I will be there.

This news item was recorded on a stream from KMUD "Listener supported community radio based in Redway, CA. Serving rural listeners in Northern Mendocino and Humboldt Counties (CA)." Date unknown as the file's been copied to another computer after the computer with the original copy crashed.

http://www.kmud.org/

The infiltration action happened in the winter of 2005 with the Bay Area based ACLU (not the local ACLU) uncovering the sordid details in 2006, thanks to action by Wes Modes--for which he has been repeatedly pursued and punished by the SCPD and associated authorities. See http://santacruz.indymedia.org/newswire/display/19263/index.php .

The followup--See "Council Votes to Do Nothing About Police Spying (Again)" and following comments at http://santacruz.indymedia.org/newswire/display/19386/index.php .

The cover-up was covered by the Mainswamp Media: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/02/11/18017391.php

The ultimate "guidelines" to prevent future such abuses and punish those that had happened were paper-thin or non-existent. See "Councilmembers in Copland" at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/07/24/18291193.php .

To the credit of the community, though numbers have diminished under the threat of police repression and the bogus "permit" controversy, DIY Last Night has come together every year since.

Then-Mayor Cynthia Mathews, then-Police Chief Howard Skerry, then-City Manager Dick Wilson, all upheld the cover-up of Infiltration Initator and Investigator Kevin Vogel (now our current Police chief). The cover-up was blandly OKed by the Mainswamp Media: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/02/11/18017391.php .

The absurd spectacle of Vogel "investigating" himself and reporting that his behavior was "appropriate" must rank high in the annals of SCPD chutzpuh (with its pack of paid peter-petters panting close behind). why not? When he probably knew his bosses and the city staff would back his bizarre conclusions all the way?

The only exception was the Police Auditor Bob Aronson, who for once in his decade-plus career of rubberstamping SCPD misconduct, felt he had to clarify that you don't send the perpetrator to investigate himself. Aronson's performance in the last decade has generally stunk. He was highly paid to do an annual whitewash over the corpse of the Citizens Police Review Board, which was unceremoniously murdered and buried in 2003 when it began serious investigation of police misconduct under chair Mark Halfmoon. See "The Final Figleaf Falls" at http://santacruz.indymedia.org/newswire/display/3064/index.php .

I have often wondered, when abuses and takings occur, what has jurisdiction over Police, City Council, City Attorney, City Manager, Sheriff, County Board, District Attorney, County Manager, etc. In the past I have tried to determine the chain of command, only to be left more confused than when I began. Is that how a representative republic is supposed to work?

In an authoritarian structure, it is ironic to find such difficulty in determining whom reigns over whom, and how accountability is enforced.

Other than those at the bottom of the dog pile, of course.

To bring it back on topic; if anyone finds out, maybe an illustrative float would be beneficial to the parade onlookers...

I've read the SCPD Policies and Procedures Manual. It says the police chief has to OK taking on each informant. But it leaves these following questions about informants unanswered:

1) How much money does the SCPD spend on informants?

2) How many informants does the SCPD have?

3) What SCPD officials are designated to initiate proceeding to take on an informant?

4) How many informant handlers are employed by the SCPD?

5) Who is responsible for crimes committed (in our community) by SCPD informants?

6) Does the SCPD have a (secret) code of conduct for informants and their handlers?

It depends on the kind of abuse of power and the laws being violated. The California Attorney General's Office informed me that local governments are investigated by grand juries, but ours is toothless. Here's some other starting points.

The FBI and U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ) investigate local abuse of power to deprive individuals of civil rights under color of law.

The FBI, USDOJ and departmental Offices of Inspector General investigate local fraud and abuse in programs which involve the federal government.

HUD and the USDOJ investigate violations of Fair Housing rights by local government.

The USDOJ investigates violations of disability rights by local government.

The USDOJ investigates systemic civil rights abuses by local law enforcement.

The California Bureau of State Audits investigates local government's financial malfeasance involving state programs and state laws.

The California Attorney General's Office has broad powers to investigate fraud and abuse of power by local government officials.

The list goes on . . .

"In a potentially precedent-setting decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday that a Guild lawyer’s challenge to military spying on peace activists can proceed. The ruling marks the first time a court has affirmed people’s ability to sue the military for violating their First and Fourth Amendment rights."

http://www.nlg.org/news/court-rules-peace-activists-can-sue-us-military-infiltration

I suspect that the Santa Cruz Police Department (SCPD) is misusing informants to violate the civil rights of citizens — like the organizers and participants of the Santa Cruz DIY Parade.

I believe it's time to shine light on the SCPD's possible misuse of informants.

This is why I submitted the PDF above — a public records request and inquiry — to the SCPD.

This isn't ANYTHING new. Get out of the courtroom/legal research cloisters... it'll warp your mind as to the alleged legitimacy of their lawmaking. The courts are just reinforcing over and over and over again the ostensible 'legality' of things that have been going on literally since the Pinkertons chased down Butch Cassidy and the Kid.

Now days, and for almost a decade now, what the courts just ruled on allowing have been called Fusion Centers, as in "Fusion" between military and civil law enforcement, and they're under the auspices of the Dept of Homeland Insecurity, and the NLG was wasting their time because civil law isn't relevant to their overarching jurisdiction no matter WHAT any civilian court says.

I prefer to complain with intent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_Principle
http://www.google.com/search?q=microsoft+nsa
http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/01/countering_trus.html

The Santa Cruz Police Department (SCPD) — specifically Records Supervisor Jacqui Dreschler — and assistant Santa Cruz City Attorney Caelllano are claiming that ALL records about the use of SCPD informants are exempt from disclosure. I believe this is an over broad reading of the statutes referred to by Ms. Dreschler in her email to me.

I do not believe that administrative records that would not lead to identifying informants, like SCPD's budgets for informants and their policies governing their use are exempt under California public records law. The citizenry deserve to know how much money the SCPD is paying to use informants. And the public deserves to know that they are being used in a manner which does not contribute to more crime in the community and does not endanger Santa Cruz residents.

Consequently I submitted a public records act request for SCPD's last year's budgets for use of secret informants and all their policy documents which set forth SCPD's current policy on the use of informants.

Looks like the SCPD list of "Triple fine zone" "crimes" is identical to the one they had in 2007.

Older list was graphically displayed on a flyer they put out at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/10/30/18457126.php?show_comments=1#18457184 as well as in the comments that follow.

The current Santa Cruz version of the SCPD "speed trap" (or perhaps "celebration trap" might be better wording) is at http://santacruzpolice.blogspot.com/2012/12/new-years-eve-road-closures-and-safety.html .

Along with the dour warning: "There are no other city sponsored or permitted events occurring during the evening. Any other events or parades are not permitted and illegal. The Police Department cautions individuals from participating in any such events as they will not have Police or Public Works assistance in closing roads and ensuring safety of participants. Additionally, organizers and participants will be subject to a citation. Anyone wishing to hold an event for future years may contact the City's Event Coordinator to complete the appropriate permit and work with City staff to ensure a safe, responsible and legal event."

However we do get reassured...
"The Police Department will have a strong concentration of officers on duty throughout the downtown corridor as well additional officers in the rest of the city. Our hope is to facilitate a safe and enjoyable New Years Eve for all."

So have no fear...

I suggest having your cellphone/camera or video device ready to document any unconstitutional activity by SCPD--though they may, as they did in 2010, issue citations months later. Be advised.

Making joyful and traditional use of public space (not to mention exercising basic constitutional rights) may now come with a price.

Or, as last year, it may be a nasty bluff--typical of the SCPD and particularly Deputy Chief Steve Clark.