Jailing Attorney Ed Frey is an Outrage!

Attorney Ed Frey retrieves the Peace Flag from deputies and returns it to Peace Camp 2010 while protester, Vamp, stands by July 13, 2010.   Photo by Becky Johnson

 by Becky Johnson

August 5 2012


Santa Cruz, Ca. -- Respected local Civil Rights Attorney Ed Frey, has been ordered to report to the Santa Cruz County Jail on Wednesday morning of August 8th at 9AM. He is scheduled to begin serving the remainder of his six month sentence for "lodging" which is a highly-suspect section of the statewide disorderly conduct code. For instance, "lodging" is not defined anywhere in the code section, so law enforcement (and local DA's and Judges) can interpret what constitutes illegal "lodging" anyway they wish. And since it is a misdemeanor, a violation can result in immediate arrest. Activists consider it an end-run around loitering laws which have largely been declared unconstitutional.

Testimony by several sheriff's deputies at Ed Frey's trial cited observing defendants "sleeping" with no other index of criminal activity reported. During the 92 day protest, not a single littering ticket was issued. Ed Frey provided a porto-potty every night as he and hundreds of housed and homeless people alike slept in civil disobedience of laws which criminalize sleeping.

This model of protest was copied and expanded with Occupy Santa Cruz a year later. Ed Frey served on the legal support working group and defended the encampment in court.  In each of these cases, Ed worked tirelessly, providing a powerful voice, setting a moral and ethical framework for dealing with the influx of homeless people who joined the encampment primarily to meet their own physical needs. He even took a pregnant, homeless woman to his home for several nights.

Judge John Gallagher sentenced Frey in a fit of anger he later grew to regret.  The law Ed Frey was primarily focused on opposing was MC 6.36.010 section a, a.k.a. "the Sleeping Ban" for which the maximum fine would have been 8 hours of community service. DA Sara Dabkowski sought 400 hours of community service, which constitutes a 50 fold increase in sentencing. When Ed Frey refused to serve 400 hours of community service, Gallagher angrily sentenced him to the maximum sentence he could issue: 6 months in jail for a 1st offense.

Frey asked to be released on bail pending appeal, only to have Gallagher set bail at $50,000!
Frey served 14 days in jail before being set free at a hearing before a much calmer Judge Gallagher who set bail at $110 which was, apparently, the bail amount for that charge normally.

Frey's only real chance at appeal took place before appeals court panel, Judge Paul Marigonda and Judge Timothy Volkmann. Marigonda claimed the 6 month sentence was not excessive since he, as a prosecutor, had commonly sent defendants to jail for the maximum sentence when THEY refused community service.  Of course his defendants were involved in domestic violence cases, while Ed Frey was engaged in 1st amendment activities which victimized no one.

The bottom line is it is a CRAZY use of police, court, and jail resources to arrest people for SLEEPING. Be it protestors at a protest or homeless people who can't afford a roof over their heads. It is wrong. Mean. Cruel. Counter-productive. Selective. It is a human rights abuse done under color of law. And NO ONE who is convicted for sleeping will ever refrain from future sleeping. Sleeping is not a voluntary act.  Every living thing must sleep in order to live. Enforcing a sleeping ban is torturous and causes sickness, mental illness, depression, fatigue, poor immune function and yes, death.  The sleeping ban causes death.

Under these circumstances HOW CAN THEY SLEEP AT NIGHT? 

How can DA Bob Lee, County CAO Susan Mauriello, County Counsel Dana McRae, Sheriff Phil Wowack and Judges Gallagher, Connolly, Marigonda, and Commissioner Baskett sleep at night knowing they are the chief conspirators to foment this policy of persecution and judgement.

Attorney Ed Frey made a mockery of our local justice system so that Gallagher had to make up language to feed to his hand-picked jurors in order to get a conviction.  Gallagher even used language cribbed from the 1851 Indiana State Constitution which stated  "No Negro or Mulatto shall come into, or settle in, the State, after the adoption of this Constitution," when he defined "lodging" as "settling in or living in a place which may include sleeping" as HIS definition of what constituted illegal behavior statewide.

Please attend a protest beginning August 7th at 6PM to oppose the Jailing of Ed Frey. Assert our rights to seek redress of government grievances, our right to peaceably assemble, and our right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment or excessive fines.

Judges affirm that sleeping at any time or place is illegal

 Attorney Ed Frey is arrested for sleeping on August 7, 2010 as part of Peace Camp 2010

protest against sleeping bans. Photo by Bradley Stuart

 

Santa Cruz Superior Court Appeals Panel

affirms 6-month sentence for Sleeping

by Becky Johnson

June 17, 2012
(updated June 29th)

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- A two-judge panel has affirmed the conviction of Ed Frey and Gary Johnson for sleeping.  The law, PC 647 (e), the statewide anti-lodging law, outlaws illegal lodging. But it was clear from evidence introduced at trial, statements by Judge John Gallagher, and finally statements by the two appeals Judges, Paul Marigona and Timothy Volkmann, that "sleeping" equals "lodging" for "the people."

The judgement upholds the conviction for the two men, and Gallagher's draconian sentence of 6 months in jail for sleeping for each man. Unmentioned at the appeals hearing was that Gallagher had also set bail at $50,000 each, a bail that was later modified to $110, which was the bail schedule all along for this "crime."

Of course the "crime" in the case of PC 647 (e) violations is to use the extremely broad activity of "lodging" as an arrestable crime against homeless people who have no other choice than to live in public places, and against protestors, in this case, set against the backdrop of Occupy Santa Cruz.

A homeless man sleeps as part of Peace Camp 2010, in front of the Santa Cruz County Courthouse
on July 12, 2010  photo by Becky Johnson

Appeals Court Judge, Paul Marigonda began in support of denying the appeal by claiming the defendants were claiming "a right to sleep anywhere." He claimed that neither County law nor the 9th Amendment to the Federal Constitution did not provide "any such right. That government provide any such place to sleep, is not there either."

Marigonda then referenced three sources. He said that "lodging can be setting up in a place with the intention of spending the night," language which he cribbed from section "c" of the Santa Cruz City Ordinance 6.36.010 Camping prohibited.

"It can be to occupy a place temporarily," which Marigonda got from a regular dictionary.
"It can be to settle in or live in a place temporarily, that may include sleeping," which is the definition Judge John Gallagher cobbled together to give to the jury that convicted Frey and Johnson in May of 2011. He asserted that "time, place and manner restrictions" were "entirely reasonable."

Marigonda then addressed the six month sentence handed down to the two men. "It's not unusual when the two men involved refused to accept the terms of the probation."  Frey and Johnson had turned down 400 hours of community service and a 3-year probation including 'obey all laws'.

A homeless kitten explores at Peace Camp 2010

Photo by Chris Doyon

Johnson, who is homeless, had objected to the 'obey all laws' clause saying that he "needed to sleep" and that he couldn't go three years without sleeping. Gallagher had resolved that by jailing Johnson on the spot telling him he "could sleep in jail." Frey had called the 400 hours of community service "slavery." Considering that DA Sara Dabkowski had sought 50 times what a conviction for MC 6.36.010 section a, also known as "the sleeping ban," the law they were there sleeping in direct violation as an act of civil disobedience.

Ed Frey, who was both a defendant and the defense attorney, began by correcting Marigonda.

"We weren't attempting to say we had a right to sleep anywhere, we say we have a right to sleep somewhere.  We're asking the Superior Court to acknowledge that sleeping is a valid form of expression. We're all physical embodiments. Will we say to anyone who doesn't have any property rights or access to a physical abode, that you don't have a right to live?

Judge Timothy Volkmann assured Frey he had read Ed's brief "four times." "While sleeping is expressive conduct, it is subject to time, place and manner restrictions."
"The statute itself says you can't lodge anywhere in the State. And not at any time in a 24 hour day. And the California State Constitution doesn't allow cruel or unusual punishment. Has anyone else you know been sentenced to six months in jail for sleeping?"

"You didn't take advantage of your probation offer," responded Volkmann.

Marigonda, referencing his experience as "10 years as a prosecutor in domestic violence felony cases" he said it was a common practice to charge the maximum sentence for defendants who refused probation terms. "And it could be just a touch."

Frey countered, "We generally sentence based on harm to a victim. How did Gary and I harm anyone by sleeping in front of the courthouse when all the workers were home in bed?"

Marigonda: "Judgement of lower court is affirmed in its entirety."

But Frey and Johnson were not immediately jailed to complete their 6-month terms for sleeping.
Frey sought permission from the court to certify the case for further appeal, which the court granted. However, on Friday, June 29th, the court turned him down. So now he is preparing a writ of Habeas Corpus to appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of California.

Song-Crime verdict sustained by Santa Cruz Appeals Court

by Becky Johnson

July 21, 2011

Scene of the Crime: the Free Speech zone underneath Sean Reilly's window on Pacific Ave in front of Bookshop Santa Cruz, owned by Mayor Ryan Coonerty's sister.

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- The only wrinkle is that there were only two judges. Otherwise, all was the same as before. In the Robert Norse/Robert Facer 'Song-Crime' appeal, a Santa Cruz County Superior Court appeals panel sustained their conviction last September for having sung a few songs on Pacific Ave. on January 6th, 2010. And, in a carbon-copy rationalization, they insisted the defendants had sung "for four hours straight" on a public sidewalk in downtown Santa Cruz.



"Commissioner Basket concluded that the length of the protest, the fixed location, an electronic organ, a drum, a guitar over a period of 4 hours constituted unreasonably disturbing noise," Judge Paul Burdick offered as proof of his decision. The problem was, we didn't sing for four hours. In fact, we sang on and off for a little over an hour at an event we had announced in advance would last two hours. Nor did any other witness testify that we sang that long, that we were too loud or too annoying. In fact, Commissioner Basket had to have ruled that the sole witness--the citizen complainant cum "witness" Sean Reilly was the ONLY reliable witness. For seven eye-witnesses testified that no one from our group even got to the location until 1:30PM and that no one even began to sing until 1:45PM.

Baskett must have ruled that the 7 witnesses testimony in court under penalty of perjury was unreliable. For at an appeals hearing, only testimony by the winning party is considered.

However, Baskett did not entirely discount the testimony of the eyewitnesses who claimed to have been in a meeting several blocks away until 12:30PM--one and a half hours AFTER Reilly claimed he heard "the same group singing," at the fixed location.

Baskett used this "evidence" of a prior meeting where we included in our planning, a plan to include music as part of the protest, to convict Robert Facer. For Facer never sang a word on January 6th but was convicted of "unreasonably disturbing noise,"according to Baskett, for engaging in a conspiracy to create an unreasonably disturbing noise when she alleged that we PLANNED to disturb the staff at Bookshop Santa Cruz---a conclusion she made up wholly since no one on either side testified to that claim.

Judge Paul Marigonda concurred with Burdick's preliminary decision but eagerly agreed to certify a further appeal to a higher court--unusual in infraction cases.

Attorney Ed Frey, representing Robert Facer argued that the statute in question needed to satisfy two tests. "Brown established for all political protests, that unless the speech presents a clear and present danger of immediate violence or the protest is intended solely to disturb, that the speech cannot be abridged. Neither of those conditions were met by this protest. So how do you get around the first amendment?"

Burdick explained why his ruling was reasonable. "I believe Brown involved a protest on a University campus," he ventured. "Here, people were occupying space in a commercial business district, and people's conduct could interfere with people coming and going, and since their were apartments upstairs, people attempting to peacefully enjoy their homes."

Ed Frey challenged Burdick's claim. "I don't see anything in here saying it's on a college campus. What if the protest were set up on a vacant lot next to the University? Are you saying that their 1st amendment rights wouldn't apply there?

"Streets and parks have been places where we traditionally peaceably assemble, where we communicate out thoughts, since ancient times. And in this case, the defendants were in the Free Speech Zone on a public sidewalk. If they couldn't practice their 1st amendment rights there, where could they?"

Too bad Judge Ariadne Symons, not present due to a sudden family emergency, wasn't there to tell us we "could sing in a park."

"As for the complaining witness, Ed argued, "Sean Reilly lived at that location for four years. He knew what to expect when he goes home. Are you saying that a single citizen can veto the 1st amendment?"

"One person can make a difference," Judge Paul Marigonda piously retorted.

Sean Reilly takes a break from one of many hearings outside of Commissioner Baskett's court as he testifies against four people for singing. Photo by Becky Johnson

"As to determination of credibility, the trial court judge had to determine was that witness reasonable. There is nothing on the record to say Mr. Reilly's testimony was not reliable."

"Commissioner Baskett heard all the evidence," Judge Paul Marigonda added.

"All your arguments are well taken including details from the conviction of Becky Johnson," Burdick continued. "The court found a person has the right to be free from being disturbed in their home. Courts must do a balancing act and determine if sufficient evidence exists of a violation occurring."

Despite this rule, Ed Frey addressed the defense sworn testimony. "This court seems to be depending in part at least on the length of time the music was played. Every one of the defendants testified they sang an hour and a quarter at most."

"We can't address any facts in dispute, " Burdick apologized.

"But these facts are not in dispute, Frey concluded. "The witness, Sean Reilly testified that he did not look out the window until 2 PM. This is not a fact in dispute. The City has not proven its case and this conviction should be overturned."

Robert Norse, appearing pro per, introduced himself as "a writer and an activist." Norse who is not an attorney addressed the finding that singing is not a necessary component to speech.

"It would seem that the court finds that singing anywhere at any time could be outlawed, and that would tend to disallow singing on all occasions. This ruling affects not only us, but all performers, activists, musicians and the audiences we interact with --and it is the law that is at issue. Which act provides a violation? I didn't know. Ms. Johnson didn't know. And when we asked Officer Schoenfield repeatedly, SHE didn't know or couldn't tell us."

Then Norse addressed the first part of the ordinance. The section which addressed unreasonably disturbing noises between 10PM and 8AM. Norse pointed out that THIS section of the municipal code does address residents and sleeping quarters. So why were the defendants convicted for what might have been a violation of the after 10PM ordinance?

Burdick assured Norse that they 'd already read and considered all written arguments. And that the time had expired. "Does a day sleeper have a reasonable expectation of privacy?"