Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Santa Cruz Indymedia
Government & Elections
Health, Housing & Public Services
Police State & Prisons
Shame On the City Council of Santa Cruz for Maintaining the Sleeping Ban!!!
This article summaries how the city council voted 5 to 2 to maintain a sleeping ban in Santa Cruz County, which unjustly punishes the homeless for their condition.
On March 8th, 2015 the Santa Cruz City Council held a hearing on an amendment to the current anti-camping law that Council Member Don Lane proposed. Lane's amendment would keep police from using the camping law to fine homeless individuals for sleeping in public.
There are about 2,000 homeless individuals in Santa Cruz, and about 100 shelter beds are available to them by the city of Santa Cruz during the winter season. Additional shelter beds are available from various non-profit groups, such as ones helping women who are victims of sexual violence, but not enough to shelter the entire homeless population.
In 2015 alone, 1,551 citations were issued against hundreds of residents and a few non-residents of Santa Cruz City. There were about a thousand citations issued by police officers and about 500 by park rangers. Out of all of the citations, 97 percent of them were unpaid, which demonstrated that the anti-camping law has been used, by law enforcement and park rangers, to target the homeless population that resides in Santa Cruz City.
In Council Member Lane's presentation, he argued that to not change the camping ordinance is akin to voting for a motion that states:
• The act of sleeping outside at night is so harmful to the community that it needs to be illegal.
• People who are found sleeping outside at night should be penalized for that act even if they do not have a place to sleep legally.
• It is okay for a person to sit on a bench on Pacific Avenue at 2AM as long as that person stays awake. The harm comes when that person falls asleep.
In these statements, Lane emphasized the absurdity of making it illegal for the homeless to sleep in public places, especially considering the fact there are not enough rooms in shelters for all of the homeless and since there are no legal encampments in place for the homeless to go to.
Certain council members, such as council member Comstock, claimed that if the city is more lenient on the homeless, by invoking a sleeping ban reversal, the change may encourage more homeless to come into the county.
Applied Survey Research did a homeless survey census and discovered these following changes from 2013 to 2015:
• Veteran homelessness decreased from 395 persons in 2013 to 155 in 2015
• Chronic homelessness decreased from 989 persons in 2013 to 512 in 2015
• Unaccompanied homeless children and young adults (<25) decreased from 947 in 2013 to 272 in 2015
• 69% are unsheltered
• 21% live in vehicles
• 24% have a foster care experience
• 84% were housed in Santa Cruz when they became homeless
• 53% have a disabling condition
• 86% said ‘yes’ to wanting safe, affordable and permanent housing
Overall, the homeless census determined that the homeless population decreased by 44 percent from 2013 to 2015. The council members concerns of an increasing homeless population, when the population has actually almost been cut in half is unmerited, since the sleeping ban itself is not a factor that causes a decrease in the homeless population, since fining people for being homeless will not deter them from being homeless if they cannot afford their own home. Council member Lane stated that the homeless can be charged with various other fines, such as obstructing a sidewalk or trespass, even when the sleeping ban is revoked. Therefore those other local ordinances will remain as a deterrent for the homeless to sleep in certain public locations.
During public testimony, Representatives of non-profits, such as the United Way, claimed that the unpaid fines adversely affected the credit scores of the homeless. Therefore the fines not only lack a deterrent effect, but their existence makes it harder for the homeless to obtain rental properties.
Council members brought up a federal case in which bans on sleeping in public were deemed as a violation of the 8th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In addition the city could face a decline in HUDD funding for maintaining the status quo. However, despite the fact some of the council members were concerned about losing HUDD funding they still voted 5 to 2 (with Council Members Micah Posner and Don Lane supporting) to strike down the amendment.
The council members who voted to strike the amendment claimed they wanted to help the homeless by increasing mental health services. Hypocritical of those Council members to want to help the homeless with mental illness when they support a law that leads to sleep deprivation and to individuals falling asleep in less safe locations that are not as visible to the public. Shame on the mayor and the four council members for their lack of compassion for the homeless.
For more information on the Homeless Census go see the article, “Census Results Show Major Decline in Homelessness in Santa Cruz County”
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/06/24/18773908.php
There are about 2,000 homeless individuals in Santa Cruz, and about 100 shelter beds are available to them by the city of Santa Cruz during the winter season. Additional shelter beds are available from various non-profit groups, such as ones helping women who are victims of sexual violence, but not enough to shelter the entire homeless population.
In 2015 alone, 1,551 citations were issued against hundreds of residents and a few non-residents of Santa Cruz City. There were about a thousand citations issued by police officers and about 500 by park rangers. Out of all of the citations, 97 percent of them were unpaid, which demonstrated that the anti-camping law has been used, by law enforcement and park rangers, to target the homeless population that resides in Santa Cruz City.
In Council Member Lane's presentation, he argued that to not change the camping ordinance is akin to voting for a motion that states:
• The act of sleeping outside at night is so harmful to the community that it needs to be illegal.
• People who are found sleeping outside at night should be penalized for that act even if they do not have a place to sleep legally.
• It is okay for a person to sit on a bench on Pacific Avenue at 2AM as long as that person stays awake. The harm comes when that person falls asleep.
In these statements, Lane emphasized the absurdity of making it illegal for the homeless to sleep in public places, especially considering the fact there are not enough rooms in shelters for all of the homeless and since there are no legal encampments in place for the homeless to go to.
Certain council members, such as council member Comstock, claimed that if the city is more lenient on the homeless, by invoking a sleeping ban reversal, the change may encourage more homeless to come into the county.
Applied Survey Research did a homeless survey census and discovered these following changes from 2013 to 2015:
• Veteran homelessness decreased from 395 persons in 2013 to 155 in 2015
• Chronic homelessness decreased from 989 persons in 2013 to 512 in 2015
• Unaccompanied homeless children and young adults (<25) decreased from 947 in 2013 to 272 in 2015
• 69% are unsheltered
• 21% live in vehicles
• 24% have a foster care experience
• 84% were housed in Santa Cruz when they became homeless
• 53% have a disabling condition
• 86% said ‘yes’ to wanting safe, affordable and permanent housing
Overall, the homeless census determined that the homeless population decreased by 44 percent from 2013 to 2015. The council members concerns of an increasing homeless population, when the population has actually almost been cut in half is unmerited, since the sleeping ban itself is not a factor that causes a decrease in the homeless population, since fining people for being homeless will not deter them from being homeless if they cannot afford their own home. Council member Lane stated that the homeless can be charged with various other fines, such as obstructing a sidewalk or trespass, even when the sleeping ban is revoked. Therefore those other local ordinances will remain as a deterrent for the homeless to sleep in certain public locations.
During public testimony, Representatives of non-profits, such as the United Way, claimed that the unpaid fines adversely affected the credit scores of the homeless. Therefore the fines not only lack a deterrent effect, but their existence makes it harder for the homeless to obtain rental properties.
Council members brought up a federal case in which bans on sleeping in public were deemed as a violation of the 8th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In addition the city could face a decline in HUDD funding for maintaining the status quo. However, despite the fact some of the council members were concerned about losing HUDD funding they still voted 5 to 2 (with Council Members Micah Posner and Don Lane supporting) to strike down the amendment.
The council members who voted to strike the amendment claimed they wanted to help the homeless by increasing mental health services. Hypocritical of those Council members to want to help the homeless with mental illness when they support a law that leads to sleep deprivation and to individuals falling asleep in less safe locations that are not as visible to the public. Shame on the mayor and the four council members for their lack of compassion for the homeless.
For more information on the Homeless Census go see the article, “Census Results Show Major Decline in Homelessness in Santa Cruz County”
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/06/24/18773908.php
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Comstock's claim that "if the city is more lenient on the homeless, by invoking a sleeping ban reversal, the change may encourage more homeless to come into the county" is absolutely without basis in fact. It was baseless in the early 80s when the first downtown commission at the civic was told that by retired Muni court judge Kelsey, and it's still baseless. People come here because even without shelter they're less likely to freeze to death in the winter than, lets say, Boise Idaho.
The ONLY reason I could see for the council legitimately not wanting to pass the ordinance changes would be if the law WAS changed to allow sleeping outdoors in public, but not to allow the person sleeping to cover up, the city would be at ENORMOUS risk of liability because every time a camper-without-cover got the sniffles they could sue the city for knowingly endangering their health and safety.
The WHOLE LAW needs to be re-written to comply with the spirit and intent of the DOJ's brief in Bell v. Boise, and I'd advise the city to get on it... Quick, like a bunny. Or build a shelter facility that complies with the rather well-defined requirements contained in the DOJ brief.
The ONLY reason I could see for the council legitimately not wanting to pass the ordinance changes would be if the law WAS changed to allow sleeping outdoors in public, but not to allow the person sleeping to cover up, the city would be at ENORMOUS risk of liability because every time a camper-without-cover got the sniffles they could sue the city for knowingly endangering their health and safety.
The WHOLE LAW needs to be re-written to comply with the spirit and intent of the DOJ's brief in Bell v. Boise, and I'd advise the city to get on it... Quick, like a bunny. Or build a shelter facility that complies with the rather well-defined requirements contained in the DOJ brief.
" ... they wanted to help the homeless by increasing mental health services." And at the same time they are restricting the Client Action Network http://www.mhcan.org to half time operation.
Razer, you guys really think that DOJ brief means anything? It doesn't. The Idaho case was thrown out of court and, until another case comes along, that brief is just a small pile of paper. What's going to happen the day a new Attorney General is appointed after Obama leaves office in 10 months? Is the next AG, especially one appointed by a Republican president (if a Republican wins that is), going to pursue any similar cases? That's an open question.
Quite simply, you're wrong. It means EVERYTHING regarding things like COST OF PROSECUTION, because a local judge isn't going to defy it, so in order to make their 'camping tickets', now useless scraps of paper the police will literally tell you "We don't file" (iow they're just for the harassment potential), they'd end up with their shitty little ticket moved upstairs to a state court or even federal, as a civil rights suit ... where the costs become astronomical, and that lawsuit potential? That's why cities around California and the US are scrapping their longstanding camping laws.
Because as you claim, 'the brief doesn't mean anything...'
Sure... Right...
The ONLY reason the city isn't scrapping their now-unconstitutional-until-federal-court-acts-on-the-brief camping ordinance is in the hope that, with pressure from the police applied, and services for their homeless citizens reduced to mental health services, they might get people to move to larger cities, which have larger liability, and have already, wisely, eliminated their laws regarding camping.
That's right. I'm saying the government of Santa Cruz is an outlaw operation, hoping it all pans out for them, and it won't. but none of the fuckwads currently sitting on that dais will still be their when the shit hits the fan for Santa Cruz' taxpayers.
Because as you claim, 'the brief doesn't mean anything...'
Sure... Right...
The ONLY reason the city isn't scrapping their now-unconstitutional-until-federal-court-acts-on-the-brief camping ordinance is in the hope that, with pressure from the police applied, and services for their homeless citizens reduced to mental health services, they might get people to move to larger cities, which have larger liability, and have already, wisely, eliminated their laws regarding camping.
That's right. I'm saying the government of Santa Cruz is an outlaw operation, hoping it all pans out for them, and it won't. but none of the fuckwads currently sitting on that dais will still be their when the shit hits the fan for Santa Cruz' taxpayers.
Maybe the NLCHP will get around to appealing Bell v. Boise. Would it matter, in practice?
Papachristou v. Jacksonville was a decisive win, with an explicit majority opinion. Did anything change, in practice?
Desertrain v. Los Angeles was a decisive win, with an explicit majority opinion. That hasn't stopped Santa Cruz from cooking up yet more unconstitutional car habitation persecution. All three branches of government, federal, state, and municipal, as well as their thugs, enjoy immunity from prosecution. They are not held accountable, which is why they habitually violate laws.
Therefore, even establishing protected class status seems futile. Murderous LEO (armed with immunity & contracts that allow them to hide their many crimes) make a mockery of rule of law daily, if not by the hour and minute.
Clearly, shame is an insufficient deterrent.
Papachristou v. Jacksonville was a decisive win, with an explicit majority opinion. Did anything change, in practice?
Desertrain v. Los Angeles was a decisive win, with an explicit majority opinion. That hasn't stopped Santa Cruz from cooking up yet more unconstitutional car habitation persecution. All three branches of government, federal, state, and municipal, as well as their thugs, enjoy immunity from prosecution. They are not held accountable, which is why they habitually violate laws.
Therefore, even establishing protected class status seems futile. Murderous LEO (armed with immunity & contracts that allow them to hide their many crimes) make a mockery of rule of law daily, if not by the hour and minute.
Clearly, shame is an insufficient deterrent.
For more information:
http://PeaceCamp2010insider.blogspot.com/
You're dreaming if all California cities are scrapping their no-camping ordinances, Razer. Clovis hasn't. Atwater and Chowchilla just passed ordinances. Modesto and Merced are stepping up enforcement of theirs. Salinas, Santa Maria and SLO just cranked up shutting encampments down. Santa Barbara likewise. Fresno is quietly enforcing no encampments too. San Francisco just shut down the camps on Division Street in the Mission. No, I don't see a rush towards abolishing no camping rules out of fear of civil rights lawsuits.
"No, I don't see a rush towards abolishing no camping rules out of fear of civil rights lawsuits."
They revel in their hate filled bigotry and lawlessness. Not only is shame not a sufficient deterrent, gleeful disrespect for rule of law is the norm. All three branches of government flirt with dereliction of duty, at all levels of government.
They revel in their hate filled bigotry and lawlessness. Not only is shame not a sufficient deterrent, gleeful disrespect for rule of law is the norm. All three branches of government flirt with dereliction of duty, at all levels of government.
For more information:
http://PeaceCamp2010insider.blogspot.com/
Santa Cruz government is going to be smacked-down by the federal government (regardless of who becomes president in 2016). The DC Republicans loath Santa Cruz more than DC Democrats do. The City/County of Santa Cruz and local hate groups aren't going to evade accountability. Anything else is just wishful thinking.
John, the federal government could care less what cities like Santa Cruz do. The Republicans loath poor people and entitlements more than they do Santa Cruz (if any of them outside California even know anything about the community). It's probable that, if a Republican wins in November, HUD will be abolished. If that happens, there'll be no federal funding of emergency shelter services.
Staffers for Republican U.S. Senators I have contacted seem very interested in Santa Cruz corruption.
I have to agree with others John that if a Republican gets elected Prez you won't see DOJ fiing friendly briefs on city anti-homeless laws.
Ted Cruz is on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee: he is no friend of Santa Cruz. Haters lose.
John, do you have any specific concrete indication or commitment from any Republican at the federal level that they'd be interested in eliminating anti-homeless laws in general or Santa Cruz's in particular? I understand the "sic the big gorilla on the little gorilla" strategy that you've proposed over the years. The question is whether, in this particular case, Republican party distaste for the Democrats in Santa Cruz overrules their fear and hatred of the poor and homeless. Which, frankly, I doubt. But let us know what your tangible evidence that Republicans (or Democrats for that matter) will move to restore human rights here or anywhere else on the homeless issue. The killing of the Right2Rest Homeless Bill of Rights law at the state level is a good indication.
None of this means that street, court, and other forms of pressure aren't important. The actual pressure of the reality of homeless presence is forcing some media and legislative reexamination of old myths in San Francisco, San Jose, and Sacramento--even as repression-as-usual happens there.
None of this means that street, court, and other forms of pressure aren't important. The actual pressure of the reality of homeless presence is forcing some media and legislative reexamination of old myths in San Francisco, San Jose, and Sacramento--even as repression-as-usual happens there.
He prefers fiction to the truth.
If the Government was Open and Transparent none of us who are poor, disabled, homeless, black, brown etc would be treated like 2nd class citizens. With recent articles the US Attorney General has been loud and clear that they DO NOT want cities and counties in America to Criminalize Homelessness and Homeless people anymore. This is proof enough that the federal is going to be acting against hateful bigotry!
If the Government was Open and Transparent they would give guarantees of what they are doing or not doing. The government does investigations out of the public so they can't be held accountable for their actions and inactions.
Can my brother or I show absolute proof? If we had it would we share it. NO Our goal for outing public fraud and corruption is not to let the government cover up but to make them clean it up. Many people in the community have been reporting acts of terrorism by local anti-homeless hate to FBI, IRS and DOJ. The signs are there, Federal cars have been roaming the streets of WS particularly around Swift and Mission. They aren't here to vacation! We have received letters that on going investigations are proceeding. We have been contacts for interviews. Large media outlets have asked to be added to our cc list. Republican senators have asked us to continue to keep them in the loop. Recently some government officials have tried to avoid the responsibility of being in the loop by blocking their emails and faxes. One fax to the head of the senate judiciary committee got their email accounts and faxes to stop blocking, in one day. These are a few the clues that lead us to believe the government is finally acting on situations in Santa Cruz.
The most important point of everything is that people are no longer staying silent to the illegal activities of our city, the police and the hate group closely tied to them. The more Santa Cruz citizens make complaints to the federal government the more insurance that things will change and the small minority death grip on the rest of us will be broken.
Everyone knows the government works in secret and behind closed doors, but when the feds descend in mass on Santa Cruz city, police and other entities the proof will be there for all to see! I can't wait for that day to come. Already have seen fed cars at city hall visiting our local corrupt government. The fancy black one left before I could take a picture to share. If people open there eyes all the signs of change for the "good" is happening.
If the Government was Open and Transparent they would give guarantees of what they are doing or not doing. The government does investigations out of the public so they can't be held accountable for their actions and inactions.
Can my brother or I show absolute proof? If we had it would we share it. NO Our goal for outing public fraud and corruption is not to let the government cover up but to make them clean it up. Many people in the community have been reporting acts of terrorism by local anti-homeless hate to FBI, IRS and DOJ. The signs are there, Federal cars have been roaming the streets of WS particularly around Swift and Mission. They aren't here to vacation! We have received letters that on going investigations are proceeding. We have been contacts for interviews. Large media outlets have asked to be added to our cc list. Republican senators have asked us to continue to keep them in the loop. Recently some government officials have tried to avoid the responsibility of being in the loop by blocking their emails and faxes. One fax to the head of the senate judiciary committee got their email accounts and faxes to stop blocking, in one day. These are a few the clues that lead us to believe the government is finally acting on situations in Santa Cruz.
The most important point of everything is that people are no longer staying silent to the illegal activities of our city, the police and the hate group closely tied to them. The more Santa Cruz citizens make complaints to the federal government the more insurance that things will change and the small minority death grip on the rest of us will be broken.
Everyone knows the government works in secret and behind closed doors, but when the feds descend in mass on Santa Cruz city, police and other entities the proof will be there for all to see! I can't wait for that day to come. Already have seen fed cars at city hall visiting our local corrupt government. The fancy black one left before I could take a picture to share. If people open there eyes all the signs of change for the "good" is happening.
That is John's sister Pat Colby responding to me.
Pat and John, I often agree with your opinions about the cruel treatment homeless people receive in Santa Cruz, but you make so many other goofy and false claims; as a result you discredit any movement you are a part of.
Pat Colby said: "We have received letters that on going investigations are proceeding. We have been contacts for interviews. Large media outlets have asked to be added to our cc list. Republican senators have asked us to continue to keep them in the loop. Recently some government officials have tried to avoid the responsibility of being in the loop by blocking their emails and faxes. One fax to the head of the senate judiciary committee got their email accounts and faxes to stop blocking, in one day."
I bet you don't have any proof for any of these goofy statements you have made. Let's see the emails as proof. What large media outlets have contacted you? I want to know the names of the reporters who contacted you.
Pat also said this: "Already have seen fed cars at city hall visiting our local corrupt government. The fancy black one left before I could take a picture to share."
This statement is ridiculous. Seeing a black car at City Hall proves absolutely nothing.
I think you and your brother John are doing this all to make yourselves feel important. You are throwing the justice community under the bus by making such ridiculous statements, and it's sad.
If you care so much about homeless people you would stop lying to people....and yourselves.
Pat and John, I often agree with your opinions about the cruel treatment homeless people receive in Santa Cruz, but you make so many other goofy and false claims; as a result you discredit any movement you are a part of.
Pat Colby said: "We have received letters that on going investigations are proceeding. We have been contacts for interviews. Large media outlets have asked to be added to our cc list. Republican senators have asked us to continue to keep them in the loop. Recently some government officials have tried to avoid the responsibility of being in the loop by blocking their emails and faxes. One fax to the head of the senate judiciary committee got their email accounts and faxes to stop blocking, in one day."
I bet you don't have any proof for any of these goofy statements you have made. Let's see the emails as proof. What large media outlets have contacted you? I want to know the names of the reporters who contacted you.
Pat also said this: "Already have seen fed cars at city hall visiting our local corrupt government. The fancy black one left before I could take a picture to share."
This statement is ridiculous. Seeing a black car at City Hall proves absolutely nothing.
I think you and your brother John are doing this all to make yourselves feel important. You are throwing the justice community under the bus by making such ridiculous statements, and it's sad.
If you care so much about homeless people you would stop lying to people....and yourselves.
You mean like those activists' whose pictures and names are always in the local rags. Those activists are the ones who are only in it for the notoriety in my opinion. While they tout themselves as the only real activists, they back stab other activists. This is why Santa Cruz activists haven't been able to do anything for the people they claim to care about.
What have Robert, Steve or even Brent really achieved in the past 10 years. You have to give it to Brent at least he created the Warming center. What do the other two have to claim as recent successes? They get their names and photos in the local rags so what?
What have Robert, Steve or even Brent really achieved in the past 10 years. You have to give it to Brent at least he created the Warming center. What do the other two have to claim as recent successes? They get their names and photos in the local rags so what?
In the context of the subject of this article, which is about the repeal of the sleeping ban in Santa Cruz, I view the contributions of Steve Pleich and Robert Norse to be extremely important. They are tireless in their efforts to repeal the camping ordinance, which saddles houseless people with thousands of dollars in fines that go to collection agencies and prevents them from getting housed. To me, removing the camping ban is more important than any of the bandaid style charity work Brent Adams is doing. SCPD gives out 2000 camping citations a year. SC park rangers also give out a lot. This doesn't include all of the other citations they give the unhoused, such as for smoking.
Removing the sleeping ban may take more than a lifetime, similar to the abolition of slavery, which took hundreds and hundreds of years.
I see the people who are working towards this goal as heroes.
Slavery was abolished in France in 1794. Napoleon reinstituted it in 1802. France abolished it again in 1818. We all know what year it was abolished in the US: 1863.
I applaud whoever historically worked to end slavery and I applaud our local activists in their efforts to abolish the criminalization of the unhoused.
Robert and Steve and the rest of the Freedom Sleepers should be proud that their activism was effective and brought the sleeping ban to the council for a vote. Norse especially has kept up pressure on the city council over the years.
Those who should be called out for being on the wrong side of history, like Napoleon, are the five council members who voted to keep the camping ban: Comstock, Chase, Noroyan, Terrazas, and Mathews.
At the March 8 meeting you could tell all five of these council members were reeling from the pressure these homeless activists placed on them.
Removing the sleeping ban may take more than a lifetime, similar to the abolition of slavery, which took hundreds and hundreds of years.
I see the people who are working towards this goal as heroes.
Slavery was abolished in France in 1794. Napoleon reinstituted it in 1802. France abolished it again in 1818. We all know what year it was abolished in the US: 1863.
I applaud whoever historically worked to end slavery and I applaud our local activists in their efforts to abolish the criminalization of the unhoused.
Robert and Steve and the rest of the Freedom Sleepers should be proud that their activism was effective and brought the sleeping ban to the council for a vote. Norse especially has kept up pressure on the city council over the years.
Those who should be called out for being on the wrong side of history, like Napoleon, are the five council members who voted to keep the camping ban: Comstock, Chase, Noroyan, Terrazas, and Mathews.
At the March 8 meeting you could tell all five of these council members were reeling from the pressure these homeless activists placed on them.
Colby and Norse both deserve credit for acquiring citation data. So it's amusing to see yet another Colby detractor cite such stats in yet another feeble attack. As they say, you get the most flak when you are over the target.
"I want to know the names of the reporters who contacted you."
I'll bet you do! I could name names but prefer to wait to see how it all unfolds.
"I want to know the names of the reporters who contacted you."
I'll bet you do! I could name names but prefer to wait to see how it all unfolds.
For more information:
http://PeaceCamp2010insider.blogspot.com/
They acquire citation data by convincing people to get ticketed. There's no legitimate methodology to derive any usable numbers from that and screws up any legitimate data. It's all for publicity or else WHERE THE FUCK ARE THE LAWSUITS?
Oh right! No Lawyer wants to work with RN because, like you G, RN THINKS he can tell a lawyer how to run the case.
Oh right! No Lawyer wants to work with RN because, like you G, RN THINKS he can tell a lawyer how to run the case.
"They acquire citation data by convincing people to get ticketed."
No, that is false. Well, Norse does have a history of abusing cannon fodder. But that isn't how citation data happens.
"There's no legitimate methodology to derive any usable numbers from that and screws up any legitimate data."
Yes, there is a legitimate methodology. First, someone requests the data. When the response is a jumbled digital request, someone parses it into CSV, which can be imported into a spreadsheet or database. Then the data can be 'sliced and diced' by ordinance, officer, date, time, location, victim, etc.
Another approach is to sucker someone else to go to the hard copy and process it by hand. Seems kind of cruel and wasteful but it works, too.
Apparently you are into GNU/Linux now, finally getting over that MSWin fixation. Did you know you can install all manner of spreadsheet and database applications, for free? You can also install development tools, if you feel like making your own data requests and parsing them into CSV for import. And you can even get the source code for the applications, and development tools, and OS!
"It's all for publicity or else WHERE THE FUCK ARE THE LAWSUITS?"
Ah, finally, a useful statement. Yes, FUCK THE PUBLICITY! WHERE THE FUCK ARE THE LAWSUITS!?
No, that is false. Well, Norse does have a history of abusing cannon fodder. But that isn't how citation data happens.
"There's no legitimate methodology to derive any usable numbers from that and screws up any legitimate data."
Yes, there is a legitimate methodology. First, someone requests the data. When the response is a jumbled digital request, someone parses it into CSV, which can be imported into a spreadsheet or database. Then the data can be 'sliced and diced' by ordinance, officer, date, time, location, victim, etc.
Another approach is to sucker someone else to go to the hard copy and process it by hand. Seems kind of cruel and wasteful but it works, too.
Apparently you are into GNU/Linux now, finally getting over that MSWin fixation. Did you know you can install all manner of spreadsheet and database applications, for free? You can also install development tools, if you feel like making your own data requests and parsing them into CSV for import. And you can even get the source code for the applications, and development tools, and OS!
"It's all for publicity or else WHERE THE FUCK ARE THE LAWSUITS?"
Ah, finally, a useful statement. Yes, FUCK THE PUBLICITY! WHERE THE FUCK ARE THE LAWSUITS!?
For more information:
http://PeaceCamp2010insider.blogspot.com/
I use a routine that spoofs my mac and modifies my browser info sent over the network any way I like. Thanks for your interest in my OS though. Keep guessing. And as far as throwing random data points into statistics, RN's useless tactic of extolling people to get tickets to give him the info to do nothing with pretty much obfuscates legitimate data unless you have access to his bogus cites info. He doesn't and shouldn't make that info public so anyone trying to get some legitimate numbers is simply fucked, unless they're a friend of RN's and he gives them that info. It's possible. He's REALLY REALLY bad about OTHER PEOPLE'S personal security.
Hopefully Tails randomizes MAC addresses out of the box! It would be silly to assume newbs would all by themselves. Um, you did start to brag about being a Tails user, recently, post-Snowden fashion victim? Maybe you didn't know what the Debian project uses under the hood? Or maybe I hadn't noticed Tails switching to Hurd?!
BTW, you are aware of how many CVE might put one at risk, no? Even CVE for Tails. And then there is the famous 'trusting trust' problem, which some say might be avoidable with verifiable compilation (maybe that topic still comes up among cypherpunks when they get paranoid about Bitcoin? I wouldn't know, haven't paid attention to cypherpunks in decades). Last I checked, Debian is still working towards verifiable builds. It'll be nice when they get there. But then there is the chip problem. Trust that ethernet chip? Wifi chip? GPU? CPU? USB stick?! Well, if you do, make contingency plans!
Meanwhile, back at the data, it is easy to filter by victim, location, case number, etc. Especially for protest citations! It's also easy to select only those individuals that would never, ever do what Norse says, ever. SQL is handy that way. It's also easy to ask .gov for citation data (something you have ranted about, incorrectly, in the past). It's so easy even Norse can do it! The data doesn't always arrive in useful formats but that is an easy fix.
So, to reiterate, you were talking out your ass, yet again, Razer. Something you have a documented history of doing. You also have a feeble record when it comes to owning up to your falsehoods (and defamation), so I don't expect much different this time around. Mostly, the above is for those curious about digital security issues.
BTW, you are aware of how many CVE might put one at risk, no? Even CVE for Tails. And then there is the famous 'trusting trust' problem, which some say might be avoidable with verifiable compilation (maybe that topic still comes up among cypherpunks when they get paranoid about Bitcoin? I wouldn't know, haven't paid attention to cypherpunks in decades). Last I checked, Debian is still working towards verifiable builds. It'll be nice when they get there. But then there is the chip problem. Trust that ethernet chip? Wifi chip? GPU? CPU? USB stick?! Well, if you do, make contingency plans!
Meanwhile, back at the data, it is easy to filter by victim, location, case number, etc. Especially for protest citations! It's also easy to select only those individuals that would never, ever do what Norse says, ever. SQL is handy that way. It's also easy to ask .gov for citation data (something you have ranted about, incorrectly, in the past). It's so easy even Norse can do it! The data doesn't always arrive in useful formats but that is an easy fix.
So, to reiterate, you were talking out your ass, yet again, Razer. Something you have a documented history of doing. You also have a feeble record when it comes to owning up to your falsehoods (and defamation), so I don't expect much different this time around. Mostly, the above is for those curious about digital security issues.
For more information:
http://PeaceCamp2010insider.blogspot.com/
Or that it was one suite or that I'm not fooling around with virtualboxes and add-ons to firefox that allow you to totally tweak the info your browser broadcasts... And MAC spoofing software ... And you're way the fuck off topic Buh-Bye.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$210.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network