From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Related Categories: Santa Cruz Indymedia | Global Justice and Anti-Capitalism | Police State and Prisons
Occupy Santa Cruz Adopts Resolution in Support of the Eleven 75 River Defendants
by Alex Darocy (alex [at]
Sunday Apr 29th, 2012 6:22 PM
A resolution in support of all eleven defendants who were charged in relation to the occupation of 75 River Street in Fall of 2011 was adopted by Occupy Santa Cruz at their general assembly held on April 29.
Steve Pleich facilitated the general assembly, held on the steps of the Santa Cruz Post Office, and read the resolution before Occupy Santa Cruz adopted it. The resolution:

Proposal to Demand an End to the Prosecution of the River Street Defendants

The following proposal to demand the end to the prosecution of the River Street defendants has been submitted by the Legal Working Group to be discussed at the Occupy Santa Cruz General Assembly on Sunday 29April2012 at 2PM.


WHEREAS, Occupy Santa Cruz believes that all of the defendants charged in the River Street action are either journalists, members of our local press, and/or activists committed to Social Justice, the Occupy Movement, and particularly Occupy Santa Cruz and,
WHEREAS, Occupy Santa Cruz believes that the constitutionally guaranteed rights to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly may not be abridged by governmental fiat, and
WHEREAS, Occupy Santa Cruz believes that civil liberties are being broadly threatened by the continuing prosecution of these cases, and
WHEREAS, Occupy Santa Cruz believes that the criminal offenses prosecuted by our local District Attorney are overly broad and overreaching in consideration of the facts, and,
WHEREAS Occupy Santa Cruz believes that these defendants are being selectively prosecuted in a manner directly related to the existing adversarial relationship several of these defendants have with local police, past and present civic officials and the District Attorney’s office and,
WHEREAS Occupy Santa Cruz believes that the Constitution of the United States of America and simple social justice require that the enormous power of government be exercised fairly and evenhandedly, and not based on the identity or past actions of the defendants and,
WHEREAS Occupy Santa Cruz believes that these defendants posed no threat to public order or private property by their actions either as chroniclers of the events or as supporters of the River Street action,
BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED THAT Occupy Santa Cruz calls for the immediate dismissal of all charges presently lodged against the River Street defendants and further calls for an end to all further prosecutions based upon any and all participation by any member of our community in the River Street action.


Alex Darocy
I am one of the eleven defendants charged, and I did not have anything to do with the crafting of this statement, and I do not necessarily endorse it.
by Alex Darocy Sunday Apr 29th, 2012 6:22 PM
§Occupy Santa Cruz Supports the Santa Cruz Eleven
by Bradley Stuart (bradley [at] Monday Apr 30th, 2012 12:17 PM
Occupy Santa Cruz general assembly unanimously adopts a resolution in support of the Santa Cruz Eleven.
April 29, 2012.

Comments  (Hide Comments)

by RazerRay
Monday Apr 30th, 2012 11:04 AM

Boilerplated from the site of so-called OccupySantaCruz, which it might be noted has been hijacked by the selfsame people who opposed:

A> The Encampment
B> The Dome
C> The #75River squat

In other words, every high profile media-ready action ever committed by anyone involved in OCS was opposed by the people who are now commandeering the Brand Name for MoveOn, an organization ABSOLUTELY INCOMPATIBLE with anything called "Occupy", and the Santa Cruz Democratic political machine... Again, Unacceptable.

I PERSONALLY observed at least one committee member not only suggest OCCUPY distance themselves from the bank occupation, but actually suggested that OCS SPEAK OUT AGAINST that action even as the occupiers were consolidating their squat.

Now... The comment:

ROTF! FAIL! Whereas the people who are left behind @OccupySantaCruz believe that the Just-Us system actually gives a f*ck what they think!

It has been been resolved that you get over yourselves, then get this… The US government ALLOWS it’s agents to shoot and kill 15 year old kids for throwing rocks at them.

Let me know when you figure out that YOUR government IS your enemy and whimpering to them for whatever is just so so… pitiful.

And a pass along comment from another poster which seems to follow the same line of thinking:

R.G.P on April 28th, 2012 at 11:52 pm #

WHEREAS Occupy Santa Cruz has become more delusional,
the people scatter, leaving politicians to draft memos to be filed.

by A note from one person
Tuesday May 1st, 2012 6:22 PM
I respect your opinion and viewpoint on the Occupy vs. Move On vs. whoever. (Frankly, I it a confusing post and a reflection of a confusing reality between affiliatons.).

But that said? I'd ask a favor: Clarify if this means what I think it does: that your saying Occupy is in fact far more radical than the 99% of us it claims to be.

And if I'm right? Please ask Occupy to stop claiming it represents all of us and admit it's a more radical minority, which I get the sense that you as an individual at least are.

And if I'm wrong? Please ask Occupy to stop cherry picking, and representing itself as a moderate representative of the masses when it's actions are well received by the masses, then turning around and distancing itself from it's actions when said actions aren't well received.

The bank action of December reminds me of the vandalism riot in S.F. last night. A peaceful rally called by one group turning into a violent action, but the originating group then claiming no connection to the proximity of the two actions.

Another case in point: Well, I hope we won't have one like we did a few years back when a purportedly peaceful labor protest degenerated into an anarchist trashing of our downtown. I guess the morrow will reveal the answer to that riddle though....

The group is either one or the other. It can't be both. But at present, it seems to be playing the game of being both and I find it disingenuous.