Judge rules that University violated First Amendment Rights

TREE-SIT MEDIA SUPPORT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Date: March 10, 2008
CONTACTS:
Jennifer Charles (831)430-6791, LRDPaction.media [at] gmail.com
G. Dana Scruggs, Esq, (831) 457-1700, dana [at] csfwlaw.com

Judge rules that University violated First Amendment Rights

Judge Paul Burdick ruled Monday that the University's lawsuit was an attack on the first amendment rights of at least two tree sit supporters. A motion to strike tree sit Media Support person Jennifer Charles and tree sit supporter Oliver Schmid from the lawsuit was granted.

"I am glad that the court protected my first amendment right to speak out against the University's plan to sacrifice a precious forest habitat," said Charles. "It is a shame that the University had to waste so much taxpayer money trying to smother my free speech."

Because the case involved the first amendment, the University will be asked to pay Charles' and Schmid's lawyers fees, on top of the money spent serving the injunction and on the University's own lawyers.

The judge also granted a much more narrow and specific preliminary injunction than the university had requested against the remaining seven defendants. Instead of the vague language of "aiding and abetting" the tree sitters and an order to stay away from all trees on campus, the seven people on the lawsuit are forbidden to be in the trees, to place any objects in the trees or in the parking lot, or from providing food and supplies to the people in the trees. The ruling by no means ends the tree sit, as only the people named on the injunction, and others served, are not allowed to give humanitarian aid to the tree sitters.

Three clusters of redwoods have been inhabited since November 7, 2007, when over 500 students, alumni, and community members rallied in opposition to the University's plans to destroy 120 acres of forest. Other tree sits have been added, using the same technique of carefully securing pre-built platforms to several redwoods without harming the trees. Tree sitters have continued their vigil through police attacks, winter storms and ninety-mile an hour winds.

The tree sit is necessary at this time because of the University's failure to meaningfully address the concerns of Santa Cruz city and county officials, community members, environmentalists and UCSC faculty and students. Instead of acting upon the concerns of the thousands of people who have voiced opposition to increased University construction, the university has pursued a lawsuit against tree sit supporters since December.

"The tree sit is civil disobedience and is a reaction to outrageous UCSC development plans in the forest of upper campus, which few people support," said Professor Zack Shlessinger. "We all complain about the impacts of UC expansion. Tree sitters are the people doing something about it, who have the courage to stand up and say these plans are not acceptable."