Judge Burdick issues sanctions against DA's office

Banner from a rally held by the Brown Berets of Watsonville
in support of the Santa Cruz Eleven. 

Photo by Becky Johnson May 4, 2012

by Becky Johnson
Oct 9 2012

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- I went to court this morning. There was much confusion. At my August 20th hearing, I had thought that only Franklin "Angel" Alcantara and Cameron Larendeau were required to be at this hearing. But my lawyer called me yesterday, apologized for not being able to come to the hearing himself, and told me one of the other attorneys had agreed to appear on my behalf.

When I got to court, only Angel and Cameron's names were on the court docket. Wonderful. Someone screwed up again, I thought. I wonder who.

They call our case "The Occupy Case" which is ironic, considering all the arguments that went back and forth to disassociate the 75 River Street Occupation of a long, empty bank building from Occupy Santa Cruz and its encampment in San Lorenzo Park. In the end, OSC stood up and formed a working group to provide support to the Santa Cruz Eleven as we came to be called.

In my own case, I had a lot to do with the encampment in San Lorenzo Park and very little to do with the 75 River Street building takeover, but this case is not about facts and evidence. 

We are now down to seven defendants. Bradley Stuart Allen, Alex Darocy, Grant Wilson, and Ed Rector have all had their charges dismissed due to lack of evidence against them. Judge Burdick had also found the case against Cameron and Angel to be lacking evidence, but ADA Rebekah Young refiled against them.  This hearing had been scheduled by Cameron's attorney, Briggs, and Angel's attorney Ruben.  But Ruben wasn't there. Nor was Briggs. Lisa McCaney, appearing on their behalf asked Young "Where is the additional evidence that you said you had to refile charges against my client?" A photograph referred to in a police report has still not been produced.

Young replied that she had been "confused" as to which motion would be resolved that day. She wasn't the only one!  Burdick had sharp words for Ms. Young.

"Its my understanding that I'll be ruling on her motion independent of any discovery violations under discussion. Violations of due process and the procedural morass that has brought us to this point." 
This "point" being ten months into the legal process, eight months after sheriff's came to my home and arrested me while I was cooking pancakes, and still two more months to go just to get to my preliminary hearing. And I am eager to get to that point too, where I believe I will too be able to dispense with the specious charges against me. You see, the DA has no case against me.

"I apologize. I'm not prepared to argue her motion." What else is new in this case?

"The people here have a right to a preliminary hearing, not an additional discussion and no new facts," Burdick told her.

"Your honor, I believed the two sole witnesses at the preliminary hearing to be sufficient."

"She says she has additional witnesses who can identify Mr. Alcantara and Mr. Larandeau but none have been forthcoming," McCaney charged.

"Work has been extremely sloppy and we don't have viable opposition papers." But then inexplicably he said "I'm going to deny the motion to dismiss."

Burdick asked if there were any other discovery issues. Attorneys complained about an empty file on one of the disks, but Young insisted that that was how the file came from the SCPD. None of the attorneys mentioned that the videos released many months ago did not have soundtracks, but now, on videos released August 20th, the sound was back but without explanation. Of course this meant the attorneys (and defendants) must now go back and watch over 25 hours of videotape again in order to LISTEN to the dialogue of police engaged in while recording to see if there is more evidence there.

Hackett, appearing on behalf of Norse's attorney David Beauvais said that Beauvais had repeatedly requested for procedural manuals on instructions for police on crowd control, use of tear gas, and their policy concerning 1st amendment issues.

Young answered that the SCPD "has no first amendment policy." Burdick seemed puzzled by this. "There must be some manual or procedures for crowd control and the use of chemical agents."

Should it be achieved by subpoena? one of the defense attorneys quipped.

Burdick ignored this and just instructed Young to "look for those." 

Then Burdick announced that he had contemplated what the appropriate sanctions against the DA's office should be springing from his statement on August 20th. He ruled that the sanctions would be to bill the DA's office for additional expenses that out of county attorneys only had when they were required to come to attend additional hearings due to Young's failures to provide discovery in a timely or forthright manner. There would be no relief for defendants dragged to every hearing on threat of arrest, missing work, school, time with loved ones and incurring costs.  Attorneys are paid, defendants are not.

The remaining defendants face a preliminary hearing on January 7th at 9AM in Dept 6. A readiness hearing is scheduled for January 4th also at 9AM.

LINDA LEMASTER TRIAL TO BEGIN WEDNESDAY

In other cases, Linda Lemaster's 647 ( e) "lodging" trial launches October 15th at 9AM in Dept 1 before Judge Rebecca Connolly. A pre-trial hearing is scheduled for 8:30AM in Dept 1 Oct 10th. Both cases will be heard at Santa Cruz Superior Court, 701 Ocean St. Santa Cruz, Ca. 95060

DA Rebekah Young loses 2nd motion to dismiss Judge Burdick

 NOTE TO READER: As one of the defendants in this case, my June 25th preliminary hearing was postponed because of Young's motion where she admitted she "misread 170.6." Now I must wait until August 20th to clear my name. My first preliminary hearing had been scheduled for March 5th, but was postponed then because Judge Ariadne Symons took 5 court hearings to appoint me a public defender. My fellow defendants and I have been dragged through the mud for months now, smeared as "trespassers" and "vandals" for our mostly peripheral connection to a non-violent peaceful occupation of a long empty bank building. That DA Bob Lee is overcharging in this case, is only one issue. With Councilmember Katherine Beiers, City Manager Martine Bernal, SENTINEL photographer, Schmuel Thayer, and Santa Cruz Patch reporter, Alex Huebner reported to have been in the building, defendants claim selective enforcement.  Finally, the prosecution of high profile alternative media journalists with serious felonies signals a creeping fascism which chills protest and freedom of speech. Does DA Bob Lee represent the cause of the citizens of Santa Cruz or does he really work for Wells Fargo, making sure empty buildings in our community remain unavailable for years at a time?   --- Becky Johnson, Ed. and defendant, santacruzeleven.org

Police photo of protesters taken at 4:24PM November 30, 2011

Motion to disqualify judge denied in

Santa Cruz bank takeover case

By Jessica M. Pasko - Santa Cruz Sentinel

Posted:   07/05/2012 01:09:29 PM PDT

Found online here.

SANTA CRUZ - A judge has denied a prosecutor's motion for a new judge in the case of the takeover of a former Wells Fargo bank last year. Assistant District Attorney Rebekah Young had sought to disqualify Judge Paul Burdick from presiding over the cases of the five defendants whose preliminary hearings have not yet taken place. Burdick previously dismissed the charges against six of the 11 people initially charged in connection with the nearly-three-day occupation of 75 River St., a vacant former bank in downtown Santa Cruz.
 
Defense attorneys for Gabriella Ripleyphipps, Becky Johnson, Robert Norse, Brent Adams and Desiree Foster had objected to the motion to disqualify Burdick, calling it "untimely."
Burdick sided with the defense and will remain the presiding judge for the preliminary hearing, which is set for Aug. 20. All five face felony counts of conspiracy and vandalism, as well as misdemeanor trespassing.
  
Those charges were dismissed earlier this year against Bradley Allen, Alex Darocy, Edward Rector, Grant Wilson, Franklin Alcantara and Cameron Laurendeau. Young later re-filed the charges against Laurendeau and Alcantara, and their new preliminary hearing will be heard by Judge Ariadne Symons later this month.

A group declaring themselves to be "acting anonymously and autonomously but in solidarity with Occupy Santa Cruz" took over the building late last year with the announced intentions of turning it into a community center in protest of the banks' role in the national economic downfall. Amid numerous police negotiations, the group left the building peacefully after close to 72 hours.

Follow Sentinel reporter Jessica M. Pasko on Twitter: @jmpasko96

NEXT COURT DATES: July 23 2012 preliminary hearing  -- Dept 7 --Franklin "Angel" Alcantara and Cameron Laurendeau

August 20 2012 preliminary hearing -- Dept. 6 -- 9AM -- Robert Norse Kahn, Desiree Foster, Gabriella Ripplyphipps, Brent Adams, and  Becky Johnson

Santa Cruz Eleven case stalled

 Endless hearings ordered to appear before Judges where nothing of substance

happens is part of the problem, and part of the abuse

by Becky Johnson
June 2, 2012

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- In what has become a long series of dreary court hearings where almost nothing happens, Judge Sillman did not fail to disappoint. Friday, the June 1st hearing was ostensibly to install defendant, Brent Adams' public defender, to consider whether DA Rebekah Young had finally turned over sufficient discovery, and to set a new, NEW date for a preliminary hearing (This will be my THIRD date for a preliminary hearing).  In all of these hearings, should any defendant not appear in the proper court at the proper time, a warrant is issued for their arrest.

I call it punishment prior to conviction.  DA Bob Lee and his henchwoman, Rebekah Young have been hanging up the lives of 11 citizen activists, overcharging them with duel felonies and misdemeanors, and smeared them as "vandals" and "trespassers" who "don't respect private property." His attack on alternative media journalists is naked and self-serving. How can one journalist covering the event be ignored and another charged with felonies for the same actions? But this is the essence of the charges against nearly half of the defendants. One hundred to three-hundred people went into the building in 3 days time, but only these 11 have been charged.

In court on Friday, June 1st, Sillman curtly announced that the attorney he had appointed for Brent Adams the previous week "was not available" and that he was in the process of locating whether Attorney Charlie Stevens was in the building and could be appointed. Adams, who has been appearing pro per since his former PD, Ryan Murphy, discharged himself a week ago, told Sillman " I've already spoken with a Public Defender and he's agreed to represent me."

"Who is that?" Sillman asked.

"Jonathan Gettleman," Brent replied.
"We are not in the process of reaching that particular name," Sillman replied and ordered all defendants back in court ANOTHER week later at 8:15AM rather than appoint Gettleman on the spot. That means all 5 defendants, their 5 attorneys, press, and supporters must yet again rearrange their schedules, find transportation, parking, and appear under threat of arrest AGAIN because Sillman refused to appoint a PD that the defendant wanted and would be satisfied with.



For me, it's deja vu all over again.  Judge Ariadne Symons took five hearings to appoint me a public defender, when she could have appointed the attorney I wanted on day one. She accused me of having "other income" and challenged  that since I own a 15 year old car that I had recently purchased for $1,500,  as "proof" that I was income-eligible for the services of a public defender.




We all saw the results of failing to appear at one of Sillman's hearings. When DA Rebekah Young refiled charges on two defendants whose charges had previously been dismissed by Judge Paul Burdick, she ordered defendants Cameron Larendau and Franklin "Angel" Alcantara to be present in court at 8:30AM. When neither defendant nor either of their attorneys appeared, Sillman ordered a warrant issued for each of them. But supporters murmured that it was highly unlikely that all four people had blown off the hearing. A far more likely scenario was that DA Rebekah Young had made yet another misstep and failed to notify anyone properly.


This judicial merry-go round is getting me queasy.  The next surreal act is scheduled for June 8th at 8:15AM in Dept. 6.  Meanwhile, "victim" Wells Fargo Bank has not rented 75 River Street yet, and with an asking rental of $35, 231.34 per month, it's going to be a cold day in hell before anyone rents that building. And if the 11 (now 7) defendants wind up in prison with felony convictions, well, Wells Fargo wins. You see, Wells Fargo is the biggest investor in the for-profit prison industry in the United States. Not only do they tell the police and DA to do their bidding at public expense, but they profit from anyone jailed, whether justly or not.



They are a bank. It is all about numbers for them. They charge 11 people with "trespass" and "vandalism" and attempt to extort a phony "$31,000" in damages from the defendants. Later, while under oath, Det. Gunter of the SCPD testified that when he checked "The damages were not as severe as we first thought."  Now the damages are "$21,000". The only "proof" of any damages were police photos of graffiti on the air conditioning ducts on the ROOF of the building! It is doubtful it cost $21,000 in spray paint to restore the ducts to their original...beauty.

I suspect the ACTUAL damage to the building to be in the hundreds, NOT thousands of dollars range. Perhaps DA Bob Lee should investigate Wells Fargo for putting up such outrageous claims of damages that it amounts to fraud.



I've been thinking about Rosa Parks lately.  I compared Rosa Parks to the people who occupied 75 River Street-- a vacant bank building--and tried to turn it into a community center.  It was a noble idea. To turn a blighted building, hoarded by a greedy and heartless bank purely for tax benefits, into a vibrant building serving the public good. I'd long eyed that building as a perfect homeless shelter, since it sat empty year after year employing no one, sheltering no one,  and taking up useful space uselessly.  In 2010, while 75 River Street sat empty, four homeless people died of exposure out of doors in Santa Cruz.


Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of that bus, and she was arrested.  She broke the law intentionally, but did so for the greater good. The people who occupied 75 River Street were like Rosa Parks. They intentionally broke the law, but did so for the greater good.  Now let me make one thing clear:  I am no Rosa Parks. In this scenario, I would have been the person who stayed at the bus stop and never got on that bus in the first place. I'd be like the person who SAW Rosa Parks' brave act and cheered her on from the sidelines.  You see, I never went into the building. I'm a big chicken.

Yet the toll for the defendants is piling up. "Angel" Alcantara was able to make it to court that day and quash the warrant. But Cameron Larendau could not. He lives in Oakland, CA., doesn't own a car, and it takes him 3 and a half hours by public transportation to come to each court appearance. Desiree Foster, the youngest defendant at 19 years of age, is taking care of her mother who is undergoing chemotherapy for cancer. When Desiree was arrested, her mom bailed her out of jail, but they really couldn't afford the $500. Shortly after that, Desiree attempted suicide and was hospitalized. In my own case, I was handcuffed at my home, carted to jail, and spent the night locked up in "G" Dorm.

The costs to our 1st amendment rights are harder to calculate. Who has been too chilled to join a march since the prosecutions were announced? Who no longer wants to associate with the 11 activists charged lest they be next, or with anyone involved in Occupy Santa Cruz?  And what photographer, journalist or blogger isn't chilled when the CONTENT of their reporting is being charged as "aiding" and "abetting" criminal activity? Yet "the people" as represented by DA Bob Lee march forward, entirely at public expense, and push forward Bob's dirty little dog and pony show, where our rights to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, our rights to peaceably assemble, and our rights to seek redress of government grievances are severely challenged and truncated just to promote the interests of Wells Fargo and the status quo.  Where is State Attorney General Kamela Harris on this? Does SHE approve of what DA Bob Lee is doing?

Charges thrown out against four Occupy Bank takeover protesters

Two Occupy Santa Cruz members and  supporters of the Santa Cruz Eleven celebrate outside the courtroom following Judge Burdick's ruling to dismiss all charges against four of the defendants. Photo by Becky Johnson

NOTE TO READER:  I appreciate the in-depth coverage the Santa Cruz Patch has given this story, and this article is no exception. However, I must disagree with one claim printed in the article: that defendant Darocy "was seen vandalizing the bank." I beg to differ. As a defendant in the case, I've been privy to all the police reports, over 600 photographs, and 11 videos released by DA Bob Lee on youtube. In addition, I attended both preliminary hearings in their entirety. At no point was any evidence of Alex Darocy being "seen vandalizing the bank." Patch editor, Brad Kava was very critical of Darocy in an editorial he published on March 16, 2012 but stated that on November 30th he personally saw Darocy " put up cardboard to block the windows." I really don't think that qualifies as vandalism and Kava should say what he means rather than to inform his readers by innuendo.  --- Becky Johnson, Ed.

Charges Thrown Out Against Four Occupy Bank Takeover Protesters

Judge Paul P. Burdick said there wasn't enough evidence to bring the four protesters charged with trespass and conspiracy to trial. Prosecutor Rebekah Young says she will refile on two of them.

• By Brad Kava
• April 25, 2012

ARTICLE FOUND ONLINE HERE.

   

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- A Santa Cruz judge Wednesday threw out charges against four Occupy protestors accused of trespassing and vandalizing the vacant Coast Commercial Bank at 75 River St. last November. Judge Paul P. Burdick said there was no evidence linking the four to the crime of trespass or to a conspiracy to commit felony vandalism at the bank that reported $20,000-$22-000 of expenses cleaning up electrical fixtures, wiring, graffiti and damaged furniture by protesters who held the building for three days.
 
Burdick also said that the testimony of Santa Cruz Police officer David Gunter who was the lead investigator on the case "was not credible." The judge said the officer testified in one hearing that he was present in the bank on Dec. 2, but in another hearing said he wasn't.

"I discharge all four defendants on all counts alleged," Burdick said, after issuing an earlier warning that he would have anyone who made outbursts taken from the courtroom.  The defendants quietly celebrated outside the courtroom Wednesday morning.

"I feel relieved, very relieved," said Grant Wilson, who faced two years in jail and $22,000 of damages if convicted. "It's very unsettling to be falsely charged with serious crimes. My picture doesn't reflect how happy I feel."

This was a preliminary hearing to decide if there was enough evidence to bring Wilson, Franklin Alacantara,  Edward Rector and Cameron Laurendau to trial.
 
Prosecutor Rebekah Young said she would refile charges on Alacantara and Laurendau based on evidence she would provide by other Santa Cruz officers, Sgt. Mike Harms and Sgt. Mike Hedley.
The prosecution's case had no direct evidence of these four committing vandalism, nor could it even prove they were in the bank after being told to leave.

Two of the other 11 charged in the case were bound over for trial earlier. Alex Darocy, who claims to be a journalist but was seen vandalizing the bank and harassing actual journalists and Bradley Stuart Allen, whose published photos of the takeover were used as evidence against him will be tried May, 29.

Allen's claim that he was covering the event for independent news media was backed up by the ACLU and the Society for Professional Journalists. Patch will follow up the story later today.

Judge Burdick dismisses charges against four of the Santa Cruz Eleven

Steve Pleich passes Sgt. Harms and Officer Hedley as he arrives for Judge Burdick's preliminary hearing for four of the Santa Cruz Eleven. Photo by Becky Johnson 

Seven defendants, also similarly charged with 75 River Street Occupation still face felony and misdemeanor charges

by Becky Johnson

April 25, 2012

Santa Cruz, Ca. --  DA Bob Lee's prosecution (some say "witchhunt") of eleven activists and alternative media journalists came to a crashing halt today as Judge Paul Burdick stopped the preliminary hearing after hearing only two prosecution witnesses.

After listening to Officer William Winston of the SCPD and Det. David Gunter's testimony, Burdick challenged Assistant DA Rebekah Young by saying "Ms. Young, you agree that none of these four defendants committed any act of vandalism."

Young offered that if there were any questions, she had brought Sgt. Harms and Officer Hedley to court "just in case." Neither could testify, of course, since neither officer was on the prosecution's witness list.   Burdick ignored her and went on, "I have no evidence in this record that any of these defendants committed any act of vandalism.  You are relying on an "aiding" and "abetting" theory?"

"That's correct."

 "Do you have anything even by inference that anyone intended for anyone else to trespass?"

"It's more helpful, of course," Young offered," if you have defendants who actually committed the crimes while simultaneously witnessing 50, 80 others who also entered the building,"

"I'm concerned the evidence merely shows that the entire group was marching, as the flier explained 'to a foreclosed property' and intended to protest in front of the building. Do you have any evidence that suggests anyone intended to do anything other than mill about and not enter?"

Burdick continued. "My sense of what the evidence established, was that almost immediately someone entered the building. The officers testified there were "no signs of forced entry." Ms. Young, you need to establish that these four defendants intended to enter the building, occupy for  a period of time, and stay after being ordered to leave. There isn't anything in the evidence to infer that they did.

All you've shown is that as part of the protest, when like others, they saw the doors were open, they went in and out to see what was happening."



SCPD police evidence photo of SENTINEL reporter, Jessica
Pasko photographed parking on the property and walking to 
get her story on December 1st at 75 River Street. Pasko was not charged.

"Your Honor, there's no fun in taking over a building you're allowed to be in. That was the point. To break the law."

"And, you've presented no evidence that any of them were in the building after November 30th."

Young: "You have to look at the group as a whole. They were meeting in concert with other protesters.  Protesters, some of  who were outside the building with their arms clasped."

SCPD evidence photo of protesters, some with arms locked, standing together outside 75 River Street on November 30th. Photo is time stamped at 4:24PM, more than 3 hours before police testimony that protesters were warned they were trespassing and must leave or be arrested.

"None of the four here." 

Young: "Some were with bandanas covering their faces or hiding their identity. They knew they were trespassing."

Burdick: Ms. Young, you have presented no evidence that they wouldn't leave quietly if asked.
You paint with too broad a brush. The evidence is insufficient that anyone intended to commit trespass by design or agreement with other parties. I move to discharge all four defendants.  Someone did commit a crime in that building. Crimes were committed by some individuals, and we don't condone this behavior, but the evidence does not show it was done by these individuals."

Young: I will move to refile charges against Franklin Alcantara and Cameron Laurendau. We have video as explained by Det. Gunter, of Mr. Laurendau inside the building."

Burdick:  And it was in the daytime. Testimony was that the warning given by Sgt. Harms was after dark. And Gunter's testimony is not credible. Gunter testified on March 13th that he was not present at 75 River Street on December 2nd. On Monday, April 23rd, he testified he was present at the building on December 2nd. His testimony is discredited.

Stunned audience members struggled to remain under control.

 Linda Lemaster celebrates the dismissal of charges
against Franklin "Angel" Alcantara, Grant Wilson,
Cameron Laurendau, and Edward Rector by Judge
Paul Burdick on April 25th. Photo by Becky Johnson

But minutes later, outside the courtroom, defendants, family members, and supporters celebrated with smiles all around. While seven are still charged with felony conspiracy to trespass and vandalism as well as misdemeanor charges, the news for the remaining defendants is very good. Unless the police and DA come up with some new evidence that they haven't uncovered in nearly five months after the occupation of the vacant bank building, chances are poor that Young can get a conviction.

Those wishing to sign the petition to Free the Santa Cruz Eleven are invited to do so at santacruzeleven.org

COMMENTARY BY ROBERT NORSE

 Becky: I'm amazed and delighted with this story. I don't know how you could write down so many details so fast. I tried and now have to decipher my own handwriting. Glad you took the time and trouble.

HOLD THE HOOPLAH

I'm less celebratory than many about these dismissals (though they're definitely a good sign). A local attorney advises me that because Burdick declined to dismiss the charges "with prejudice" they can be refiled. This is what Young said she'd do in the cases of Angel and Cameron. She also suggested she'd be reviewing the cases of Ed and Grant.

Further, Burdick denied a motion by Angel's lawyer, Rubin, to sanction D.A. Young for prosecutorial misconduct. Young apparently presented briefings to the judge that she didn't supply to the defense. She also presented Gunter's contradictory testimony that seemed to indicate he was either mistaken or lying about being present on December 2nd.

It wasn't clear to me whether these two actions or some other eager blunder by Young was the focus of Rubin's motion, but Burdick summarily denied it. Had Burdick actually granted or even held a hearing about Rubin's motion to hold Young accountable it, it might have actually had a future deterrent effect on the color-by-numbers “being-in-the-building-is-a-conspiracy” prosecutor.

Instead it appeared Burdick was doing all he count to counsel and coach Young in her next appearance (read: refiling of charges). His advice may give her what she needs to provide to give a patina of plausibility to this costly charade and mechanically refile charges with new police witnesses.


ONE POSITIVE NOTE

On the upside, Young's office--in my case--after four failures to provide video tapes requested, advised me yesterday that she's finally turning over video, available a week before to other defendants.

I hope to post some of it on-line to show the extent of local interest in this attempt to reclaim space. (Those worried they might be fingered as “co-conspirators” should know that the D.A. already has all this video, so it's nothing new to them.)

We're still waiting for her to provide supplementary police reports and other evidence—still ignored in our requests.Indeed on March 13th when Young failed to give a date for handing over all the evidence in my case, Burdick set the date for a Motion to Compel her to give over this stuff May 18 8:15 AM in Dept. 6. No other attorney to my knowledge has filed such a motion--which makes me wonder how they're spending their time.

During Monday's Preliminary Examination of the 4, police revealed there were still more video just sitting idly on police servers unreclaimed and not yet available to the defense. Either willful misconduct and/or negligence by the SCPD and the D.A.'s office--in my book. Today's Sentinel notes numerous stabbing and murder cases being brought into court (See http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_20480393/santa-cruz-man-face-trial-murder-woman-whose
and
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_20483855/cops-and-courts-april-26-2012).

Yet court, D.A., police, defense, and community time and money is going to continue to be showered on this political attack on Occupy Santa Cruz and local activists.They may put even more energy into this phony prosecution because part of their dirty underwear has been exposed here..


PAST TIME TO FIGHT BACK

Which means we need to get more organizations on board demanding these charges be dropped. We need more protests organized at the courthouse. We need an attorney to ready a civil lawsuit when and if these charges are dropped. (Perhaps Grant or Ed could start even now, if their charges aren't refiled.).

Every day that a defendant is under the toxic pressure of this prosecution. Every hour she or he loses from work. Every instance of discrimination in employment or housing that results from this smear job--should be compensated for. And the unrecoverable cost is even greater: How many have been deterred from active protest by this chilling witchhunt? How many are frightened to speak their mind or raising his voice against the greater criminals--the Wells Fargo banksters, the Drug War prison pushers, the Obama/Romney warmongers, the local authorities who routine crush homeless lives?

One "liberal" City Council candidate who recently announced his campaign nervously declined to wear a "Empty Buildings are THE crime. Free the Santa Cruz Eleven!" sticker because it was too "controversial". Another City Council member clearly in the building has maintained a silence on this issue instead of denouncing the proceedings. And we haven't heard a peep from The Sentinel and Patch, both of whom had “trespassers” in the building whose identities are known to the police.

The effects of this buckshot attack on Occupy Santa Cruz has had cascading effects that undermine all serious political dissent. For the health of each of us and of our community, it's time to fight back.

Judge says the prosecution "Might have some problems" with case against Bank Takeover

  SCPD police evidence photo of Councilmember Katherine Beiers leaving the scene of the crime at 75 River Street at 3:31PM on December 1st

 

NOTE TO READER: This excellent article by Brad Kava of the Santa Cruz Patch contains many details of Monday's April 23rd preliminary hearing for four of the Santa Cruz Eleven. However, Gunter did not testify to damage Kava describes as "tearing up pipes, damaging electrical fixtures, writing on walls," nor have any of the over 600 photos provided to defense attorneys shown this. Gunter on March 13th described "graffiti inside the elevator" but no photo of that damage has been turned over to the defense. The ONLY  graffiti shown in police photos was on the air conditioning ducts on the ROOF. Gunter also testified that the property manager told him over the telephone that the work had been completed "by 5 contractors" but that he did not have copies of those work orders and had not followed up by contacting any of the contractors directly. None of the bills for damages have been turned over to the defense as of April 25th, almost 3 months after charges were first filed and almost 5 months after the building was "vandalized."   In the meantime, one defendant has attempted suicide, two defendants have been denied the ability to renew their teaching credentials, several defendants have spent thousands of dollars on bail money and private attorneys. One defendant may have lost her housing due to these charges. Another defendant must travel by public transportation for 3 and a half hours each way to attend each hearing. All citizens must worry about walking in a march or attending a meeting, fearing that they too will be arrested for felony "aiding and abetting" should another person at the meeting or march actually commit a crime.

                                                   --- Becky Johnson, Ed.   (full disclosure: I am a defendant in this case)

  "Squat the World" graffiti at 75 River Street SCPD evidence photo, Dec 5, 2011

Judge Says the Prosecution "Might Have Some Problems" With Case Against Bank Takeover Defendants

• By Brad Kava
• April 23, 2012

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- At the first day of a preliminary hearing, Santa Cruz County Judge Paul P. Burdick asked the prosecution to come up with some arguments about why he should carry the case to trial.

   

In a surprising development, a Santa Cruz County judge told a courtroom Monday that the state's case against four protesters accused of trespassing and vandalism last November at the vacant Coast Commerce Bank appeared to be lacking sufficient evidence to go to trial.
  
"I have to say that at first blush 'The People' might have some problems with these four defendants," Judge Paul P. Burdick said at the end of the first day of preliminary hearing. The four defendants – Franklin Alacantara,  Edward Rector, Grant Wilson and Cameron Laurendau – have been charged with felony conspiracy to commit vandalism, for being part of a takeover of the vacant bank at 75 River St. Nov. 30, which left the building with $22,000 of damage.

If convicted they could be sentenced to three years in prison and a fine that would cover the damages, according to prosecutor Rebekah Young. The prosecutor has claimed that by trespassing in the bank building, the suspects are guilty of the vandalism that resulted. She has filed a conspiracy charge that she says ties the trespass to the vandalism.

Four public defenders arguing against her said that because this is a first amendment protest, a higher standard of proof is needed, such as direct evidence of a crime.

More than 100 people were in and out of the bank building during the protest, according to testimony Monday. However, District Attorney Bob Lee and Santa Cruz Police only came up with enough evidence to charge 11 people. The DA's office even posted pictures and videos on YouTube and Facebook asking the public to help identify suspects.

Evidence presented Monday seemed shaky during testimony by two Santa Cruz Police officers.
Officer William Winston said he saw two of the suspects going in and out of the bank building, but didn't witness them doing any vandalism, nor could he say how long they stayed in the building. Detective David Gunter saw none of the suspects at the bank, but as the officer put in charge of the investigation, he recognized them from videos and pictures taken by other officers.

However, he too could provide no evidence that they stayed in the building after being told to leave, one of the requirements for trespass. Nor could he provide evidence that they had met and organized the takeover, which would document the conspiracy charge.

"They are trying to scoop up too many people into a net," said defense attorney Jamyrson Pattori, after the judge asked the prosecutor to present more legal arguments via email before oral arguments continue Wednesday at 10 a.m.. "Some people were just looky-loos and some kids were just attracted to the music. They are just trying to incorporate everybody."

Judge Burdick asked Young, the prosecutor, to supply him with an email listing cases setting precedents for her arguments to be received by him and the defense attorneys by noon Tuesday. Then, the preliminary hearing would continue Wednesday.

A preliminary hearing is the chance for the judge to decide if there is enough evidence to hold a trial. Two of the 11, Alex Darocy and Bradley Stuart Allen, will be tried May 29. The others are still pending preliminary hearings.

Some other suprising things emerged in the hearing.
*The prosecutor asked to use photographs taken inside the bank by the defendants because, she said, they were better than the ones submitted by police.

Her request was denied because the photos were used in the hearing of Darocy and Allen, and hadn't been given to defense attorneys as part of discovery in this case.

*Police had three grenadiers standing by on November 30 prepared to launch chemical weapon grenades into the bank, if needed. Detective Gunter was one of them, but he said he was sent away after a short time appraising the takeover.

*The estimated cost of the damages dropped from $30,000 to &20,000-$22,000, after police asked the banks lessee, Wells Fargo, to provide itemized accounting of the repairs needed to fix the damage done by vandals who tore up pipes, damaged electrical fixtures, wrote on walls and piled up furniture to block doors.

*District Attorney Bob Lee assigned one of his newest prosecutors to the case. Rebekah Young, a former TV journalist, only started working for the office in December and this is her first big local case. She had no investigators or backup attorneys at her table, something unusual for such a high-profile case.

*It took the District Attorney three months to file the 11 charges in the case. They were filed February 9. The takeover started November 30 and lasted a couple of days.

WILPF passes Letter of Support for Santa Cruz Eleven

 

Ligue Internationale de Femmes pour la Paix et la Liberté
Liga Internacional de Mujeres por la Paz y la Libertad
Internationale Frauenliga für Frieden und Freiheit

Santa Cruz Branch


       P.O. Box 61 Santa Cruz, CA 95063           E-mail: wilpf@wilpf.got.net                Website: http://wilpf.got.net



Statement of Support
April 20, 2012

The Santa Cruz Branch of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF)  condemns the action of local law enforcement in attempting to prosecute eleven local activists who are alleged to have occupied the long-deserted bank building at Water and River Streets last fall.

Four of the defendants are journalists, who were present to report to the community on the protests.  The First Amendment is clear on the rights of journalists to observe and print their findings; the charges against them should be dropped immediately.

It is also apparent that some of the defendants have been targeted for arrest (out of the hundreds who went in and out of the building over the several days of the occupation) because of previous brushes with law enforcement officials. The Constitution forbids charging people with crimes on the basis of their identity or past actions.

Santa Cruz Occupy, a grass-roots movement to attempt to change our extremely unfair economy and end the corporatocracy that now has de facto control of our country, has injured no one, and like all citizens, has a right to be treated with fairness and respect.  

Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
P.O. Box 61,
Santa Cruz, CA 95062