Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Gary Johnson freed on bail

GREAT NEWS! I just heard that Gary Johnson was released yesterday afternoon from the Rountree Minimum Security Facility in Watsonville, Ca. where he was serving a 6 month sentence for the "crime" of sleeping as part of a protest against the Sleeping Ban in the City of Santa Cruz. His attorney and co-defendant, Ed Frey, was freed Friday, June 24th when Judge John Gallagher reduced his bail from $50,000 to $110. Gary, in addition to 5 days in jail prior to sentencing, was incarcerated from June 10th until June 27th, or for a total of 22 days for the "crime" of sleeping. Here is Gary's e-mail to me. --- Becky Johnson- ed

Gary Johnson sleeps non-obstructively August 28, 2010 on the downtown sidewalk outside of City Hall after the City pronounced "no trespassing" restrictions on public property during Peace Camp 2010, a protest against Santa Cruz' Sleeping Ban. Photo by Becky Johnson

Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 15:07:13 -0700
> From: walkabouting ( at ) yahoo.com
> Subject: Breaking news...
> To: walkabouting (at) yahoo.com
> Breaking news...
> I JUST got out on bail (pending Appeal), from (eventually Minimum) Medium Security Jail in Watsonville (aka The Farm).
> S#228822
> After about two weeks, held in Santa Cruz County Jail (across from the Santa Cruz county Courthouse),
> I was recently transfered to the Watsonville Jail (currently released on bail, pending appeal).
> Next Santa Cruz Court appearance is August 1st, 1:30pm, room 2, I think.
> If the Appeal(s) fail, I'm back in for 180 days (180 - trivia).
> And now I can finally shout about the entire fucking thing, without worrying about influencing the jury. Website pending, probably via the SC library, tomorrow.
> Meanwhile, back at the (pending appeal) daily walks between the public libraries and meals...
> --
> G (pending appeal)

Saturday, June 25, 2011

Ed Frey: Putting his body on the line

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: I'm always suspicious of those who say we "want to get ourselves arrested" because I've never tried to get arrested in my life. That doesn't mean rigid adherence to petty ordinances and rules, especially so if there is no apparent victim. I seriously doubt ED ' wanted' to get arrested. But it had come to the point where civil disobedience of the law was what was called for. Indeed, when Arun Ghandi visited the Resource Center for Nonviolence years earlier, he had predicted that ONLY civil disobedience of the Sleeping Ban would change the law. And ED DID openly violate MC 6.36.010 a, of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code which outlaws sleeping at night between 11PM and 8:30AM, known as the "Sleeping Ban." Had he been found guilty of violating this ordinance, the worst punishment he would face, under law, would have been 8 hours of Community service and no jail time at all. Instead, on June 10th, ED was sentenced to 6 MONTHS in JAIL for refusing 400 hours of community service, with bail set at $50,000. Below is Curtis Cartier's interview published last August. But a few corrections are in order. Peace Camp 2010 was NOT 24/7. It was between 8PM and 8AM at the courthouse steps and at City Hall. And ED towed a porta-potty there each night and took it away during the morning. I was not convicted of "disturbing the peace (a misdemeanor)" but of "unreasonably disturbing noise(an infraction)" which you can read about HERE. Nor has Cartier even mentioned the available legal shelter in Santa Cruz serves 10% at best of those experiencing homelessness. Nor was Frey's effort in vain. --- Becky Johnson, ed

Improbable Cause

Why would a lawyer try to get himself arrested?

By Curtis Cartier

Metro Santa Cruz

August 25, 2010

Article found online here.

SEE: http://www.metrosantacruz.com/metro-santa-cruz/08.25.10/currents-1034.html

DAMN. I don't know if the cops are gonna show," says Ed Frey, looking left to right down Center Street and pulling his tattered blue sleeping bag snug. It's midnight at Peace Camp 2010 and the 70-year-old activist lawyer is on the steps of City Hall with a dozen homeless people and supporters for Day 44 of an ongoing protest against Santa Cruz's ban on camping within city limits. Perched in a fold-out chair, wearing wrinkled khaki pants and the same faded orange sweater he had on 10 days earlier when he was arrested for sleeping outside the Santa Cruz County building, Frey, who founded and organized the 24/7 protest, fits right in with his flock of rebels and malcontents.

His prospects for arrest may be disappointing, but with his finances bottoming out, he admits that avoiding jail this time may be a blessing. "I got a call today from an interested client," he says. "He really needs to be represented in court and I'd hate to have to say, 'Sorry, can't do it. I got arrested for sleeping in public and violating the camping ban. Again.'"

The fact that Frey, a bar-certified, Berkeley-educated criminal defense attorney, is at the public nexus of town in willful disobedience of the law is no surprise given his history. This is a man who brags about having sold marijuana from his law office and once nailing 18 pot plants to the front doors of the Mendocino County sheriff and district attorney. He's campaigned and lost elections for U.S. Congress and Santa Cruz County District Attorney on platforms like the abolition of all international borders and legalization of drugs. Around town, more than a few people who know him say he's crazy. Others conclude that he's just a passionate ideologue.

Santa Cruz City Attorney John Barisone, who recently squared off in court with Frey over local transient Robert Facer's camping ban citation and homeless advocate Becky Johnson's disturbing the peace violation—prevailing over Frey in both cases—goes so far as to say Frey puts his own political agenda over his client's legal needs.

"He is very argumentative, and that doesn't help him out," says Barisone. "With Facer he got in an argument with the judge, not necessarily a good tactic. He also put his client on the witness stand when he didn't need to. ... [Frey] called Facer, who basically admitted to violating the law, and I didn't even have to ask him any questions. I was able to cite his direct testimony."

In many ways Frey is just other weirdo in a city that sells weird by the bushel. But his particular brand is both organized and influential, and for the last 52 days it's been a part of every local taxpayer's life as highly paid police conduct nightly surveillance, erect gas-powered floodlights and write tickets with the knowledge that each one will likely be dragged out in court.

None of this bothers Frey, however, as he points out that homeless rights are never very popular and that "it takes someone like me" to stand up for them. "People say I'm using people to further my agenda," he says. "But it's in the public's own good!"

Shake It

Earlier in the day, Frey's phone rang with infamous homeless advocate gadfly Robert Norse on the line. Christopher Doyon, the gaunt de facto leader of the on-site activities at the protest, was quitting. Frey decided it was high time he got arrested.

"I think it has to be done," he'd said cockily. "Someone has to prove the point that it shouldn't be a crime to fall asleep. Someone needs to shake these people up."

Along with Congressman Sam Farr and Mayor Mike Rotkin, Vice-Mayor Ryan Coonerty is one of the people Frey says needs "shaking." As the sleeping ban protest was starting, he challenged Coonerty to a public debate. Coonerty says Frey was just seeking attention.

"I got a fax from him challenging me to a debate," says Coonerty. "I responded publicly that I don't think it's necessary for me to be a part of every publicity stunt in Santa Cruz. In the latest case, I think homelessness is a very serious issue and I work with social service providers and others to try and address this. I don't think that endless protesting is the right way to go about it. But he certainly has the right."

Frey, in many ways, is part of the classic fabric of Santa Cruz's old guard of radical progressives: liberal, passionate, prone to espousing conspiracy theories. His camping protest is unlikely to change the city's homeless laws and has already led to dozens of citations for a group of people with little means to pay them. With a wife of 27 years and a combined 10 children between them, his family life is strained because of his obsessive focus on homeless rights and willingness to do it free of charge. And, if he were ever actually elected to Congress, his radical policies would have little to no chance of passing.

And yet a Santa Cruz without its Ed Freys, Robert Norses and Becky Johnsons might not be the same city that residents have come to know. And Frey, at any rate, isn't going anywhere.

"My underwater yoga therapy keeps me going strong," he says. "We intend to keep on until we have the right to sleep. And I have no plans to retire. My services now seem more crucial than ever."

Read a longer version of this story online by going to www.santacruz.com and clicking on 'News.'/

Send letters to the editor here.

Friday, June 24, 2011

Ed Frey's Bail reduced from $50,000 to $110

by Becky Johnson
June 24, 2011

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- Considerably regretful, Judge John Gallagher agreed to a bail reduction pending appeal for Attorney, Ed Frey, jailed directly from court last June 10th on a 6 month sentence. "As you know, I had no choice at the time," Gallagher told Peter Leeming, Ed's attorney for his motion to reconsider sentencing.

Gallagher sounded as if he was willing to do what was legally within his means to do, which wasn't much. He does not have jurisdiction to reduce his own 6 month sentence. Only an appeal can do that. He doesn't have jurisdiction to impose probation since Ed turned down the 3 years of probation offered and no counter-offer was made.

Leeming argued that there is very little case law in this area, but he did find a few cases where extraordinary circumstances existed.

"I was very moved by the circumstances in Ed's declaration," Gallagher explained. "Let's see what we can do to get him back to care for his responsibilities to his family and his clients."

The scene was very different from June 10th, in which each side dug in, unwilling to concede any point or position. Ed declaring even after a jury conviction that he had done nothing wrong and

Ed Frey is arrested for sleeping on Aug 7, 2010 as part of a protest against the Sleeping Ban. Photo by Bradley Stuart.

was being punished "for asserting our rights."

Now, wearing green jailhouse clothes and chained at the wrists and ankles, Ed appeared calm and compliant. However, when he asked to speak, it was only to emphasize his lack of funds.

Gallagher asked DA Sara Dabkowski what bail she recommended.

"The standard bail schedule would be acceptable," she replied. Gallagher looked this up.
"The bail schedule for 647 (e) is $110," Gallagher announced. Wasn't this bail for 647 (e) last June 10th? Gallagher had issued $50,000 bail! And Ed is neither a flight risk nor has he missed any court appearances.

And why was bail for COLLETTE CONNOLLY and ARTHUR BISHOFF set at $2500? That's 23 times what the courts have set.

Also appearing in court was GARY JOHNSON, also sentenced to 6 months in jail and not qualifying for work furlough or able to claim "extraordinary circumstances." Ed Frey, chained and shackled stood when JOHNSON stood, much to the chagrin of the bailiff.

"But I'm representing MR. JOHNSON!" Ed protested. Then he said, "Your honor, I have no idea what this hearing is about."

Gallagher called City Attorney CAIO ARELLANO to the podium and told him "I asked you to appear to tell us the status of the other infraction charges against Mr. Johnson."

Arrellano asked that they be dismissed. Gary agreed and all 21 infraction citations against Gary Johnson were dismissed. However, he remains jailed on a 6 month sentence.

Outside court, a beaming Diana, Ed's wife, collected tens and twenties offered up by Ed's supporters to raise the $110 quickly. As she prepared to drive to Watsonville to bail Ed out of the Rountree Medium Security Facility where he is housed, she expressed great relief. "It's been a long two weeks."

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Free Gary Johnson! Free Ed Frey!

Homeless Civil Rights Attorney Ed Frey prepares for court at City Hall while taking part of a protest against Sleeping Bans as part of Peace Camp 2010. Frey drove a porto-potty to City Hall at 8PM each night and pulled it away each morning at 8AM in order to facilitate the ability of homeless people to sleep. Peace Camp 2010, in its 3-months of existence provided over 1,000 shelter nights for homeless people who did not or could not fit inside existing shelter space. Frey was sentenced to 6 months in County Jail on June 10, 2011 by Judge John Gallagher. Photo by Shmuel Thayer of the Santa Cruz Sentinel.

by Becky Johnson
June 14, 2011

(This article has been updated on June 22, 2011) - Ed.

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- Houseless civil rights worker, Gary Johnson, and his attorney, Ed Frey, began serving a 6 month term in Santa Cruz County Jail. Gary for sleeping 4 times in a 3-month period, and Ed for having slept three times. Twice on the steps of the Santa Cruz County Courthouse, and once on the bricks at the edge of the plaza at City Hall, a stones' throw from Mayor Ryan Coonerty's office. Both slept out in violation of the Sleeping Ban which outlaws the act of sleeping within the City Limits between 11PM and 8:30AM out of doors or in a vehicle.

Of course only homeless people are every charged with "criminal" sleeping. It is not a little-enforced law, either. MC 6.36.010 a and it's twin, the "Blanket Ban," MC 6.36.010 section b, are cited about 60 times a month within the City limits by police and by Parks and Rec Rangers.

How the City expects to "teach" homeless people to not sleep at night or to not use a blanket at night is never discussed. When Gary Johnson, at his sentencing hearing told Judge John Gallagher, "I can't go three years without sleeping," Gallagher punitively sentenced him to six months in jail for sleeping four times in 90 days. "You can sleep in jail," Gallagher told him.

Had Johnson and Frey been convicted for the City's sleeping ban, they would only have faced a maximum of 8 hours of community service. DA SARA DABKOWSKI asked for fifty times that sentence when she sought 400 hours of community service.

Does Judge Gallagher and the DA Bob Lee expect to turn our county jails into homeless shelters? Indeed, they apparently already have. And those who were marginally housed at the time of jailing will become homeless as well, once they lose a job or can't make their rent. I call this Lose-Lose public policy. Prohibitively expensive homeless "shelters" plus cranking out MORE HOMELESS by the day.

UPDATE JUNE 22 2011: ED FREY called me from jail this morning. He is prisoner # 236511
Those wishing to correspond with ED in jail can write to him at: Rountree Medium Security Jail, 90 Rountree Lane, Watsonville, CA. 95076 phone: (831) 454-5112

ED tells me that his attorney, Peter Leeming, has scheduled a motion to reconsider sentencing at 8:30AM in Dept. 2 before Judge John Gallagher. Supporters are encouraged to attend.

ED says that his family is experiencing severe financial distress as the result of his jailing, and are seeking donations to prevent their own homelessness. In addition to ED's sudden jailing, his wife is helping to care for two newborn grandchildren, the youngest born while ED was in jail.

Please send donations to Ed Frey,
4630 Soquel Dr
Soquel, CA 95073
Or call Phone: 831-479-8911 and leave contact information.

Gary Johnson is also scheduled for a hearing at 8:30AM in Dept 2.

Ed reports that Santa Cruz County Jail is overcrowded, with very little floorspace in which to walk around. People sleep in "boats" which are pulled out at night and placed in common areas. He has spoken with dozens of prisoners, a great percentage are homeless or will be homeless upon release. The law library at the jail has been closed and the books he ordered for his own defense have not yet arrived.

He has since been transferred to the Rountree Facility in Watsonville which he describes as "a country club" compared to SCCJ. "We play ping-pong and watch television. There is much more room to walk around in and the staff are more relaxed."

Ed Frey has asked for legal support to file an appeal and for financial support to help his family survive their loss of the main breadwinner. He is seeking a sentence modification to time served.

Friday, June 10, 2011

Ed Frey, Gary Johnson jailed for 6 months for Sleeping

Defendants refused 400 hours of Community Service, Punitively sentenced by Judge John Gallagher with the maximum possible sentence: 6 months in jail, 3 years probation;

Frey and Johnson taken by armed sheriffs out of the courtroom in chains to begin serving sentence for the act of sleeping

June 10, 2011
by Becky Johnson

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- It began as a motion by Ed Frey for a new trial. Disturbing reports from the jurors of the Peace Camp Six trial jurors detailed one juror refusing to deliberate, telling all it was a waste of his time, and screaming at another juror who wanted to continue to deliberate---all classic examples of juror misconduct. But Judge John Gallagher was only interested in quashing any such reports by any means possible.

The statements are hearsay," Gallagher ruled. "The proper way was to have contacted jurors and have them deposed."
" I'm asking for that now. I need the names and contact information from the court in order to do that.

"This is not the proper time to make that motion. You had your chance. Motion denied."

The reports issued verbally from the Foreman of the jury and backed up by about 8 jurors were made directly after the jury had been excused, but before the jurors had left the courthouse. In a 30 minute discussion attended by Ed Frey, DA Sara Dabkowski, and recorded by Becky Johnson, several allegations of juror misconduct were made. Ed Frey quoted from a partial transcript of the recording and offered to play the tapes in their entirety for the Judge and the court.

Ed quoted the Jury Foreman who said,

JURY FOREMAN: "I do have a question and maybe you might know something about. If you have a juror who is somewhat belligerent. Didn't want to continue to deliberate--thought it was a waste of their time--After we got through most of the counts, we had one juror who was completely belligerent, who refused to continue with deliberations, who thought it was a waste of their time, how...is there anything a jury can do?"

Then Ed Frey quoted District Attorney's recorded response to the Jury Foreman's statement.

ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY SARA DABKOWSKI: Well I think, potentially, that you could go to the judge with that issue. There is juror misconduct if a person does not attempt at least to deliberate appropriately. There is a process where if they are refusing to deliberate at all, and they are not following the rules, then potentially there could be an investigation. Generally the courts try to stay out of the jury room as much as possible....I've never actually had it come up....but I think that there's a process where you go to the court. I don't know for sure.

Then Ed Frey repeated a statement made by a female juror:

FEMALE JUROR: We didn't want it to end in a mistrial or completely nullify all of our efforts so far. But it was completely impossible!" (laughs).

Finally Ed quoted the jury foreman again.

JURY FOREMAN: For most of the time, I'd say 75% of the process he was mostly quiet, or made a few statements here or there but there were a few times where he crossed the line. He was not professional. We talked about that. But basically he announced he was not going to be professional, and that it was a waste of his time, "My time has been wasted all day. I'm done wasting my time."

Ed told Gallagher that the discussion had been recorded, DA Dabkowski was present for it, and that we were willing to play the tapes for the court. Gallagher was having none of it.

"The tapes are hearsay," he announced. Frey then asked for the names and contact information of the jurors so he could go and get sworn statements from them. Gallagher refused. "You've had ample time to seek that information," he ruled, even though there is no time limit on providing that information to the court. "I'm asking for the time now," Ed responded.

"Motion denied."

I reeled. In another court on another day, I had been called before the judge and quizzed and then chastized for having SPOKEN to a juror! Here 8 out of 12 jurors were complaining of actual juror misconduct and Gallagher couldn't dispose of that quickly enough!!

So much for the APPEARANCE of propriety!

Having lost the motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct, Frey moved to the more difficult area: Gallagher's OWN misconduct. It's never easy getting a sitting judge to admit he made an error.

Frey challenged Gallagher for having provided for the jurors his own definition of "lodging" since PC 647 (e) did not come with such a definition.

"Where did you get the authority to claim the definition of illegal lodging included sleeping? It's not in the law itself. Opposing counsel cited two authorities, neither of which addressed sleeping as a criminal act. The defendants last August had no access to a definition of "lodging." The sheriff's who enforced it had no guidelines or definition to determine what "lodging" was. Only when we get to trial do we find that you, yourself provide that definition to the jury. Where did you get that definition? On what authority did you base it?

"And how were the defendants last August supposed to know what "lodging" is? You, yourself said it is equivalent to sleeping. But where did you get that?"

"I got it from a dictionary," Gallagher admitted, so softly his words were barely audible. "And the defendants were warned first that they were illegally lodging."

Gallagher was referring to the unsigned notice sheriffs handed out to anyone at Peace Camp 2010 who was sleeping when they came around. Since they only cited people who were sleeping, it appeared to all that the county was only concerned about arresting people for sleeping. Even the jury foreman mentioned it.

PHOTO: Copy of unsigned notice given by sheriffs to Peace Camp 2010 protesters an hour before arrests were made. Photo by Becky Johnson

JURY FOREMAN: Personally I found it pretty crappy that it was clear that they were citing people as soon as they fell asleep. That was the one thing they were really going after.

Frey was adamant about pressing this point. He had filed a motion to dismiss based on vagueness of PC 647 (e) at a January 21st hearing this year. At that hearing, DA Sara Dabkowski argued that a definition was not necessary since "everyone knows what "lodging" means. It is a common word that puts people on notice that they can't lodge, can't live, can't stay the night, can't sleep somewhere, can't set up roots somewhere if they don't have permission. So it's not unconstitutionally vague on its face as written." A complete transcript of that hearing can be found here.

Yet at trial, and against the objections of the defense, Judge John Gallagher introduced his own definition of "lodging" to help the jurors reach a verdict.
Gallagher told the jury that they should use this definition of lodging: "to lodge means to settle or live in a place, that may include sleeping."

He told the jurors as part of the Judge's instructions, "Even if you disagree with the law, you must follow the law." But whose law? The law passed by the California legislature? Or the law as defined by John Gallagher from a dictionary at trial?

He told jurors that to find a defendant guilty of illegal lodging, they must "commit the prohibited act with wrongful intent."

"The defendants are charged with unlawful lodging. To find them guilty you must:

1. determine that the defendant lodged in a building, structure, or place
2. defendant did not have the permission of the owner or person in charge

After the verdict, jurors confessed that they had relied on the definition of lodging as supplied by Judge Gallagher to reach it's verdict. They were asked whether they were concerned that the definition of "lodging" was something that just popped out of the judge's mouth and was not contained in the law.

JURY FOREMAN: Well, I'm glad that the definition of "lodging" did pop out of the judge's mouth because otherwise we would have had no way of knowing what "lodging" was one way or another, other than, I suppose, our own general sense. Since "lodging" was defined by the judge, that made it pretty clear.


JURY FOREMAN: "If we had not been given that instruction....you're right, "to lodge" is very vague."

ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY SARA DABKOWSKI had, at the time, defended Gallagher's decision to provide a definition of "lodging" for the jury. She put forth that "with the lodging we thought it helpful to give a definition." (Was the "we" the prosecution and the judge acting together as a team?)

But at today's June 10th hearing, DABKOWSKI sniffed that her two authorities cited by the prosecution that "We didn't say they defined 'lodging'. It was about conduct. The man was sleeping in a tent."

There were no tents at Peace Camp 2010 and the ONE citation made by the prosecution was not using 647 (e) and did involve using a tent.

"Mr. Frey had the opportunity to offer his own definition," Dabkowski offered, but that begged the question of when? Gallagher had given it to the jury during the "Judges Instructions" portion of the trial. Certainly Frey couldn't have done it then.

And if Frey could have, then he surely he would have. He surely would have included the 1st amendment as part of the instructions, that "Congress shall make no law which abridges the freedom of speech...the right to peaceably assemble...and the right to redress government grievances." Pulling out a law that no one had ever used, that was not defined, and was selectively enforced only against the protesters, surely violated these Constitutional protections.

Gallagher denied that the protesters in August 2010 didn't know what "lodging" meant. To him it didn't matter. "I think you knew (you were illegally lodging) because the officer told you that you were." But did the officer's themselves know what constituted illegal lodging?

When asked on the stand, Lt. Fred Plageman, the highest ranking officer at the County Building, and who had directed the busts last August, testified that they cited people sleeping in bedding because "one could draw the conclusion that they are there to spend the night." But, as far as in custody arrests for illegal lodging, Plageman was surprisingly opposed. "Custody is a big drain on resources, and not necessary for this type of offense."

Frey told the court, " We see now, very clearly, that no one knows what "lodging"means until the time of trial. A written warning does not meet the test. And this court had so little confidence that the jury could find what "lodging" is, they felt they had to supply their own definition.

Indeed, Gallagher's language, which he claims came from a dictionary, contains suspect language. He used the term "settled in" as an indication of illegal behavior. There is legal precedent for this language. Article 13 of Indiana's 1851 Constitution stated "No Negro or Mulatto shall come into, or settle in, the State, after the adoption of this Constitution."

While PC 647 (e) does not prohibit blacks from coming into the State, it does condemn to jail any person found within the State boundaries who does not have some form of permission to to sleep, live, or spend the night. That means any person in the State of California can be arrested on sight if they can't prove they have permission to "live" somewhere.

This sounds little different than article 13 of the Indiana State Constitution of 1851. Just substitute the word "homeless" for "Negro."

But the County of Santa Cruz, the County Sheriffs, City police, and the judges at the Santa Cruz County Courthouse have all decided that sleeping is a criminal act. They have decided that depriving homeless people of any right to sleep, any ability to sleep on either public or private property is the cornerstone of their policy to criminalize homelessness. And the jails are full of homeless people.
"I instructed correctly at trial that sleeping is part of the definition of lodging. And you can be punished for that conduct."

DA DABKOWSKI moved on to the sentencing phase. "We are asking for 400 hours of community service from Mr. Frey. People who worked at the County Building said they feared for their safety when they had to walk by people."

Frey argued, "We were expressing ourselves. The first amendment is the most valid right we have. 400 hours of labor for expressing ourselves? That's outrageous. I didn't even know there was a "lodging" law. We were there to protest the Sleeping Ban of the City. We were speaking on behalf of the poorest of the poor. 400 hours is outrageous. I won't serve them."

"Then I sentence you to 6 months in County Jail," Gallagher announced, the maximum sentence possible under 647 (e). Frey asked to be released long enough so he could file an appeal.

"Okay. $50,000 bail!" Double-outrageous.
"I can't find it in any of the laws that were cited that you can't sleep. Go home tonight and sleep if you can, and let my words ring in your ears."

Then Gallagher turned to Gary Johnson, who is homeless. "Do you accept 400 hours of community service?"
"I have more of a problem with the 3 years probation clause "obey all laws." I have to sleep. I can't go three years without sleeping."
"Are you turning down the conditions?"
"It's not that I won't. I can't. I have to sleep. I have to sleep tonight. Where can I go and legally sleep in the State of California?"
"Do you accept the 400 hours of Community service?"
"As a citizen and a patriot, I cannot."
"Okay. Then 6 months in the County Jail for you too. Report to jail next Friday at 3PM."
"But I have to sleep TONIGHT."
"Okay. You can sleep in jail. You will be remanded into custody at the end of this hearing."

Gary Johnson and Ed Frey were handcuffed and led off to jail by County Sheriff's. A protest is scheduled for Monday, June 13th, on the County Courthouse steps beginning at 7:30AM and continuing until....