HUFF Update: Frantic Friday

Didn't Ed defend Becky in her case with the city? He lost that one. Now he's gone again and lost her appeal. He's lost a bunch of his cases. You guys should find someone new.

Hey Robert. Before your meeting tomorrow with Mayor Coonerty, you may want to study up on some of the topics the two of you will be discussing.

After all, wouldn't it be embarrassing for you if you brought up that whole "No other city in the entire State of California has as repressive a policy towards pulling an item off the Consent Agenda" stuff? Just like on here, he might actually prove you wrong on that point with real facts. And for God's sake, please don't tell him Steve Pleich told you that TBSC regularly destroys homeless camps and throws away survival gear. You know, like you told all of us here on Indybay. It's quite possible that Coonerty heard your show where Steve said he never said such a thing. And that he has never heard of TBSC doing those things from others. I would also leave alone the subject of time people are allowed to speak at SC city council meetings versus other cities. As we've found out, it's not that different than in most cities.

Brush up on your facts tonight. Maybe do some Google searches. Perhaps read something. But be prepared. It would be so awful if Coonerty got the upper hand on you. Especially considering how much younger he is than you.

I think Ryan Coonerty is in Washington, D.C. (on our dime, I suppose). He has met with the US Conference of Mayors, according to Santa Cruz Patch.com

see: http://santacruz.patch.com/articles/santa-cruz-mayor-signs-civility-accord-in-dc

Could Ryan be ditching HUFF, blaming RN for "screwing up", and then upgrading his meeting to the Prez?

"The final plan on the mayor’s agenda for his D.C. trip?
“I’m meeting with the president Friday,” he( Coonerty) said."

---from SC Patch Jan 19 2011

Becky Johnson asks: "Could Ryan be ditching HUFF, blaming RN for "screwing up", and then upgrading his meeting to the Prez? "

She is actually proposing that the Mayor took the opportunity to meet with the President of The United States as a diss to HUFF?!

...AND she's saying he cares enough about Norse OR Huff to consider this a screw-up? OR worry that he'll need to use that as an excuse to justify dropping that sublime opportunity to instead meet with the President of The United States?



*ROTFLMAO* Just when I think the egocentric local wackjob can't trump her bloated sense of self or idiocy, she does both.

> From: rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com
> To: rcoonerty [at] cityofsantacruz.com
> CC: shiner1964 [at] aol.com
> Subject: Meeting
> Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:09:49 -0800
>
> Ryan:
>
> Confirming Friday the 21st at 11 AM. I'll be lookiing for an hour as is customary and have one person with me.
>
> Additionally at the HUFF meeting today, Robert Facer, how is homeless, asked procedures for making an appointment with you. He can be reached at shiner1964 [at] aol.com .
>
> He's looking for some open time to meet with you.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Robert



> > From: rcoonerty [at] cityofsantacruz.com
> > To: rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com
> > Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 14:26:40 -0800
> > Subject: RE: Meeting
> >
> > Robert,
> >
> > Just confirming that you are not planning on talking to me tomorrow. I waited for you last week (see below) and you never showed.
> >
> > Ryan
> >
> > Ryan Coonerty
> > Mayor, City of Santa Cruz




> ________________________________________
> From: Robert Norse [rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 4:23 PM
> To: Ryan Coonerty
> Cc: Beggerbacker Becky Johnson
> Subject: RE: Meeting
>
> Ryan: I am in fact planning to meet you tomorrow at 11 AM at your office.
>
> I just got your e-mail saying you'd waited an hour last Friday. I'm really sorry you did so, because I had sent you the e-mail further below confirming tomorrow rather than last Friday. I take it you never got it?
>
> Thanks for making the time then and now. Please confirm that you'll be available tomorrow at 11 AM if that's still something you can do.
>
> I'll also leave you a phone message at your office phone. If you need to reach me by phone, you can do so at 423-4833.
>
> Robert



> From: rcoonerty [at] cityofsantacruz.com
> To: rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com
> CC: becky_johnson222 [at] hotmail.com
> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 22:03:57 -0800
> Subject: RE: Meeting
>
> I am not available as I am in Washington DC
> Ryan Coonerty
> Mayor, City of Santa Cruz

It would appear that there is an email missing in Robert's post. The one where Coonerty confirms the meeting for today. Or did Robert just email Coonerty and instruct him that they would be meeting today? If Coonerty did not confirm, there was no scheduled meeting.

Photo: Sean Reilly outside the SC County Courthouse in April 2010


THE BEAST FROM THE EAST WRITES: "BJ the blithering blimp LOST in court AGAIN!!!!!!!!"

BECKY: No, justice in Santa Cruz LOST again with the upholding of my conviction by three local judges: Paul Burdick, Timothy Volkmann, and Ariadne Symons.

SYMONS said that "since I had sung for over three hours, that could be considered prolonged."
and "therefore we are upholding the conviction."

Of course SEAN REILLY lied when he claimed HUFF had been singing for "3 and a half to four hours." I disproved REILLY's claim with hard copy of the announcement we posted the day before which announced our protest/demo began at 1:30PM (not 11 AM as REILLY claimed).

I also had 6 eyewitnesses testify that NO ONE from our group was there BEFORE 1:30PM and I myself testified that I got there at 2:30PM and the police officer shut us down at 3PM. NO WAY could I have been singing for 3 hours or more!!! And I PROVED it!

Almquist of course, covered himself by making sure there was no recording of the trial: he REVERSED the permission I had secured two days before the trial to have an official recording of the trial. He then refused to allow recording for broadcast or even allow us to make a personal recording for our own notes. THen he LIED about what the testimony was!!!!

ALMQUIST claimed that SEAN REILLY had testified that he had seen me singing. He didn't. His testimony was that "she has pretty hair. I saw her running around with a videocamera so I knew she was part of the group." And when FREY asked him if he was "physically disturbed" by my singing, he said "no." Almquist found me guilty stating that "Reilly was physically disturbed by my singing when he couldn't nap" so that I was "guilty of making an unreasonably disturbing noise" when I sang for 15 to 20 minutes total (NOT continuously) in my normal, unamplified voice in the FREE SPEECH ZONE on Pacific Ave.

SEAN REILLY's testimony was questionable since he:
1. had Michele D. arrested and she didn't sing at all and wasn't part of our group
2. didn't have Tony K arrested, though he sang the loudest and the longest
3. didn't have the keyboard player arrested, though he testified he COULD hear that
4. Had Robert "Blindbear" Facer arrested and he didn't sing a note
5. heard a guitar (no one in our group played a guitar)
6. didn't look out the window until 2PM
7. didn't actually see or hear ME singing!!!

My account of the appeals hearing can be read here: http://beckyjohnsononewomantalking.blogspot.com/2011/01/appeal-denied-singing-still-illegal-on.html

Actually at the 1-11 Council meeting, I publicly asked Ryan when he'd be willing to meet. He said "this Friday [1-14] or next [1-21]". I told him I'd e-mail him--which I did the next day. the e-mail is posted above.

He didn't "confirm" either the 1-14 appointment or the 1-21 appointment. But relying on his past e-mails and his verbal promise, I assumed the 21st was confirmed. He then suddenly sent me an e-mail on Wednesday saying he was confirming the appointment was NOT going to happen.

Perhaps he decided to cancel (because of the Obama meeting in Washington maybe), but was reluctant to acknowledge standing me up. Perhaps it was a genuine oversight. We'll see.

If he received and read my earlier e-mail, I doubt he'd have waited an hour on Friday the 14th , as he said he did in his email.

That e-mail was not returned to me "unsent". It was sent to his official address. So I assume it was either a technical glitch; he overlooked it; or he intentionally disregarded it.

Whatever the case, I'm presuming we can reschedule. Though I find it a little disrespectful for him not to acknowledge what seems to have been an error on his part.

If he waited an hour on Friday the 14th, why didn't he inform me of that fact right after it happened either by e-mail or phone? He has made no apologies or explanations. Nor any rescheduling suggestion.

Hopefully that will be forthcoming.

It was my feeling that his willingness to go on the record on Free Radio showed some determination and courage, considering my strong past criticisms. I think that's a positive thing in any Mayor.

"Almquist of course, covered himself by making sure there was no recording of the trial: he REVERSED the permission I had secured two days before the trial to have an official recording of the trial. He then refused to allow recording for broadcast or even allow us to make a personal recording for our own notes. THen he LIED about what the testimony was!!!!"

Are you saying you secured the ability to make the tape 2 days before? If that's the case why did you write the following on your blog? "Judge Paul Burdick announced that no recording would be allowed in court "because any such request must be made in writing five days prior to the hearing." I'm not aware of any such rule. I'd always understood that whether to make a recording or not depended on the discretion of the judge." Why would you ask permission to do something that you didn't know you needed permission to do? That doesn't sound right.

But then on your blog you go on to write the following. "This mirrored my original trial last April where I HAD gone through the process ahead of time and secured the agreement with the court that an official recording would be made of the proceedings." So you're saying you did know you needed permission the first time. Then you asked for permission the second time. Afterwards you claim "I'm not aware of any such rule.". You knew, you knew, then you didn't know. All of this doesn't add up.

Becky suggesting that dissing them for the President shows a plot or fear of them by the mayor of S.C. Robert suggesting that because he failed to correctly send an email or show up for his assigned meeting that they are avoiding him.


You are and have lost.

For TBSC fans and foes, or for the interested observers, I'll be interviewing Steve Pleich--who along with two other HUFFsters did show up at the "positive loiter-in" yesterday.

Pleich found the answer to the oft-repeated question "Does the TBSC leadership advise its volunteers not to destroy homeless camps and gear in its clean-up's?" is still either silence or no. Listen tomorrow. You be the judge!

We'll also have a report on the self-contradictory decision of Judge Gallagher in the constitutionality challenge of the state lodging law (PC 647e) mentioned briefly in the Sentinel today (http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_17163062) at 10 AM.

No word yet from Mayor Coonerty on rescheduling his interview.

Call-in tomorrow at 831-427-3772 to comment on these and other issues.

DOWN N OUT WRITES: "Are you saying you secured the ability to make the tape 2 days before?

BECKY: Yes. At my April 16th trial.

DOWN N OUT WRITES: " If that's the case why did you write the following on your blog? "Judge Paul Burdick announced that no recording would be allowed in court "because any such request must be made in writing five days prior to the hearing." I'm not aware of any such rule. I'd always understood that whether to make a recording or not depended on the discretion of the judge."

BECKY: That was a reference to the Jan 21st hearing of the Peace Camp Six where Ed Frey argued to dismiss lodging citations against 6 defendants. Paul Burdick announced HIS policy (5 days prior notice in writing) to a man bringing the case before ours that day in court.

I'd always understood it to be up to the Judge's discretion, so I had obtained permission to record my trial last April 16th ahead of time. Almquist reversed this as his first act at my trial. That way he could be sure I had no record and HE would be the ultimate authority of what testimony was given and what wasn't. SYMONS claiming I'd sung "for three hours straight" proves the record of testimony was mistated by Almquist in the record.

DOWN N OUT WRITES: "Why would you ask permission to do something that you didn't know you needed permission to do? That doesn't sound right."

BECKY: That's not correct. I have always believed that I needed to obtain permission to make a recording in a courtroom. I was very surprised to hear that GALLAGHER is making official recordings of all his proceedings which anyone can purchase a copy of afterward and no court order is needed. Surprised but pleased.

DOWN N OUT WRITES: "But then on your blog you go on to write the following. "This mirrored my original trial last April where I HAD gone through the process ahead of time and secured the agreement with the court that an official recording would be made of the proceedings."

BECKY: I'm sure all this information was easily discerned in the TWO articles I wrote: ONE about my singing case and ONE about the Peace Camp Six. I doubt you have a learning disability, so I assume you are attempting to raise doubts by asking stupid questions. Did I write anything at all in either article you wish to dispute?

DOWN N OUT WRITES: " If that's the case why did you write the following on your blog? "Judge Paul Burdick announced that no recording would be allowed in court "because any such request must be made in writing five days prior to the hearing." I'm not aware of any such rule. I'd always understood that whether to make a recording or not depended on the discretion of the judge."

BECKY: That was a reference to the Jan 21st hearing of the Peace Camp Six where Ed Frey argued to dismiss lodging citations against 6 defendants. Paul Burdick announced HIS policy (5 days prior notice in writing) to a man bringing the case before ours that day in court.

Can you tell the future, BECKY?

The quote from your "blog", "Judge Paul Burdick announced that no recording would be allowed in court "because any such request must be made in writing five days prior to the hearing." I'm not aware of any such rule. I'd always understood that whether to make a recording or not depended on the discretion of the judge.", came from your "article" called "Maybe it's legal to sing in a park?" dated January 13th, 2011. Now you're saying it was a reference to a hearing on January 21st? How could you reference something on January 13th that didn't happen until January 21st? A week later.

In your "article" dated January 13th, in paragraph four, you say:

BECKY: I'm not aware of any such rule. I'd always understood that whether to make a recording or not depended on the discretion of the judge.

But then in the same article, in paragraph five, you say:

BECKY: This mirrored my original trial last April where I HAD gone through the process ahead of time and secured the agreement with the court that an official recording would be made of the proceedings.

So in the same "article" you say "I'm not aware of any such rule", and then immediately go on to say that prior to that date you DID know about the rule and asked for permission. You're very clearly contradicting yourself.

BECKY: I'm sure all this information was easily discerned in the TWO articles I wrote: ONE about my singing case and ONE about the Peace Camp Six. I doubt you have a learning disability, so I assume you are attempting to raise doubts by asking stupid questions.

So no, BECKY, the information came from one "article", not two. So before you comment about a "learning disability" on the part of Down N Out, you might want to consider that you might have a writing disability. In the past it has been pointed out to you that your "articles" don't always match up when it comes to the facts. This is yet another example. And you try to pawn it off as a reading comprehension problem on the part of the readers by saying they are mixing up two different articles, when in fact it is YOU that is confused.

Further evidence of BECKY's "confusion" lays in the time stamp of Down N Out's comment.

"Friday Jan 21st, 2011 11:31 AM"

The comment was written on January 21st at 11:31 AM. The Peace Camp hearing didn't happen until 1:30 PM on the same day. How could the comment be in reference to an "article" about an event wasn't scheduled to happen until two hours later? And as per BECKY's "blog", the hearing didn't actually start until 3:45 PM on that day.

In the past, people have commented on BECKY's inability to follow an event in chronological order. It's rather clear that this is an excellent example of that.

Customarily courts grant or deny requests for personal recording or for media coverage on the day of the request at the time of the request

Hence Gallagher's comment, inconsiderate as it was to the Sentinel photographer and reporter, that he'd consider the request hours later when the matter came up around 3:45 though requests were made shortly after 1:30 PM. The requests are usually denied or granted without comment.

The technical claim that the request has to be made five days earlier is almost never raised. Judges--unless they're looking for a pretext to turn the request down--seem to recognize there's no reason for that kind of delay, and that it requires a separate unnecessary trip to court. They either grant or deny without raising the 5-day issue.

The media and defendants--not to mention the public--deserve access to court proceedings in the simplest manner possible So this whole rigamaroll is ridiculous and serves to make proceedings more opaque and inaccessible. Still activists facing hostile judges (and trolls on line) should be ready for this kind of treatment and prepare.

For there to be a court recording to be made, in some courtrooms this apparently requires preparation (such as in the basement courtroom of Commissioner Baskett). If you're looking for an official record, rather than segments for media broadcast or a recording for personal use, it's reasonable to request prepartions be made in advance.

Since those official recordings are costly, that's not usually what activists and alternative media people ask for.

Question: Wouldn't the court have a transcript of the case, recorded by the court stenographer?

In the PeaceCamp2010 hearing in Gallagher's court, you could order a transcript after a delay and at some cost.

In the Johnson appeal case in the appellete court, Burdick refused to order a court recorder, allow media coverage, allow a court recording, or allow a defendant recording for private use. So there is, like at Johnson's original trial, no record. Other than the memories of those who were there.

Allowing judges this kind of latitude ill-serves the public.

Are you saying that there is not transcript at all of Johnson's hearing? Or that there is no audio transcript of the hearing?

Yes. No record of the original trial in Almquist's court, nor of the three-judge appeal panel (Burdick/Volkman/Symons).

How come that HUFF hasn't had an update about Miguel? HUFF was all over the guy and Anna a few months ago. Now that they've both been busted for meth and HUFF never mentions them any more. Miguel is in a bad place. He needs help. No one at HUFF offered him anything. Not a place to sleep. Nothing. He needs to get off the street. Is this waht always happens? They use you and then forget about you when there done. HUFF needs to do an update on him. They brought on all the attention to him.

In both cases, media pimps (National etworks with Golden Voice, Becky/Robert with Miguel) who whored out the exploited person for their own purposes while ignoring and denying the realities and shortcomings of their self-appointed icon.

Then once the real life flaws appear, the pimps go silent.

Robert? Becky? You do know you're the Pimps...right? Not champions of the oppressed, but users who whore them out for your own personal benefit. Clear on that, right?

Robert acts shocked there was no transcript. The three-judge panel was the local Superior Court appellate bench--they hear appeals in misdemeanor and other minor cases. Appeals are usually decided on the briefs filed by the parties and NOT oral argument. An attorney friend of mine once commented that oral argument exists solely so the judges can ask questions.

CRAIG WRITES: "Can you tell the future, BECKY?

The quote from your "blog", "Judge Paul Burdick announced that no recording would be allowed in court "because any such request must be made in writing five days prior to the hearing." I'm not aware of any such rule. I'd always understood that whether to make a recording or not depended on the discretion of the judge.", came from your "article" called "Maybe it's legal to sing in a park?" dated January 13th, 2011. Now you're saying it was a reference to a hearing on January 21st? How could you reference something on January 13th that didn't happen until January 21st? A week later."

BECKY: I referred to BOTH hearings. On Jan 13th, we heard BURDICK announce that in order to have an official recording of the proceedings made by the court that the request must be in writing and submitted at least 5 days prior. On Jan 21st, GALLAGHER said that he makes recordings as a matter of course, no special court order is necessary, and it can be purchased afterwards. I'm not sure why you think I'm trying to tell the future. Was that comment made just to confuse readers, because it made no sense.

HERO TO INVISIBLE throws mud from behind a pseudonym. HTI is a bully AND a coward. Bullies are ALWAYS cowards. NORSE and I ATTENDED the bizarre civil injunction case brought by City Attorney John Barisone against a homeless couple. We REPORTED on the case. Does HTI claim that the SENTINEL is also a "pimp" because they investigate and report on cases where people are in trouble just to sell newspapers!! Doesn't a "pimp" profit from their behavior? NORSE and I are NOT PAID for our efforts. We just do it because we are interested in the issue. Was anything we reported inaccurate? ....I didn't think so.

Let's recap:

DOWN N OUT WRITES: " If that's the case why did you write the following on your blog? "Judge Paul Burdick announced that no recording would be allowed in court "because any such request must be made in writing five days prior to the hearing." I'm not aware of any such rule. I'd always understood that whether to make a recording or not depended on the discretion of the judge."

BECKY: That was a reference to the Jan 21st hearing of the Peace Camp Six where Ed Frey argued to dismiss lodging citations against 6 defendants. Paul Burdick announced HIS policy (5 days prior notice in writing) to a man bringing the case before ours that day in court.

Craig: The quote referenced in Down N Out's comment was taken directly from am blog post you made on January 13th titled "Maybe it's legal to sing in a park?". Do you dispute this? Go back and look, it's in paragraph four of that post. Written by you. Here's a link so you can look up your own words:

http://beckyjohnsononewomantalking.blogspot.com/2011/01/appeal-denied-singing-still-illegal-on.html

Then you respond by saying "BECKY: That was a reference to the Jan 21st hearing of the Peace Camp Six"

How can you claim that your comment, written on January 13th, was in reference to a hearing on January 21st? When you wrote the comment on your blog, the January 21st hearing hadn't happened yet. So please, explain how you could be referencing something on your blog that hadn't happened yet? And nowhere in the entire blog post containing that comment does it even mention the January 21st hearing.

So either you're trying to wiggle out of something, once again, or you can tell the future and referenced something on January 13th that wasn't going to happen until January 21st. Which one is it?

I'm not trying to confuse anyone. But it sure looks like you are.

I just bust a gut when Becky said "Was anything we reported inaccurate?" How about the part where you guys were going all over town telling everyone and reporting that Anna and Miguel had only figured out a way to get into the hall behind the Palomar so they could just sleep? You guys swore up and down the mall that sleeping was the only thing they did in that hallway. Then that video tape showed up that had them partying with their friends and doing all kinds of things besides sleeping. That part was really inaccurate. Then there was the part about how Anna and Miguel don't do any kind of hard drugs at all. You reported that you had met with them many times and you knew for certain that they just were not those kind of people. Now they've been getting busted for meth use and possession multiple times. Come on lady, you're the queen of reporting inaccurate things.

Apparently, only shopping robots and milquetoast politics are tolerated on sanitized Pacific Avenue these days, especially in front of "Keep Santa Cruz Weird" Coonerty Country. Becky Johnson is, of course, despised, indeed hated, by the self-gratifying, back-slapping group-think "we want to win" insiders of our town (you know... the ones that get invited to the "better" wine and cheese schmooze fests, gleefully look the other way at obvious double standards and reward each other with plaques, citations and photo-ops).

Whether you like Becky Johnson or not, or her political style, this hypocritical assault on freedom of speech with its heavy lobbied for and likely predetermined outcome of the justice system by the Coonerty Clan is wrong. They've overstepped here, big time.

I couldn't disagree more, when you offer the only two polar opposites as Becky Johnson and milquetoast.

IMO, the reality is that there is a huge spectrum in between. And the reality is that Becky has proven herself to be a lying, self-promoting martyr. She uses the homeless rather than helps them. She utilizes their plight to make herself feel important. Don't accept my opinion though. Go query the homeless of Santa Cruz. I find more hate her than thank her. I find more feel used by her than helped. I find only the new ones who don't know her want to interact with her.

She reaps what she sows, and what she sows is vile. I'll celebrate the day she's gone.

I have to say I disagree with your assessment of Pacific Ave. Anyone visiting downtown Santa Cruz will see on any given day a mix of street life, musicians, high end shops, mediocre retailers, bad food, good food, shoppers, watchers, fringe elements, yuppies, and alternatives. The average visitor would say that Pacific Ave is anything but sanitized. Far from it. If you want to see sanitized go over the hill to San Jose, Santana Row, Los Gatos. Go to Carmel, Monterey, and Paso. Santana Row, a shopping corridor "garden mall", has a security guard at almost every door, Police on each block, no musicians, no panhandlers, no petitioners, no alternative kids. Just clean cut shoppers and well groomed dogs. The same goes for Los Gatos. Just go over the hill and look at any of our neighboring communities and try to find anything that even resembles the mix of cultures and lifestyles that we have here in Santa Cruz. You won't. Maybe Portland comes close, but it's not really the same.

I'm also shocked when I hear people say that the "powers that be" in Santa Cruz are not liberal at all. That they are really right wing politicians pushing a conservative agenda. To that I say go anywhere else and show us a community that is more tolerant and left leaning than here. You'll be hard pressed to find one. Santa Cruz is a community that would make most left leaning liberals visiting here scratch their heads and wonder if they are really closeted conservatives. The truth is that we live in a very tolerant and liberal city.

There's nothing sanitized about Santa Cruz. If you think so, then go out into the world and see what other people are living with. For good or bad this city's edges are exposed and rough. Don't fool yourself, most things that go on here would be squashed in a minute somewhere else. Even Austin, Texas, a city often compared with the lifestyle, political activism, music/art scene, and alternative way of life that Santa Cruz is known for, is way more sanitized than our little city. Try smoking a joint or strumming your guitar while panhandling there and see what reaction you get. You'd be shocked.

I will not respond to anonymous posters who will not fully identify themselves, ever. If you muster up the courage to use you real, verifiable name, I will respond. Otherwise, forget it, you don't exhibit the basic honor to be taken as other than a sniveling coward, and a probable plant.

Kevin asked for an update on Miguel so here it is. Today he got sentenced to 8 months in jail on drug charges. He tried to get out of it by saying he would leave town but the judge said no way. He was told that he has to complete 8 months in jail and if he wanted to leave town after that he could. When he gets out he'll be on probation and his probation will be transfered to whatever place he goes to live. So the guy is screwed. Let's have a big round of applause for Robert and Becky. Clap clap clap. They took this guy and made him a poster child. They made it so that everyone in town knew who he was and that they should be looking out for him. They put all the attention on him for their cause. Whatever that was. They made it so alot of pressure was put on him. Then they dropped him to the curb as soon as he started to spiral down and he started getting in alot of trouble. I hope they're happy with what they did to him. Of course it will be everyone else's fault but theirs. Sleep well tonight Robert and Becky in your beds while someone you ruined rots in jail.

The disappearance of civil rights for everyone can begin with the disappearance of civil rights for the poorest, most vulnerable, and most powerless. Using the Drug War to get rid of homeless people who insist on their rights (as Anna and Miguel did) is slimey shit. Glorifying it to cover a gentrification agenda is also contemptible.

The rights of homeless people to be present in public spaces is the issue for which they were indeed heroes. I don't think Miguel would agree with the hostile assessment of me and Becky. Nor Anna. At least not the last time I spoke with them.

Back to the actual topic of this thread:

Mayor Coonerty is still ducking a meeting, ishaving e-mail problems, or has developed writer's cramp.

Word is that the PeaceCamp2010 trial has been continued three weeks, and may be continued further pending a writ of mandate challenging Judge Gallagher's decision in the appeal court.

TBSC notables still have made no statement indicating they advise volunteers not to destroy homeless camps and property---as other real environmentalists do. If TBSC really wants to distance itself from self-righteous bullying vigilantes, let them do so.

Tip of the hat to Bob Lamonika. The real comparison is not Santa Cruz versus Carmel, but Santa Cruz 2011 versus Santa Cruz 2000.

Nuff said Robert. (Though I do give you a bonus point for no longer lying that they aren't both drug addicts and Miguel a lower level dealer. Another example of your accurate reporting skills in action.)

Robert has dragged the other thread about the TBSC video and loitering event to this thread, all while avoiding answering specific questions asked of him in that thread. why is that RN? your feet are being held to the fire, so to speak, and you have not responded. you ask and ask and ask questions of our local politicians and TBSC here on IndyBay. And yet when a question is asked directly of you, it is also met with silence. why is that RN? Please let us know how you advice the homeless as far as their place in regards to private property owner's rights. also, again, what concrete solutions do you have for us here in SC?

START WITH THE CONSTITUTION FIRST WHEN YOU ASK ME ABOUT ADVOCATES OF THE HOMELESS! (R. NORSE)
READ IT ! THATS RIGHT READ THE CONSTITUTION FIRST!

THE FIRST AND SECOND AMENDMENTS! FOCUS ON THOSE!

THEN SMOKE A BIG FAT JOINT!
AND IT MAY COME TO YOUR MIND!

MORE THAN HALF OF THIS COUNTRY"S WELL TO DO'S

ARE FUCKIN BLIND!!!!

YOU CAN JOIN THEM ,AND YOU MAY ALREADY HAVE!!!

IF THEY TAKE THEM AWAY!!! IT'S ZIP YOU WILL HAVE!

I've read the Constitution, thanks.

It was a simple question, based on your experience on the street. Have you ever heard Robert Norse or any other member or HUFF instruct the homeless population to treat public and/or private property with respect? A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice.

Clarification: Prior to 2010, neither Anna nor Miguel had been cited for any drug possession--not that the charge has any relevance to the community other than empowering the police and fundamentalist bigots. I had no comments on their personal drug habits,nor is it any of my business; I simply cited the factual record. The Injunction was against...sleeping at night downtown in a city where sleeping on any public property--with no exceptions--is illegal.

HUFF and others concerned with restoring civil liberties in Santa Cruz believe that homeless people should share in that restoration since they are the most vulnerable to police abuse. To do that, we attempt to expose the criminalization of the poor in a town whose liberal reputation is quite a fraud, at least as far as its city government goes.

City Council Update: Coonerty's Oral Communications ghetto-doghouse has had the effect we assume he intended--no one's showing up. Only the devoted Michael Tomasee was there to speak to a room empty of people except for the Council, the staff, a Sentinel reporter, and former Council candidate Steve Pleich. Congrats, Mayor--another victory in shutting down public comment and public space. His victory, of course, is democracy's defeat.

Luckily he doesn't live in Tunesia, Egypt, or Yemen.

"not that the charge has any relevance to the community other than empowering the police and fundamentalist bigots. "

-The fact that their drug addiction is why they're homeless is irrelevant.

-The fact that their drug addiction is the reason they refused available shelter is irrelevant.

-The fact that they broke into private property to tweak, not to sleep, is irrelevant.

I don't give a crap if those two shrivel up and die. If they do, it's due to their drug use, not the no-camping rules of Santa Cruz. Their situation and demise is not a homeless issue, it's a drug addiction issue.

I've empowered myself to not waste time on tweakers.

Santa Cruz has a mix of cultures and lifestyles?! Downtown Santa Cruz is and always has been predominantly white. That's not cultural diversity. I guess you don't get over the hill much, but downtown San Jose is much more diverse.

...you and Becky better be ready to crack open your checkbooks to provide services to the homeless of Santa Cruz. If the legislature is correct, the social safety net in California is DEAD. There is no money left to provide services. During budget hearings last week, several legislators bluntly said that, if Brown's proposed budget is implemented (let alone additional cuts if the special election fails/isn't held), people WILL die.

The brutal reality is, the homeless will be dependent upon the good will of the citizens of Santa Cruz (and elsewhere) for their survival. You and Becky have so alienated the larger community that the people you claim to care about may suffer as a result.

Why don't you break out your check book then, Beast from the East? People with Trust Funds can't necessarily access large or unlimited funds. How do you know that Robert Norse is a multi-millionare?

In fact anyone taking out their checkbook is not going to change the serious systemic problems we have socially, politically, and economically. We need to have a program very much we had under the New Deal. There is much work that does needs to be done. Privatizing everything has led to the abandonment of our infrastructure.