top
image The Summer Solstice Music Festival 6-25-2016 480_126_1.jpg original image (6000x4000) by AutumnSun
A day in the San Lorenzo park in Santa Cruz California, with information, music, and food! San Lorenzo Park, Santa Cruz California
Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2016 12:02AM
calendar Mission Fire Fundraiser at El Rio on June 30th by sana saleem
3158 Mission St, San Francisco, CA 94110
Event Date: Thu Jun 30, 2016 9:00PM
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 8:18PM
calendar Long Haul Oral History Project: Berkeley's Needle Exchange Emergency Distribution (NEED) van_side_med.jpg by jesse Palmer
Long Haul Infoshop - 3124 Shattuck Ave. Berkeley - 2 blocks from Ashby BART - corner of Woolsey / Shattuck (across from La Pena)
Event Date: Sun Aug 14, 2016 7:00PM
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:40PM
calendar Freedom Sleeper "No Assembly at City Hall Grounds at Night" cases Go to Court by Robert Norse
County Courthouse Superior Court 1
Event Date: Fri Jun 24, 2016 1:30PM
Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2016 11:25PM
document Evidence the SCPD is lying or the City Attorney perjured himself to Judge Marigonda (Comment On: Freedom Sleeper "No Assembly at City Hall Grounds at Night" cases Go to Court) gmail_-_public_records_request_response_videos_and_photos_of_freedom_sleepers.pdf_140_.jpg original image (x) by John Cohen-Colby
City of Santa Cruz Records Custodian Nydia Patiño responded to my California Public Records Act (CPRA) request for all videos and photographs of the Freedom Sleepers that they existed but were not disclosable because they were investigatory records exempt from disclosure under California Government Code section 6254(f). This means either the SCPD is lying or the City Attorney perjured himself to Judge Paul Marigonda. August 26, 2015 john.roncohen.colby@gmail.com Mr. Colby: This email is in response to your public records request addressed to City Clerk Administrator, Bren Lehr, requesting information from the City of Santa Cruz as detailed below. Your request was received by the City via email on August 24, 2015. Requested records: “Dear Ms. Lehr and Attorney General Lynch: Although the Homeless Services Center (HSC) of Santa Cruz shutdown all its emergency housing, the City of Santa Cruz still cruelly applies an array of ordinances criminalizing homelessness and the act of sleeping outside. The City and the Santa Cruz Police Department (SCPD) continue this although the U.S. Department of Justice recently filed a legal brief arguing that sleep is a civil right and criminalizing homelessness is unconstitutional. http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-brief-address-criminalization-homelessness Santa Cruz, even as far back as 2002, was known as one of the meanest American cities towards homeless people. It has gotten much worse since the anti-homeless hate group Take Back Santa Cruz (TBSC) infiltrated the City Council, the SCPD and City staff. From this hypocrisy the Freedom Sleeper protest was born at the Santa Cruz City Hall. The SCPD has harassed and abused the Freedom Sleepers, many who are disabled. These resources could have gone to removing the Westside gang and other criminals from the Mission Gardens Apartments (whose residents the SCPD has apparently abandoned to protect your planning commissioner Mari Tustin who manages it). Please reference the following links: https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/08/21/18776461.php https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/08/16/18776253.php https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/08/12/18776095.php https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/08/12/18776058.php https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/07/31/18775606.php Some of the SCPD officers present were recording the Freedom Sleepers, for an unknown purpose. To ascertain that purpose, I am submitting a California Public Records Act (CPRA) request for: all photographs, images and audio/video recordings taken by the SCPD at the Santa Cruz City Hall from July 1, 2015 to today, August 22, 2015.” We have no disclosable public records that are responsive to your request. Under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) you are entitled to copies of identifiable, non-exempt public records (Govt. Code section 6253). Please note that the CPRA requires the City to provide access to, or copies of, records responsive to your request which are in its possession, subject to certain exceptions. The CPRA does not require the City to provide information, answer questions, or create records which do not exist. To the extent that any of the records you seek are attorney-client communications under the attorney-client privilege or are otherwise attorney-client privileged records, such records are exempt from disclosure under the CPRA pursuant to Government Code section 6254(k). In addition, to the extent that any of the records you seek are drafts and notes that are not kept in the ordinary course of business for the City and which the City has determined that the public interest in withholding the record clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure due to the particular details and nature of the records, such records are exempt from disclosure under the CPRA pursuant to Government Code section 6254(a). Also given the particular details and nature of certain records that you seek, to the extent that such records involve communications to decision makers within the City for which final decisions have not yet been made and final actions have not yet been taken and/or the City has determined that the public interest in withholding the record clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure, such records are exempt from disclosure under the CPRA pursuant to Government Code section 6255. If you have any questions, please contact me. Nydia Patiño Records Coordinator City of Santa Cruz (831) 420-5034 Nydia Patino 8/26/15 to me, Bren August 26, 2015 john.roncohen.colby@gmail.com Mr. Colby: This email is in response to your public records request addressed to City Clerk Administrator, Bren Lehr, requesting information from the City of Santa Cruz as detailed below. Your request was received by the City via email on August 24, 2015. Requested records: “Dear Ms. Lehr and Attorney General Lynch: Although the Homeless Services Center (HSC) of Santa Cruz shutdown all its emergency housing, the City of Santa Cruz still cruelly applies an array of ordinances criminalizing homelessness and the act of sleeping outside. The City and the Santa Cruz Police Department (SCPD) continue this although the U.S. Department of Justice recently filed a legal brief arguing that sleep is a civil right and criminalizing homelessness is unconstitutional. http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-brief-address-criminalization-homelessness Santa Cruz, even as far back as 2002, was known as one of the meanest American cities towards homeless people. It has gotten much worse since the anti-homeless hate group Take Back Santa Cruz (TBSC) infiltrated the City Council, the SCPD and City staff. From this hypocrisy the Freedom Sleeper protest was born at the Santa Cruz City Hall. The SCPD has harassed and abused the Freedom Sleepers, many who are disabled. These resources could have gone to removing the Westside gang and other criminals from the Mission Gardens Apartments (whose residents the SCPD has apparently abandoned to protect your planning commissioner Mari Tustin who manages it). Please reference the following links: https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/08/21/18776461.php https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/08/16/18776253.php https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/08/12/18776095.php https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/08/12/18776058.php https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/07/31/18775606.php Some of the SCPD officers present were recording the Freedom Sleepers, for an unknown purpose. To ascertain that purpose, I am submitting a California Public Records Act (CPRA) request for: all photographs, images and audio/video recordings taken by the SCPD at the Santa Cruz City Hall from July 1, 2015 to today, August 22, 2015.” The documents you are seeking are exempt under Government Code section 6254(f).
Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2016 9:21AM
image Go to Court (Comment On: Freedom Sleeper "No Assembly at City Hall Grounds at Night" cases Go to Court) by HT
I was going to offer you good luck but that doesn't fit. May Justice Prevail sounds better. It sounds you'll get charges dismissed. But it sure sounds like harassment to me, although I'm no lawyer. Thanks to you for all of your good work, and to Kate for same.
Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2016 5:13PM
image Right of Nighttime Assembly at City Hall Crushed in Courtroom 1 (Comment On: Freedom Sleeper "No Assembly at City Hall Grounds at Night" cases Go to Court) by Robert Norse
After an hour and a quarter trial, retired Judge Sam Stevens found me guilty. Chatty and friendly, Stevens initially gave the impression that his ruling would favor the defense, praising the legal work done by attorney Kate Wells in preparing the brief prior to trial (some of the work was done by Steve Pleich). The only witnesses were Norse and the two police officers who cited him, first on July 5th, and again on August 12th late at night. Stevens stated that the time of the citations was key. It is legal to be around City Hall during the day, but forbidden to be in the city hall courtyard after 10 PM. The law allows you to be "on the access paths through the area". We presented photos of me on the pathways. City attorney Gallogly countered with testimony that I'd been off the pathway at different points making audio recordings of arrests. Stevens found that irrelevant, noting it was the "agenda access" argument that was key. This principal defense was that the City had to allow the public 24 hour access to the agendas that were posted inside the "forbidden" area for a period of 72-hours before any agendaized meeting. Hence, the defense argued, police could not site members of the public for going there if any such meetings were scheduled. Stevens seemed to wrestle with this argument for a time, but ultimately upheld Gallogly's response that the proper remedy for a Brown Act violation was a civil lawsuit. Stevens agreed that the City's violation of the Brown Act was not in and of itself a defense against "trespass" on City Hall grounds at night. Both ignored the basic fact that City Hall is the seat of government where the right to freedom of peaceful assembly is most important. Denial of the right to be present there to petition for a redress of grievances would seem a classic violation of the First Amendment of both the state and federal Constitutions. I am unaware of any other City Hall grounds that have been permanently closed at night. It is a highly unusual and outrageous restriction on public access. In Santa Cruz it was done in a backroom maneuver in 2010 to exclude a peaceful homeless protest (PeaceCamp 2010) protesting the same Sleeping Ban issue. A year later this Ban on being around government buildings was extended to a 7 PM -7AM ban at the County Building to drive away the Occupy Santa Cruz movement. Stevens later made some comments about "making the police job easier to prevent vandalism at City Hall", but no instances of vandalism were cited justifying such a severe nighttime ban on all public assembly there. Ironically, Stevens himself had turned back Mayor Rotkin's 1996 attempt to shut down still another homeless protest at City Hall with such a ban. Gallogly and Stevens both ultimately hinged their decision on a fallacious analogy. "You wouldn't let someone break into a closed building to read agendas, even if the City should have posted them outside, right? So here you're not allowed to 'trespass' even though the agendas should have been posted in an accessible place." Equating access to a public area with destroying property is, of course, ridiculous. Forced entry into closed buildings at night in a considerably different matter than walking up to a display case to see what City bureaucrats are cooking up. Such access was accepted as a matter of right until 2010, when it was denied the entire community to discourage activists from embarrassing the City about its treatment of homeless people. The job of the police would be made easier by requiring everyone to answer police questions and submit to searches. But is that what we want to tolerate in a democratic society? When asked why he has retreated to this new reactionary repressive position, Stevens replied with a smile "times have changed." Stevens made much of the fact that police were friendly, gave me a chance to leave, and were acting under orders. Using this line of logic, basic rights can be swept aside by if police are friendly, coach us to give up our rights voluntarily, and are "just following orders"? A sad conclusion--particularly for a judge once a defender of the rights of protesters and the public. Indeed, the new mythos of the city Staff and the Take Back Santa Cruz crowd sees danger in folks sleeping in their cars. They have removed the grass lawns of the City Hall grounds apparently to discourage daytime resting there. Chillingly the City's ban on handicraft artists downtown selling their handicraft artwork downtown under the mew Commercial Vending ordinance went into effect on Friday, June 24th. As the bumper sticker says, "Ignore your rights and they'll go away". I was sentenced to 20 hours of Community Service over the objections of City Attorney Gallogly who wanted me to pay $198. The second citation was dropped.
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 3:45PM
image City Attorney convicts Norse again (Comment On: Freedom Sleeper "No Assembly at City Hall Grounds at Night" cases Go to Court) by James Brown
Judge Stevens was right that your point would've been better made in civil court. You're right, Robert, that it was a fallacious analogy -- you didn't break in, so the right analogy would be the door was open and you were inside reading an agenda after hours. Under those circumstances, some (most?) judges would still convict you of trespassing. But your civil disobedience led to the City constructing a new place to post agendas at the perimeter of the courtyard, so folks can read them 24-7 without entering. Judge Stevens should've dismissed both cases in the interest of justice. Your attorney made that point, right? She's the one who wanted Sam for this, right?
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 6:03PM
image Actions of civil disobedience usually focus attention on those arrested. (Comment On: Freedom Sleeper "No Assembly at City Hall Grounds at Night" cases Go to Court) by brent adams
This nearly year-long weekly campout has been established to call attention to the illegality of sleep - known as the sleeping ban. In the first 20 weeks a handful of activists and dozens of people who normally sleep outside were cited and some were arrested. Why don't these activists focus attention on those people who experience homelessness and who've been cited while supporting this civil disobedience? Usually, protest actions keep a list and even offer court and fine support for people who get arrested while engaged in an action. Ironically, the very people who this action is meant to protect, have been forgotten, while we see court support actions for activists. I think this is a fair question.
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 10:30PM
image I agree with Brent (Comment On: Freedom Sleeper "No Assembly at City Hall Grounds at Night" cases Go to Court) by John Cohen-Colby
I strongly agree with Brent. The activists involved in the Freedom Sleepers protest movement let the unhoused protesters down by not funding legal counsel for their trials. It's great that Robert can hire an attorney for his case. But it's a fair question why he and others failed to hire legal counsel for the unhoused protestors who received citations. I'm not writing this as criticism, just pointing something out for housed people in the Freedom Sleepers protest movement to heed and learn from. If you want the support and involvement of unhoused people, then you must support them as much as you would support yourself. No Freedom Sleeper should have faced trial without legal counsel, housed or unhoused.
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 10:50PM
image Fair question for Brent (Comment On: Freedom Sleeper "No Assembly at City Hall Grounds at Night" cases Go to Court) by Truth seeker
Brent claims dozens of houseless people have been cited at the campouts but he hasn't told us how many of them he has supported in court. I'm guessing that number is zero. Brent is also one of the activists/poverty pimps who has tried to personally profit off of these protests. He has been to the campouts and he even filmed houseless people getting cited. Why didn't you follow through with the story, Brent, and support those people you filmed? Do the houseless people you filmed exist only to be part of your personal video collection? Now here's a fair question for Brent. Why was the Santa Cruz Warming Center only open for a couple of weeks this winter when Warming Centers in other cities stay open every day, all winter long, and some into the spring? I'll answer that question myself. It's because you run the Warming Center here, and you aren't fit for the job.
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 11:24PM
image This isn't about Brent Truthseeker (Comment On: Freedom Sleeper "No Assembly at City Hall Grounds at Night" cases Go to Court) by Razer Ray
...and you can't make it about him. I've lived here for forty years, more than 1/2 of that time outdoors now, and that question is not only pertinent but exactly the problem with local 'organizers'. They're in it for the face time with the media and paparazzi but disappear as soon as the media vans or onlookers go away. I bailed on Freedom Sleepers after a few months due to the utter lack of democratic process and failure to seem interested in attracting new people to the action, leaving the same... old... housed... HUFF faces, that have abandoned and diverted, and disrupted actions so many times before.
Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2016 7:09AM
image Questioning before instead of after doesn't work either. (Comment On: Freedom Sleeper "No Assembly at City Hall Grounds at Night" cases Go to Court) by G
Norse and the rest of HUFF (and their legal resources) can not claim ignorance. For at least five years they have been warned about leading yet more soon-to-be-abandoned 'cannon fodder' into harms way, for yet more of their 'naughty kicks'. Before this protest they were warned. During this protest they were warned. And yet HUFF pulled the same old shit?! Did HUFF warn their cannon fodder, ahead of time, this time? In related news; there are growing, serious questions about Chris (now Commander X) and his very similar habit of getting others busted for similar naughty kicks/street cred. I'd guess X would be wise to avoid travel to #Ferguson, because people are talking, and they are sick and tired of X's shit.
Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2016 11:31AM
image City of Santa Cruz: Keep SF Mime Troupe at San Lorenzo Park! 480_sf-mime-troupe-san-lorenzo-park-2007-by-bradley-allen_1.jpg original image (640x414) by Santa Cruz News
Local musician, activist, and volunteer for the SF Mime Troupe, Karen Kaplan, informs us that this year, the SF Mime Troupe will be performing at Porter College's outdoor quad at UCSC, but not at San Lorenzo Park in Santa Cruz, as has been the tradition for so many years. Apparently the Mime Troupe performance was nixed by the City of Santa Cruz's Planning Department this year.
Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2016 5:43PM
image On the verge... (Comment On: City of Santa Cruz: Keep SF Mime Troupe at San Lorenzo Park!) by Razer Ray
Only a city on the verge of gentrified culturelessness would do something this assinine.
Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2016 7:53PM
image Additional Questions (Comment On: City of Santa Cruz: Keep SF Mime Troupe at San Lorenzo Park!) by Robert Norse
It's not clear whether the Planning Department's agenda is mercenary, ideological, or simply control-freak bureaucratic. It needs to be fought. The shut down of the Mime Troupe parallels increasing restrictions on free public access to public spaces city-wide. Note however, that all may not be well with the Mime Troupe. Noting the resignation of four long term Mime-Troupe members last year, long time Mime Trouper R.G. Davis discusses "...a US progressive organization’s origins, growth, and in this case, twisted decline" in the September 16, 2015 issue of the Anderson Valley Advertiser, "Something Amok at the SF Mime Troupe" at http://theava.com/archives/47919 . As a general Mime Troupe fan (and sometime critic), I found the article troubling and provocative enough to be worth checking out. The local Santa Cruz Guerrilla Theater hasn't had a performance outside in years. We need to reestablish our rights to use the public spaces for maximum public benefit.
Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2016 11:13PM
image Bureaucrats to Blast (Comment On: City of Santa Cruz: Keep SF Mime Troupe at San Lorenzo Park!) by Karen Kaplan (modified & posted by R. Norse)
A letter posted on SCPEL (which I've slightly updated) suggests the following contacts where you can e-mail protests: Dear Santa Cruz Mayor, City Council, Supervisors & Parks Department: RE: Keep San Francisco Mime Troupe at San Lorenzo Park! Cynthia Mathews - cmathews@cityofsantacruz.com; Cynthia Chase - cchase@cityofsantacruz.com Richelle Nironyan - rniroyan@cityofsantacruz.com Pamela Comstock - pcomstock@cityofsantacruz.com; Don Lane - dlane@cityofsantacruz.com; Micah Posner - mposner@cityofsantacruz.com David Terrazas - dterrazas@cityofsantacruz.com; First District Supervisor John Leopold - john.leopold@co.santa-cruz.ca.us; Second District Supervisor Zach Friend - zach.friend@co.santa-cruz.ca.us; Third Distrct Supervisor Ryan Coonerty - go to http://www.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/Government/BoardofSupervisors/District3.aspx Fourth District Supervisor Greg Caput - greg.caput@co.santa-cruz.ca.us; Fifth District Supervisor Bruce McPherson - bruce.mcpherson@co.santa-cruz.ca.us; parksandrec@cityofsantacruz.com It was unfair to deny the SF Mime Troupe from performing this year at San Lorenzo Park. Please bring them back!!! Please encourage free popular public performances in parks, especially the San Francisco Mime Troupe at San Lorenzo Park, Santa Cruz. The Santa Cruz Parks Dept has been too strict in demanding expensive structural engineering stage permits. For more than 5000 years, people have been building "sukkahs" temporary dwellings, without permits. This sets a precedence, so that a small temporary stage should not require a permit. To my knowledge, the SF Mime Troupe portable stage is safe, has never collapsed, caused damage nor harm. The SF Mime Troupe travels from the city to towns. The durable stage is constructed to withstand many seasonal performances. It is unreasonable, too expensive and tedious to demand that the SF Mime Troupe pay for a structural engineer to inspect the stage and purchase permits. Performances are offered free to the public, with minimal donations accepted. The SF Mime Troupe cannot afford, nor has the time for inspections, before performances. The SF Mime Troupe is a highly regarded tourist attraction and a boost to our local economy. People buy food and drinks at local restaurants, markets and bakeries, stay at hotels, purchase beach chairs, blankets, sunscreen, hats, sunglasses, pay sales tax, etc. to attend a free comedy and musical performance at the park. This year, the SF Mime Troupe will be performing on Saturday August 6 and Sunday August 7, 2:30 PM at UCSC Porter College Outdoor Quad, but not at San Lorenzo Park. Since parking at UCSC is difficult, it may deter attendance and is therefore not the most ideal location to be accessible to the larger Santa Cruz Community. Please forward this letter to supporters of the San Francisco Mime Troupe. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Karen Kaplan SF Mime Troupe Volunteer
Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2016 11:37PM
image Reading the AVA... (Comment On: City of Santa Cruz: Keep SF Mime Troupe at San Lorenzo Park!) 480_uawmf_manifesto_1.jpg original image (500x263) by Razer Ray
(Image: The short and sweet of what progressive-liberals are good for, from a motherfucker) It figures. Now that Obama's out the PROG-LIB SFMT directors are abandoning the RADICAL ship (collective), and I WILL BET EVEN MONEY that SOMEONE from that PROG-LIB element of QUITTERS whispered in the Santa Cruz shitty council's ear about it too. Backstabbers, every single one of them. I WILL NEVER FORGET how that element of Occupy Santa Cruz wasn't just willing to toss the 75 River squatters 'under the bus'... They wanted to DRIVE IT too, by collaborating with the city and tsk tsk-ing it and actually COOPERATING with any investigation b/c "PR" might hurt them.
Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2016 9:12AM
image Keep SF Mime Troupe at San Lorenzo Park! (Comment On: City of Santa Cruz: Keep SF Mime Troupe at San Lorenzo Park!) by JBK
The buses still run up to UCSC....So, getting to see the Mime Troupe isn't that less possible... Still, I wouldn't let a little inconvenience get in the way of enjoying and supporting them.... I'm no longer local.... It's a sad thing. Fight it or let the local 1%ers crush you. Choose one.....
Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2016 4:40PM