SF Bay Area Indymedia indymedia
Indybay About Contact Newsletter Calendar Publish Community

Santa Cruz Indymedia | Global Justice and Anti-Capitalism | Police State and Prisons

Criminal or Hero? -- A Closer Look at One of the Santa Cruz Eleven
by Becky Johnson (posted by Norse)
Wednesday Jun 13th, 2012 6:00 AM
Activist Desiree Foster, the youngest of the Santa Cruz Eleven, faces a possible seven years in jail in an unending series of court ordeals, compliments of D.A. Bob Lee and his eager lieutenant former CNN reporter-turned-prosecutor Rebekah Young. Though more than half the eleven have already had all their charges dismissed by judges prior to trial, prosecutors continue to refile charges and press cases without substance in what appears to be an on-going attack of the Occupy movement locally (and probably nationally).
In a world gone Topsy-turvy, a 19 year old activist who served as a media representative is charged with serious felonies and misdemeanors while a greedy corporate bank which has carelessly left a valuable physical asset boarded up and unused for several years, most likely as a tax write-off, is the "victim" and is prosecuting protesters and whistle blowers while seeking $30,000 in "damages?"

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- The youngest of the Santa Cruz Eleven, Desiree Foster was arrested as she and her boyfriend were leaving her home on her way to the Santa Cruz County courthouse in an attempt to quash her arrest warrant by agreeing to appear in court on a date certain. Instead, she spent the next nine hours sitting on plastic seating watching a deputy-controlled television set, having been arrested for two counts of felony conspiracy to trespass and vandalize, and two misdemeanor counts of trespass and vandalism with bail set at $5,000. Her mother, suffering from cancer attempted to raise the $500 to bail out her daughter, when, inexplicably, Desiree was released on her own recognizance.

But the pressure of the felony charges, the financial instability of her family, and the fear and dread that she faced in dealing with her mother's cancer, proved to be too much. Desiree took an overdose of pills and wound up in Dominican Hospital, treated for a suicide attempt.

Desiree, a passionate and idealistic young woman, had found her voice attending Occupy Santa Cruz general assemblies, and volunteered for many tasks. At home, she and her mother struggled to pay bills. Desiree is her mother's primary caregiver, as she undergoes chemotherapy. Desiree, like many in her generation, knew that something is inherently wrong with our system if she and her mother had to struggle to keep a roof over their heads while her mom was being treated for cancer. She lived in a world where with or without a college education, young people could not find good jobs.

Without stable and affordable housing, reasonable wages for jobs, and quality health care for all who need it, too many of the 99% who have followed all the rules, worked hard, paid their taxes, are falling through the cracks. Too many still lack health care, are paid inadequate wages, and must pay housing costs that are through the roof. Wells Fargo is a key player in the housing foreclosure crisis.

On November 30th, 2011, a group of activists and community members entered a long-vacant bank building leased to Wells Fargo, and attempted to turn it into a community center. During the occupation of that building by 100 to 300 different people, Desiree volunteered for the task of media representative for the ad hoc occupiers.

"I spoke to the Sentinel, KION, Phil Gomez of KSBW, the Mid-County Post and the Santa Cruz Patch," Desiree told me by phone. "I spoke to everyone. I told them that we wanted it to be something better than what it is now, just a vacant spot." She was interviewed on Community Television as well.

While Police Chief Kevin Vogel and DA Bob Lee have characterized Desiree and the Santa Cruz Eleven as "vandals" and "trespassers" who are disrespectful of private property, the truth is something quite different. For the persons who whole-heartedly embraced the temporary and largely symbolic takeover of 75 River Street, which Wells Fargo had all but abandoned, they meant to use it as a focal point to educate the general public about what that building COULD have been used for instead.

Most of the occupiers believe that our democratic system has been hijacked by the wealthy. The wealthiest 1% (Wells Fargo) is profiting at the expense of the rest of the 99%. For business as usual to continue, it means that you and me, the citizenry in Santa Cruz must live and work around Wells Fargo's 'dead spot' --an empty building sitting for four years now, without a single tenant, providing no jobs, no services, and very little tax revenue to the community, but undoubtedly providing a HUGE tax write-off for the ultra-wealthy bankers of Wells Fargo. While public funds are used to evict Wells Fargo's "trespassers," more public funds are used by a DA to conduct a witch hunt against a largely arbitrary list of "felons."

Truly those courageous and bold activists who gained entry to the dusty and unused interior without damaging the building in any way, did so for a purpose bigger than their own lives. They took considerable personal risk for doing so, and were unlikely to benefit financially from the takeover. Finally, they performed the occupation by using a consensus process, where they formally agreed to refrain from vandalism.

Indeed, police have thus far failed to provide any photographic evidence of this 'vandalism' in the hundreds of photos turned over to the defense as part of discovery. Other than some graffiti and an anarchist sticker on the ROOF air conditioning ducts, no other damage has been documented. Yet prosecutors Lee and Assistant DA Rebekah Young used a figure of " approximately $30,000" in damage in their indictments in statements written "under penalty of perjury." Yet, even in court, Det. Gunter testified that the last time he checked "That number had been lowered to about $22,000."

The trespassing claim may be questionable as well. For a person to be found guilty of trespassing, they must first be warned, and, upon that warning, fail to leave the premises. None of the eleven defendants fit that description. Police Officer William Winston testified that the first and only verbal warning was given by Sgt. Harms "between 7:30PM and 8PM" and "after dark." No signage is known to have been posted until the next day at the earliest.

None of the indictment documents include any evidence that Desiree was warned, and after that warning, failed to leave. Now this may be a technicality, the ability and authority for police to remove unauthorized people from private property involves a series of steps to be taken in a certain order. On the night of November 30th, Desiree met with various members of the press and facilitated answering their questions and providing them with interviews, statements, and at points, access.

During the 72-hour occupation, no protester or police officer was injured. Communication was facilitated between three of the protesters and police, public officials, and media. After 72 hours, the group decided to leave peacefully and even spent a few hours cleaning up before going. Their message had been communicated through the media to the public. In the end, the action spoke for itself. Wells Fargo had been exposed as the thoughtless, land-hoarder that it is. The public had been made aware of the building's occupation and the reasons for it. And no one was hurt. No confrontation with police occurred. No tasers. No percussion grenades. No tear gas. No batons swinging. Very little vandalism. And there were no arrests.

So who is the criminal and who is the law-abiding good citizen? The greedy corporation that will use any property under its control to bilk more money for itself; dollars that should rightly have been paid to the government in taxes? Or a 19-year old girl who participated in a largely symbolic occupation to protest against that greed, that misuse of a valuable asset, and to fight against the fundamental inequities in economic justice system rigged by bought Congressmen and Judges to benefit the richest 1%?

Of course, if Desiree and the Santa Cruz Eleven ARE convicted and sent to prison, this is good news for Wells Fargo as well. For Wells Fargo is the biggest investor in the for-profit prison industry.

Go to http://beckyjohnsononewomantalking.blogspot.com/2012/06/hero-or-criminal.html for photos and comments on this story.


UPDATES

+++ A BENEFIT DINNER on SUNDAY JULY 1st to raise money for Desiree Foster's family will be held at India Joze Restaurant in Santa Cruz between 3PM and 6PM. The first $500 raised will be designated to help the Foster family. For more information: santacruzeleven.org

+++ Desiree Foster (along with Brent Adams and Robert Norse) have Preliminary Hearings before Judge Burdick 9 AM August 20th (with readiness at 9 AM August 17th) in Dept. 6.

+++ Writer and journalist Becky Johnson and activist Gabriella Ripplyphipps will be in court Friday June 22nd at 9 AM in Dept. 6 in preparation for their own Preliminary Hearings--which will be held Monday June 25tth at 9 AM in Dept. 6 before Judge Paul Burdick--who has previously dismissed all cases that came before him.

+++ Prosecutor Young has successfully removed Burdick from the Preliminary Hearings of Franklin "Angel" Alcantera and Cameron Laurendeau against whom she has refiled charges--though all charges were dismissed by Burdick last month. See "Judge Burdick dismisses charges against four of the Santa Cruz Eleven" at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/04/26/18712145.php
Their second round of Preliminary Hearings will be held 9 AM in Dept. 7 before Judge Ariadne Symons 9 AM July 23 (with readiness at 9 AM on July 20th) Symons is the judge who originally set high bail for the defendants, three of whom were arrested without prior notice at their homes. Apparently Young hopes for a more sympathetic hearing before this activist-hostile judge.

+++ Even if judges dismiss all these charges at upcoming hearings, Young has the option to refile them (twice). And in so doing, can recuse (disqualify) Judge Burdick (as she has done in the cases of Alcantara and Laurendeau) Burdick bent over backward to accommodate Young, in what is the typical pro-proseecution stance of local judges. Yet he still felt compelled to dismiss all charges so far. See "California Judge Dismisses Felony Charges Against Photojournalists" at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/05/16/18713589.php
Young's tortured "aiding and abetting" theory of conspiracy, trespass, and vandalism acknowledges there is no proof that any of the defendants actually vandalized, trespassed, or conspired, but that their presence "aided and abetted". Using this theory hundreds of other people are also liable for the 7 years in prison (the potential maximum sentence of the 4 charges against each of the defendants.

+++ Meanwhile more documents are being exposed which show national co-ordination of the attacks against Occupy. See "DHS Releases More Documents on Occupy" at http://www.justiceonline.org/commentary/dhs-releases-more-documents.html . Hopefully the Santa Cruz Eleven cases will bring to light any connections between the Chief Kevin Vogel's SCPD, Sheriff Phil Wowak's Deputies, local authorities, and broader repressive efforts by the state and national governments.

+++ In encouraging news in other cities, juries and judges are finding activists Not Guilty or prosecutors are dismissing charges. For instance, see "SF Judge Dismisses Charges Against BART's Powell Street Station Free Speech Arrestees," at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/06/05/18714844.php

+++ The Board of Supervisors begins budget hearings June 18th. I am advised that June 20th in the morning is the time when D.A. Bob Lee's budget comes up for discussion. While there is minimal chance the Supervisors will take any action to expose much less to halt Lee's hundreds of thousand of dollars being spent in the Santa Cruz Eleven cases, it is a chance for the public to speak. 5th Floor of the County Building at 701 Ocean St.

+++ In San Francisco, the Assessor's Office has issued a report revealing profound irregularities and illegalities in foreclosure and lending practices by Wells Fargo and other banks (see http://aequitasaudit.com/images/aequitas_sf_report.pdf ). In Santa Cruz authorities have done nothing and activists have contented themselves with angry speeches at the Board of Supervisors. It would be mighty helpful to show what Wells Fargo is doing down here and clarify who the real criminals are.

Comments  (Hide Comments)

by Not a Wells Fargo Fan
Wednesday Jun 13th, 2012 9:13 AM
Becky, the last time you made the claim that WF was receiving a tax writeoff by willfully leaving the building unoccupied, you claimed that you were attempting to confirm that assertion when called on it. From the sound of this most recent post, it sounds like you have either a) not bothered to do any research on the matter or b) found out that your assertion was unfounded but conflicted with what you wanted to truth to be. As a "journalist", aren't you the least bit interested in finding the facts around your claim?

As I have stated before, I'm not a fan of Wells Fargo. For almost a year now, I have been housing a disabled family member whose home was foreclosed upon by WF. As righteous as our outrage at WF may be, it does not provide us carte blanche to ignore the basic property rights that most of us learn in kindergarten: don't take what isn't yours.

This is not about repurposing a vacant building for more noble use. Unfortunately, there are lots of building sitting fallow in this county. You chose this particular business to make a political statement, not to give back to the community. Unfortunately, the manner with which you chose to make the statement violated the property rights (and thus broke the law) of the owner. It seems to me that you're trying to justify an unlawful act by clinging to the belief that you're justified in your actions by the reprehensible acts of WF. Two wrongs don't make a right...another lesson most of us learn in our early years.

It seems to me that the Santa Cruz Eleven's main defense is that their actions were not unlawful because they were taken against a predatory lender. From a legal standpoint, ends rarely justify means.
by useureesp
Wednesday Jun 13th, 2012 9:59 AM
I support the sc 11. One thing I want to mention. I grew up poor. And I will always identify with anti money. But it only bothers me, walking by an empty bank building, as much as it bothers me to walk past the majority of over priced businesses that I will never shop at. Infact I wish most of the downtown businesses were fenced off. The yuppies will pay for there sins.
by John E. Colby
Wednesday Jun 13th, 2012 11:51 PM
"Not a Wells Fargo Fan" states that the Santa Cruz Eleven broke the rule taught in kindergarten to not take what isn't yours. The Santa Cruz Eleven broke no such rule. They didn't steal anything. They didn't vandalize anything. They can't really be charged with trespass since many others, including city council members, entered the building and were walking the premises of the abandoned Wells Fargo bank.

The issue of the tax write–off is irrelevant. The point is that the Santa Cruz Eleven were exercising their First Amendment protected right to protest. This is the most fundamental right enshrined in constitutional law. The founders left it out of the Constitution — knowing how important protest was to establishing our nation — they corrected that mistake in the first amendment made to the Constitution.

DA Bob Lee is trying to chill protesters from exercising their First Amendment rights. His campaign targeting selected activists while ignoring others is an abuse of power under color of law. DA Bob Lee and his righthand Rebekah Young are treading dangerous waters. They are opening themselves up to federal prosecution. Eventually both of them will be removed from office in disgrace.

The Santa Cruz Eleven are innocent victims of prosecutorial misconduct. The charges against them must be immediately dropped.
My limited understanding, taken from the few hearings I attended, is that the judge thinks trespassing charges won't hold against anyone that entered the abandoned building before dark on the first day.

There was a large crowd milling in and out of the bank. No signs? Law enforcement was present, and not warning people. Later that day, at dusk or after sunset, police allegedly issued a verbal warning (which may or may not have been loud enough to hear). Note that this argument let's various 1st class citizens off the legal hook, too. I am shocked.
by Reality Check
Thursday Jun 14th, 2012 3:54 PM
G, if I break into your house, can anyone come and go as they please because, hey, the door is open.
by G
Thursday Jun 14th, 2012 6:04 PM
Perhaps you have me confused with the SantaCruz11? No. I'm the one cited for protesting at a traditional public forum (look it up).

The comment in question was a description what judge Burdick said/ruled: anyone on site before sunset/warning on the first day, barring any additional, viable 'magic conspiracy' from the DA in waiting, will be dismissed (by Burdick). Why Becky, among others, continues to be persecuted is beyond me; she isn't even accused of going into the building, like Beiers and Lane, if I understand correctly.

The predictable result of the years of petty bureaucratic takings has been a drastic chilling of speech in Santa Cruz, California.

For now.
by John E Colby
Saturday Jun 16th, 2012 8:50 AM
By your reasoning, Mayor Don Lane should be prosecuted too. Why can Mayor Don Lane supposedly break into an abandoned Wells Fargo but peaceful protesters cannot? So Mayor Don Lane can break into my home without legal sanction? Why is he above the law?

This is hypocrisy of the first degree. Why does DA Bob Lee treat Mayor Don Lane so kindly while he persecutes the Santa Cruz Eleven?
by confirmation
Saturday Jun 16th, 2012 1:24 PM
It has not been confirmed that Don Lane entered 75 River St, and he apparently denies having entered the building. However, there is evidence that Santa Cruz City Councilwoman Katherine Beiers entered the building on November 30th, 2011.

The SCPD and DA also know, for example, the names and identity of reporters from several local media organizations, including the Santa Cruz Sentinel and Santa Cruz Patch, however charges were only filed against people who publish their coverage to Indybay.

It is clear that the SCPD (especially Kevin Vogel) and DA Bob Lee have engaged in a selective witch hunt prosecution.
Santa Cruz DA Bob Lee's case is so weak that the Santa Cruz Eleven have a great shot at getting the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate him and Rebekah Young for abusing their positions of authority under color of law to violate their civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution and U.S law.
gabriella-robert-brent-becky-desiree_6-1-2012_1.jpg
gabriella-robert-brent-be...

There is a fundraiser focusing on co-defendant Desiree who's story is highlighted in the above expose.

you can see the event details here:
http://www.facebook.com/events/227074750747499/