-class outing, here; like say boy scouts camping with their telescopes, or Faire merchants guarding their wares and their generators or stoves or tents along the riverside before the show.

I get concerned about this TREND of making criminals out of individuals, groups and throngs of people who's every single day is at best ten times more difficult and critical and immediate than most folks', and who's nights are a rigged crap shoot of options for the thirty people in every thousand (around here) of sleeping on somebody's couch or back porch, or of getting rolled and robbed in their sleep by a lost drunk or crushed in a municipal recycling truck. Or committing suicide because they have become isolated for way too long. Yes, I am saying about thirty known-to-be homeless people out of each thousand manage to come up with an alternative to hiding all night.

I become concerned when I meet the huge numbers of women in their 40s who lost their stable housing simply because they were faced with urgent medical needs but had no kind of insurance at their jobs, forced to hide now; or upon seeing already disabled people who cannot round up a landlord and all the trimmings by themselves, despite their fixed incomes, thus being put at greater risk because we shun them at every turn.

I'm trying to say for every "bum" and "ingrate on the sidewalk"we experience, there are hundreds of other folks (who also happen to be homeless) whom you'd recognize as fellow humans if you would only see them: going to work, caring for their kids, studying for their midterms at the cafe with a laptop just like housed dudes, fixing their friend's bike, paying their taxes, and trying to clean things up 'round about themselves, no matter where they land.

Our government could not get away with this total failure of social policy -- creating ever greater homelessness while our banks empty our homes they are not able to sell -- if we were not parties to it's creation. It's called tossing the baby out with the bathwater. It is most certainly NOT Christian to blame a whole sub-population for the actions of a few jerks, whether those jerks are the golden-parachute banking crooks or the hustling street rejects who act out our shadow fears: homeless does not mean "bum", homeless does not mean "thief."

Maybe if we could all stop using the word homeless as a euphemism, and start naming the behaviors that we actually fear or loath, our own eyes could acclimate to notice homeless PEOPLE? But I digress. Remember the movie, "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?" (Memory wants me to believe it featured a young Jane Fonda, but...)

Struggling around this latest cattle prod, the Lodging Law, alongside the City of Santa Cruz's camping/sleeping ban, and just like many new municipal and national ordinances across the land exhausts everyone involved. A little widespread integrity could help us cure these efforts at legal trickery as banishment and selective enforcement, with it's dishonest underpinnings. We are leaving innocent people to suffer and die in the dark so we don't have to face our own flawed assumptions, just to forestall our collective discomfort for all the wrong reasons.

We need to become more aware of our own and other people's human rights.

It is, simply, wrong to make sleeping illegal. None of the pop excuses hold water, they're just exhortations of fear. The more US Americans get downsized while we ignore and deny our role as citizens in our own economic sinkhole, the sooner what I'm saying will become self-evident.

Meanwhile, here's hoping it's not YOUR uncle who gets his pack stolen because he fell asleep, losing YOUR phone number again, and here's hoping it's not YOUR granny who gives up and goes to sleep for the last time, in the muddy river tonite.



Lodging Trial in Santa Cruz: Now it's the Jury's Turn
by Linda Ellen Lemaster on Tuesday, May 3, 2011 at 2:06pm
(from Linda's facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/notes/linda-ellen-lemaster/lodging-trial-in-santa-cruz-now-its-the-jurys-turn/212255168798425 )

5 3 2011 -Santa Cruz/Live Oak

Today I went to court as early as I could get there (10:30ish am) to see how it was going with the Lodging 647(e) Trial of six homeless demonstrators from last summer's PeaceCamp2010. The jury had already gotten down to their job, around 9:30am, I was told. Lawyers and Defendants are 'on call' and have to get to court within ten minutes, once Jury Foreman says Jury is read with verdict (rather, six verdicts)

Defendant Gary is in the Law Library (basement of County Office Bldg, adjacent to courthouse - don't think about why there?). At noon as Bailiff closes us out of the courtroom, Defendant Bob deadpans to Bailiff's door-locking hand, "OK, I'm going to go over there and lodge," nodding with his forehead toward one of the wide, blond oak benches that line our courthouse's monolithic glass-n-concrete outer walls. He proceeded to stretch out on the bench, feet respectfully hanging below it, head resting on his backpack/bedroll.

The half dozen people still in the corridor don't even notice him. As usual in the lives of long term homeless folks with no vehicle, the ten-minute turn-around requires both defendants to stay put; they can't run around and "do" the rest of their lives like everyone else involved: jurors and defendants in a time warp at the courthouse.

A little before our Bailiff-assisted exit from Department 2, The DA and attorney Ed Frey were called in (Ed: "In the middle of my breakfast!") because the Jury had made a request of the Judge regarding clarifying of definitions. Turns out that one juror felt certain that Judge Gallagher had defined "protest" during their instructions, and so this Jury wanted to get it repeated or clarified. Like roughly an hour after they began. After Judge Gallagher pow-wows with both attorneys, neither of whom had special 'protest' definitions. So the Jury is on their own. I took it as a good sign that they were already asking questions.

Here's hoping that at least one of them have read the First Amendment of our federal Constitution. Presumably Mr. Frey got back to breakfast, and hopefully the jury will be busy at least until I get back downtown, to hear their verdict, hopefully, firsthand.

footnote: besides those mentioned above, Ray G-G checked in, and Rick, who watched the whole thing yesterday was also there all morning.
Add Your Comments

Comments (Hide Comments)
by Becky Johnson
640_klieg_lights_aug_20_2010.jpg
Surprising no one on the defense team, the milk-toast jury came back with all guilty/all of the time against Ed Frey, Gary Johnson, and Collette Connolly while the jury hung by one vote against a conviction for Eliot Anderson. You see, for Eliot to use any homeless shelter in Santa Cruz, he'd have had to gas his dog.

One juror (out of 12) thought it was too much to expect, to gas your dog, to get one night's sleep in a shelter.

Trial begins on Wednesday morning for Linda Lemaster on her own PC 647 (e) with pre-trial at 9AM.

All things camping go before Judge John Gallagher. Or so sayeth Judge Rebecca Connolly* who also found nothing unusual at all about a law that makes it an immediately arrestable offence to "settle in, sleep, or lodge" anywhere within the boundaries of the State of California.

* see: http://beckyjohnsononewomantalking.blogspot.com/2011/03/judge-rebecca-connolly-rules-647-e-not.html

My initial reaction? I'm sickened by the verdict. The jurors saw one cop after another testify that they'd ordered the defendants away from the protest only, that they set up Klieg lights aimed at them, that they'd hired a security guard to "watch" them 24/7, and then complained of "Nazi" references. (perhaps Guantanomo would have been more fitting?) and they , themselves, patted themselves on the back with "they system worked" and "thank you for your service."

more later. Pepto Bismo now.
by Becky Johnson
Win big? No one knows the future, but here are the signs:

1. First they ignore you completely
2. Second, they ridicule and smear you
3. Third, they really crack down
4. We win


By this formula, our big win is just around the bend!
by Reality Check
You're like a petulant child that doesn't get its way; sulking and pouting that life isn't fair.

The band of proud jurors who "revolted" at the audacity of having to waste their time on this absurd case turned on you and decided against your viewpoint, so suddenly they've become "milk toast"? (Although I suspect teacher meant "milquetoast")

How many times are you going to play this game of denial, lying, and then shock when your fantasy construct fades away in the light of reality?
Linda Lemaster has a 10 AM pre-trial hearing this morning with her attorney Jonathan Gettleman for "lodging" (i.e. falling asleep while peacefully protesting the Sleeping Ban) at the County Building last August. (PC 647e)

Gary Johnson faces a year in jail for misdemeanor "lying down on a public sidewalk" (MC 9.50.070)--again as part of the PC2010 protest--when it moved to City Hall. In that situation, the city suddenly declared the City Hall grounds closed at night, forcing protesters onto the sidewalk. Jury selection begins Monday.
by sane person
Becky, not everyone believes that a homeless person should have a dog. Not that it should be made illegal, but it sure defies common sense. If you are unable to care for yourself, why should you be trusted to care for an animal? From what I've seen, homeless pets do not live particularly good lives.

If the homeless shelter won't let you bring your dog, it's time to find someone who will take care of the dog for you. Pretty simple, problem solved.
by Disgusted Reader
As someone who claims to be a teacher in our locals schools, a former National Merit Scholarship winner, and a journalist - I was appalled to see Ms. Johnson misuse of the term Milquetoast.

Milk-Toast = Milk toast is a breakfast food consisting of toasted bread in warm milk

Milquetoast = A weak, ineffectual or bland person.

Ms Johnson = Village Idiot. Enuff said.
by Sacerdotti
Milquetoast was for the character of Caspar Milquetoast was in fact a deliberate misspelling of Milktoast in an effort to describe the personality of the comic strip character.
by Becky Johnson
REALITY CHECK WRITES: "The band of proud jurors who "revolted" at the audacity of having to waste their time on this absurd case turned on you and decided against your viewpoint, so suddenly they've become "milk toast"?"

BECKY: Not exactly. the "revolting" jurors were all weeded off this jury. The jurors remaining read no newspapers, knew little or nothing of our protest last July, Aug, and Sept. on the doors of their highest institutions. They had no opinions on homelessness. Didn't know who any of the players were. And happily ate cookies provided to them by the judge from Pacific Cookie Company and Emily's Bakerey. It's pretty clear those two businesses are FIRM SUPPORTERS of the Sleeping Ban!!

As for Milk Toast vs Milquetoast, leave it to RC to triumph over an alleged spelling error! I'd always thought of the bland breakfast of Milk Toast as a fitting description of someone who doesn't make waves, doesn't object or question things, and follows orders without objection.

But thank you for the correction. I'll add that to my lexicon. Can you ever consider making a correction without all the derision and insults? Ha ha. Like you have ANYTHING else going for you.
diane_and_her_dog_peacecamp2010_photo_by_doyon.jpg
SANE PERSON WRITES: "Becky, not everyone believes that a homeless person should have a dog. Not that it should be made illegal, but it sure defies common sense. If you are unable to care for yourself, why should you be trusted to care for an animal? From what I've seen, homeless pets do not live particularly good lives. If the homeless shelter won't let you bring your dog, it's time to find someone who will take care of the dog for you. Pretty simple, problem solved."

BECKY: From what I've seen homeless people do not live particularly good lives. You are more concerned about the dog's welfare, than the man's. And your "solution" ( to HAVE SOMEONE take care of your dog for you)---are you SANE??? It's very hard to get any landlord to take a dog!! Simple?? Hardly. And in this case, the cop was going to arrest Bob for Sleeping and threatened to impound his dog. Bob panicked because it cost $200 to get your dog back from the pound and for a homeless person, it's the SAME as gassing your dog.

But that aside, consider this:

--dogs have been accompanying people for thousands of years, many of those dogs lived out of doors
--dogs coats get thicker in cold weather.
--homeless dog owners are sometimes with their dogs 24/7. Housed people might have them locked in a kennel with little human interaction for days. Better? For YOU maybe!!
--dogs provide companionship, warms, and protection. That sounds pretty sane to me!
by sane person
Becky, first of all, do you not understand the jury selection process? The DA is allowed to remove people with strong, biased opinions on these subjects, just as the DEFENSE laywers are allowed to remove people. If somebody was up there saying "I hate homeless people and hope we throw the book at them!", the defense attorneys can move to make sure those folks aren't on the jury. Also, keep in mind, that many people hate jury duty and try to get themselves removed with strong statements like "I think the homelesss should sleep wherever they feel like at any time". I think that's weak, but that's where we're at in our society.

The jury didn't "turn on" anyone. They were selected due to their moderation and lack of political bias, analyzed the facts, and found that your side lost. Suck it up and deal with it. Also, why weren't YOU and RN arrested as well?
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$110.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network