City's 'Nazi salute' appeal beyond absurd

NOTE TO READER: I wanted to repost Pete Nichols' op-ed when it came out in late June, but other events sidelined me. So here it is, still timely with the Supreme Court supposedly considering whether to listen to the City's appeal of the 14 - 0 decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the Robert Norse "Nazi" Salute Case. They will issue their decision in September as to which cases they will hear. I want to add that I don't believe I have ever had any contact with Mr. Nichols, and no one from the Norse legal team was contacted prior to this op-ed piece. Apparently, Mr. Nichols was just moved enough by the issue to write and submit this piece. ---Becky Johnson, Ed.

Peter Nichols: City's 'Nazi salute' appeal beyond absurd

SANTA CRUZ SENTINEL June 19, 2011

FOUND ONLINE HERE.

Hard to believe, but the city of Santa Cruz is actually appealing its Robert Norse Nazi-salute case to the highest court in the land. There it was, in black and white, "City files Supreme Court appeal" Sentinel, June 10, 2011.

City leaders have already flushed $150,000 down the drain defending a First Amendment lawsuit challenging a mayoral action that was questionable at best. Choosing to spend more money on a highly specialized read: expensive Washington, D.C., attorney in the face of overwhelming doubts the court will even consider the case is throwing good money after bad.

The city argues that Norse's Nazi salute during the March 12, 2002, council meeting was a "hate gesture." The petition declares, "... broad protections of the First Amendment do not extend to hate gestures [that disrupt proceedings] made during a city council meeting." Richard Ruda, the attorney, described the gesture as "insulting and very offensive" and suggested that the offended have the right to evict the offender.

In the context of a governance protest, however, it's a stretch to claim a Nazi salute is a hate gesture and very offensive. Insulting to council members, perhaps, since it suggests that they aren't operating democratically. But that's all in the eye of the beholder, and as a mocking gesture, it warrants full protection.

Fortunately for those of us who weren't present, there's a five-minute video on Google Search: nazi+salute+2002. After one protesting citizen is asked to leave, Mayor Christopher Krohn insists that another person -- expecting to address the council -- sit down, also under threat of removal. As she leaves the podium, Norse can be seen on the sidelines raising his left arm in the direction of the council. A real Nazi salute would have been far more demonstrative with the right arm. It was a silent gesture, lasting about a second and barely noticed. It was Nazi salute light. For the next 10 seconds the meeting continued orderly. The salute was not disruptive.

The disruption began when Councilman Tim Fitzmaurice, who saw the gesture, over-reacted, expressed objection and insisted Norse be removed from the chamber. Mayor Krohn, who hadn't noticed, asked Norse to leave. Norse objected briefly before being led away in handcuffs. That prompted the filing of his First Amendment lawsuit.

It's unknown what happened before the video begins. Since it was taped at the end of a public comments period, Fitzmaurice may have grown tired of the complaints or simply fed up with Norse's persistent criticism. That's not uncommon with elected officials who lack the patience to deal with the cumbersome nature of democracy e.g., having to listen to people complain.

Local governing bodies often deal with disruptions. But skilled facilitators, sensitive to the public's needs, rarely have difficulties keeping order. One thing's clear, however: Had Fitzmaurice simply ignored the gesture, nobody would have given it another thought. And that is what should have happened.

So now, the City Council is asking the likes of Alito, Scalia, Roberts, and Justice Clarence Thomas, of all people, to intervene on their behalf because they couldn't control a meeting in 2002.

This is not a case about hate speech or about out-of-control meetings. It is about free speech, something Santa Cruz -- of all communities -- should strongly support rather than seek to stifle. Furthermore, this council should not perpetuate the folly of previous councils.

Appealing this matter to the Supreme Court is beyond absurd.

Peter Nichols is a Larkin Valley resident whose all-time favorite city is Santa Cruz.

End the Sleeping Ban in Santa Cruz

Robert Norse: City can save thousands of dollars by ending sleeping ban

Santa Cruz Sentinel Guest Opinion
Posted: 05/15/2011 01:30:55 AM PDT
Found online here.

by Robert Norse

Still from video by Becky Johnson at the Santa Cruz City Council meeting on March 12, 2002

I've offered to settle a costly lawsuit. I'll drop my financial demands for tens of thousands of dollars in the "two-second mock-Nazi lawsuit" if the city of Santa Cruz will stop wasting money on ticketing homeless people for sleeping where they must at night. But Mayor Ryan Coonerty and his Council say no.

They don't mind spending scarce city money paying police to harass people for sitting down within 14 feet of a vacant building, playing a musical instrument for donation within 10 feet of a penguin sculpture or holding up a sign silently after dark asking for food. Such confrontations can and do prompt arrests and more costs.

In the last year the city spent more money on police, hosts and private "security." For what? To bust the poor for sitting on a public bench for more than an hour? For smoking a cigarette outside the library after it's closed? For holding up an "End the Sleeping Ban" sign at City Hall at 10:30 at night? Cops spent public money to take all these "crimes" to court last year.

It's illegal to be in any park after dark, including the huge Pogonip area, where hundreds of homeless sleepers hide. Sleepers without options are busted in front of churches, even those that have given their permission. "Falling asleep while poor" in liberal Santa Cruz is still a crime. Meanwhile Los Angeles, San Diego, Laguna Beach and other more conservative cities have abolished their sleeping bans.

When critics like myself come to City Hall to object to these abuses, we face hostility, discrimination, and, if we persist, the creation of special "rules" to muzzle our speech. This pattern of City Council repression against activists is the reality behind the illusion of "decorum." Maintaining this illusion and the power it masks is the real reason for all the money spent dragging out this lawsuit.

The latest is the hiring of an out-of-state law firm to prepare an appeal to the Supreme Court because, as city attorney George Kovacevitch absurdly puts it, "we have a shot, arguably, albeit a small one." I'm told that chance is 5 percent.

The lawsuit: In March 2002, as a silent protest almost as a humorous sigh, I made a brief, silent "don't act like a fascist" mock-Nazi salute and was arrested. View it here. Only Councilman Tim Fitzmaurice noticed. Then-mayor Christopher Krohn had me arrested, handcuffed and jailed with no charges ever filed. I sued for false arrest.

Nine years later in December, a rarely convened 11-member panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the city to face a jury for its actions. Defending this lawsuit has already cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars.

In response, I've offered to drop my lawsuit for personal damages if the city will agree to changes in the Council rules restoring fair public input, attorney's fees, and repeal of the camping ban as long as the current shelter emergency in the city persists there is shelter for less than 10 percent of the city's homeless.

Let's end such costly stupidities as last year's seven-day infraction trial for singing homeless songs near Mayor Coonerty's Bookshop Santa Cruz, the week-long misdemeanor Peace Camp 5 trial for sleeping, and the city attorney's personal appearance to convict Wes Modes of walking in a New Year's eve parade.

If the Council won't listen, let's make them bite the fiscal bullet by ballot initiative.

Sign the on-line petition at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/761/petition-to-settle-the-lawsuit-with-robert-norse/

For more background see http://beckyjohnsononewomantalking.blogspot.com/search/label/Nazi%20Salute .

Robert Norse is a longtime activist for the homeless and homeless issues.

City hires big city attorney to fight Nazi-Salute Case

NOTE TO READER: Robert Norse and his attorney, Kate Wells, have always been willing to settle this case for reasonable changes in the Rules of Decorum at City Council meetings and, as the years have dragged by, and for legal costs to continue fighting it have added up, attorney's fees and costs. Today is no different than any other day. But the City, under the leadership of John Barisone, appears to know no limits on the minutia on which they'll litigate or to the nth degree they will drag it out. It should need no explaining that the legal fees they will run up benefit themselves. Below is today's SENTINEL article by J.M. Brown dated May 6, 2011. ---ed

NOTE TO READER: There is an online poll running with the article, so be sure to log on and vote.
At this time 305 people have "voted" and Norse is slightly ahead of City Council with 50.49% of the vote.
City Council 48.85% and Other 0.66% (2 votes). --Becky Johnson of HUFF

Santa Cruz to appeal Nazi salute case to Supreme Court: Lawyers still seeking settlement with Robert Norse

By J.M. BROWN

Posted: 05/05/2011 11:00:00 PM PDT

found online at: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_18006114

SANTA CRUZ -- The city of Santa Cruz plans to appeal its loss in the Robert Norse free-speech case to the U.S. Supreme Court next month unless a settlement can be reached with the longtime government critic, officials confirmed Thursday.

The city has hired a high-powered Supreme Court expert to file the appeal if an agreement isn't reached with Norse, who filed suit in federal court nearly a decade ago alleging the city violated his First Amendment rights by ejecting him from a 2002 City Council meeting. The 63-year-old activist was arrested after refusing an order to leave the meeting, which city officials said he disrupted by raising a mock Nazi salute.

A rare panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously in December that a trial judge should reconsider the case, indicating they believe city officials silenced Norse because they disliked his criticism. The case, which has garnered national attention, has never gone to trial.

City officials have met with Norse and his lawyers recently to negotiate a settlement, one that could lead to a loosening of restrictions on public commentary during council meetings and a financial payout for Norse. But an agreement has been elusive, and council members directed the city attorney in closed session last week to pursue the Supreme Court appeal.

George Kovacevich, an attorney with the city's firm, supports the appeal even though there's a slim chance the high court, which typically hears less than 5 percent of petitions, agrees to take the case. To accept the lower court's decision could mean a costly trial for a case the city has spent $148,000 to defend -- a cost that will grow if the city loses and has to pay Norse's legal fees.

"At least now we have a shot, arguably, albeit a small one," Kovacevich said. "Certain rulings are reversed, and then that would not bind the city up in a trial."

Kovacevich said the city has hired Richard Ruda, former chief counsel of the State and Local Legal Center in Washington, to prepare a writ of petition to the high court. The deadline to file is June 6.

Ruda, whose office is in the tony Washington suburb of Chevy Chase, Md., declined to comment on the case when reached by phone Thursday. He also declined to discuss his previous appearances before the Supreme Court, though his website says he is "uniquely qualified to assist state and municipal attorneys and officials with questions about Supreme Court doctrine, practice and procedure."

The Supreme Court Institute at Georgetown University's Law School, for which Ruda has served as an advisory board member, reports that the Yale University and Harvard Law School graduate has filed briefs with the high court on behalf of state and local governments and conducted practice runs for lawyers preparing arguments before the nation's top justices.

Kovacevich said he didn't have details Thursday on Ruda's fees. He said Ruda has consulted with the city for about a month.

As part of a potential agreement to withdraw his suit, Norse said he expects the council to change its rules regarding public participation -- including expanding a two-minute time limit for general commentary and dispensing with a rule against booing speakers. He has vigorously fought against a gradual tightening of such restrictions, which his speeches to the council, as well as a host of tirades by other gadflies, have engendered.

"I want a clear declaration that people are not disruptive who engage in technical violations, such as not turning in a card to speak, or not facing the City Council when they speak, or if they make a silent gesture from the side of the room," Norse said Thursday.

Mayor Ryan Coonerty, who began enforcing the two-minute rule last year, said he would consider adopting clearer definitions of what constitutes a disruption of council meetings.

But, he said, "I don't think protected First Amendment speech includes disrupting public meetings. Robert is proposing letting people be booed when they speak to their city government. I fundamentally disagree."

Coonerty said a Supreme Court appeal is worth the taxpayers' investment, and the city will have to pay Norse's legal fees if it loses.

"There are costs no matter what," he said. "Ten years later, this case has never been tried in a courtroom."

Norse said he does not support Nazi views and only made the gesture during the 2002 council meeting to protest then-Mayor Christopher Krohn cutting off another speaker. Krohn determined Norse was being disruptive, demanded he leave and ordered his arrest when Norse refused.

After watching a five-minute video clip of the incident, a federal trial judge dismissed Norse's suit in 2007 and a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit upheld that decision. But a rare en banc panel of the appeals court agreed to rehear the case and revived the suit in December.

A longtime homeless advocate, Norse has needled the council for years, opposing crackdowns on the city's overnight camping ban and panhandling. He criticized the council for placing what he says are controversial matters on its consent agenda and agreeing to discuss those matters only if council members agree to transfer them to the regular part of the meetings.

ONLINE POLL:

You be the judge in the Salute vs. the City case. Who is right?

Santa Cruz City Council
Robert Norse
Other:

Victory for the 1st Amendment in Nazi Salute case

Robert Norse in SENTINEL photo by Schmuel Thayer

by Becky Johnson
December 18, 2010

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- As a HUFF member since 1996, and an eye-witness to Robert Norse's arrest in both 2002 and 2004, I am hardly unbiased. On the other hand, I have been able to consider this case from a totality of details that neither the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Norse's attorneys, David Beauvais and Kate Wells, or any single witness other than Norse himself, has been privy to.

I have heard every kind of argument and smear-job made against Norse. That he is a trust-fund "baby," that he only wants to get his name in the papers, that he hurts "the homeless" more than he helps them. And that this case doesn't really advance the rights of homeless people. Etcetera, ad nauseum, and who really cares what some people think? What is the truth?

First let me share some of my personal perspective. I was with Robert Norse when he first gave a stiff-armed "salute" to then-mayor Tim Fitzmaurice prior to 2002. Fitzmaurice stopped the meeting. Denounced Norse publicly. Ordered him to leave the chambers (he complied). And announced that all future "Nazi" salutes would be disallowed.

Fitzmaurice had lost a case in 2001 against Norse, myself, and Bernard Klitzner, when he attempted to place a temporary restraining order banishing the three of us from his office when we staged a daily Koffee Klatch outside his office in a

Tim Fitzmaurice in 2005 photo by Becky Johnson

lobbying effort to put the Sleeping Ban on the City Council agenda as an item for discussion. Fitzmaurice refused. The TRO was disposed of by Judge Samuel Stevens in June of 2001, but the
order kept the three of us away from one city council meeting and from the mayor's office for 5 months, effectively side-lining us. Klitzner had a lien on his house for the cost of transcripts the Barisone's had insisted on, despite "winning" his case. Norse was forced to spend thousands of dollars out of pocket. Fortunately for me, since I was a welfare mother at the time, I was not charged for court costs. Still, it was clear that Fitzmaurice harbored a grudge against us for making him testify and for ultimately winning the case.

When Fitzmaurice ordered Norse to leave the chambers, he complied, but the incident didn't sit well with him. It was the Golden Porto-Pottie Incident all over again. In that case, Norse and I had spray-painted a bedside commode with gold paint, decorated it with ribbons, and put a sign on it: Golden Porto-Potty Award to Mayor Katherine Beiers for her 1:15AM defection from a plan to set up safe zones where homeless people could legally sleep at night, complete with dumpsters and porto-potties. Norse was prevented by the Sgt. at Arms from bringing the "award" into the meeting at all, much less, being able to present Katherine Beiers the award during oral communications. Here, he was sure his 1st amendment rights had been truncated.

Now Fitzmaurice had declared in advance which 1st amendment rights no longer existed in the City Council chambers in Santa Cruz. Norse vowed that if the same situation ever happened again, he would act differently.

Norse, HUFF, and I were attempting to get physical evidence of oppression against members of the public who were excluded from meetings or had their rights to freedom of speech trampled in some way at the meetings. It had happened to both of us previously and it had happened to other HUFF members, such as the schackled detention of James Nay, and the violent assault on David Silva by Sgt. Andy Craine. I took to bringing a videocamera to city council meetings so I could record what occurred as it happened and not be dependent on the official audio and videotaped recordings of the meeting. On March 12th, 2002 Mayor Christopher Krohn was mayor.

Norse and I had met with Krohn previously, shortly after he become mayor. We met inside the old, Jahva House coffee-shop on Union St. in December of 2001.

Krohn had appeared hostile to me. Demanded to know if Norse was planning on running for city council himself. We had discussed problems we were having with the oral communications period of the city council meetings. Krohn wasn't listening. We left the meeting disappointed that we had supported his candidacy in the first place.

Mayor Christopher Krohn oversees a marijuana give-away
on the steps of City Hall in September of 2002

He obviously wasn't going to carry our issues during his term as mayor.

On March 12th, Mayor Krohn announced that oral communications was about to begin. Norse had hoped to speak at oral communications but he despaired when we arrived to see a large group of people there, eager to speak about the Doug Rand Peace Park. With that many people choosing to speak, he would have little chance to speak at all, since he had spoken at the previous city council meeting. It is yet another unconstitutional "rule" at the Santa Cruz City Council that if you have spoken at the previous meeting during oral communications, you must defer to any person (even if you've waited 29 minutes and some guy walks in 1 minute before the comment period ends) who did not speak at the previous meeting. There is no logical reason for this rule. Clearly citizens who are more informed and involved will speak more often. The council can, at its wish, extend oral communications to accommodate any extra speakers, so there can be no claim that a frequent speaker will supplant a less frequent speaker. But that rule has lasted over a decade now.


Krohn asked for a show of hands. A forest of hands went up, including the hand of Susan Zeman. Then Krohn announced (much to my dismay) that he was shortening oral communications from 3 minutes to 2 minutes "so everyone will get a chance to speak." Michael Tomasi, Robert Norse, and Susan Zeman all stood in line, awaiting their turn to speak.

When Robert Norse approached the podium, Krohn ordered him to wait, claiming he'd spoken at the previous meeting. Norse returned to side of the chambers without comment. Then Michael Tomasi approached the podium, only to likewise be turned away. But Tomasi didn't appreciate at all having waited 30 minutes to speak and loudly objected. I saw the commotion and turned my videocamera on just in time to see him shouting loudly "I'll see you on the streets, pal!" as he exited the doorway. I was still filming when Susan Zeman was ordered away from the podium and threatened with expulsion.

Zeman, an anti-war activist had come to speak about the Doug Rand Peace Park. She felt that since Krohn had counted her hand just prior to oral communications, and she had NOT spoken at the previous meeting, that SHE would be the last speaker. She was dumbfounded by his treatment.

As she was forced to leave the podium, Norse lifted his left hand briefly in Krohn's direction indicating he found Krohn's behavior to be heavy-handed. He told me later he had given "a fascist salute" to show his displeasure. The rest you can see on the tape of what happened next.

Current Mayor Ryan Coonerty in a 2005 photo taken

at his cashier job at Bookshop Santa Cruz

Current Mayor Ryan Coonerty was quoted in the Sentinel on December 16th, that Norse was "properly removed from the meeting" not because of the Nazi salute, but "because of the overall disturbance he caused."

"There is a pattern of disruptive behavior that is at issue here," Coonerty said. "And we hope the court in San Jose will recognize that we can't have a functioning democratic processes when you have somebody who is constantly disrupting the meeting.

Apparently Ryan Coonerty doesn't mind adding slander to the list of charges Norse can make against the City. Norse not only doesn't "constantly disrupt meetings" but, despite attending 100's of meetings, he has never been convicted for disrupting any meeting in Santa Cruz. Notwithstanding efforts by several mayors and councilmembers to paint him as "a disruptor." Norse went to City Council and repeatedly asked that the minutes of the meeting accurately reflect what had actually happened at a previous meeting. 99% of the time, the council ignored his request and allowed the minutes to reflect a very biased view of what had actually occurred.

Mayor Scott Kennedy was quoted in the Fish Wrap Live that Norse had been convicted of disrupting a city council meeting. Kennedy was forced to print a retraction.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has put a chill into the spine of the Santa Cruz City Council should they dare flatten the 1st amendment rights of members of the public attending their meetings. Chief Justice, Alex Kozinski used the strongest language possible when he said "Councilmember Fitzmaurice clearly wants Norse expelled because the "Nazi salute" is "against the dignity of this body and the decorum of this body" and not because of any disruption. But unlike der Fuhrer, government officials in America occasionally must tolerate offensive or irritating speech. "

While this decision, 11 - 0, doesn't give the City much hope on appeal, it is not the end of the case. Norse has only won the right to go to court and have a trial on the facts. He may have to go back into the same courtroom of Judge Ronald Whyte and seek a fair trial from a judge who has granted two summary motions for dismissal against him already. Not an inviting scenario.

9th Circuit Court reverses itself in Nazi Salute case

SENTINEL photo by Schmuel Thaler with the following caption "(Sleeping Ban opponent Robert Norse has been targeting Bookshop Santa Cruz in his protests)" possibly a reference to Norse's recent conviction for singing a song on a busy sidewalk near Bookshop Santa Cruz. Norse was convicted of "unreasonably disturbing noise" and was fined $250.

NOTE TO READER: As the videographer of the snippet of the City Council meeting where Robert Norse issued his "Nazi" salute, I know a thing or two about what else happened at that meeting. And unlike the statement issued by Mayor Ryan Coonerty in today's SENTINEL, Norse in no way orchestrated a disruption of the meeting. Nor can Norse be held accountable for the reactions and over-reactions of offended City Councilmembers. The City Attorney's office recently claimed they'd spent $114,000.00 defending Christopher Krohn, Tim Fitzmaurice, and Scott Kennedy from Norse's lawsuit. And that was BEFORE City Attorney George Kovacevich went to Southern California to have his hat handed to him on a platter by the en banc panel of the 9th Circuit Court. After over eight years, the court has ruled that Norse can have his day in court after all. ---Becky Johnson, Editor

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_16872299

Appellate panel rules Norse suit can go forward: Lower court will have to reconsider Nazi salute case

By J.M. BROWN

Posted: 12/16/2010 01:30:01 AM PST

SANTA CRUZ -- An 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday unanimously agreed a trial judge should reconsider Robert Norse's free-speech lawsuit against the city of Santa Cruz.

Norse, a longtime City Council agitator and advocate for the rights of homeless people, claims his free speech protections were violated when he was ejected from a City Council meeting in 2002 after raising a Nazi salute. Norse was arrested for disrupting the meeting and refusing to leave, although the charges were later dropped.

Norse said he abhors the Nazis' views and only used the gesture to protest then-Mayor Christopher Krohn cutting off a speaker critical of the council. The city, which has spent more than $100,000 fighting Norse, has since argued the salute was part of an organized attempt to disrupt the meeting.

After watching a five-minute clip of the salute and arrest, a federal trial judge dismissed Norse's suit in 2007, and a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit upheld that decision. But a rare en banc panel of the appeals court agreed to rehear the case in June and reinstated Norse's suit Wednesday.

The ruling said U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Whyte in San Jose should have heard more evidence after giving Norse's lawyers just two days to prepare for a hearing that would have determined whether the case would go forward. The en banc panel's ruling indicated that city officials kicked Norse out because they disliked his views.

However, the en banc panel dismissed the arresting officer, Sgt. Loran "Butch" Baker, from the suit against city officials. The ruling said Baker followed proper procedures when Krohn complained Norse was disrupting the meeting and refused orders to leave.

The city's current mayor, Ryan Coonerty, said Norse was properly removed from the meeting not because of the Nazi salute, but because of the overall disturbance he caused.

"There is a pattern of disruptive behavior that is at issue here," Coonerty said. "And we hope the court in San Jose will recognize that we can't have a functioning democratic processes when you have somebody who is constantly disrupting the meeting."

Norse was pleased with the ruling, saying, "Any reasonable person looking at the video cannot conclude there was a disruption. There is an arrogance on behalf of the council in their determination to intimidate their critics. It's not about the Nazi salute. It's about the public's ability to engage in ordinary free speech behavior."

Norse, who lives in Felton and Santa Cruz, still frequently attends council meetings, calling for a repeal of the overnight camping ban and measures taken by the council in recent years against aggressive panhandling.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Robert Norse: City Council silencing dissenting voices

NOTE TO READER: Longtime homeless activist, Robert Norse, published the following Op-Ed in the Sunday edition of the Santa Cruz Sentinel. Norse was responding to two recent defeats in court in which his appeal was turned down. In the first case, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, turned down Norse's bid to sue the Mayor and City Council members in Federal court for violating his civil rights when they arrested him for a brief, silent hand gesture for "disrupting a public meeting." Norse was arrested but all charges were dropped. Norse has filed for a re-hearing or an en banc hearing of the 9th Circuit Court. City Attorney John Barisone has claimed that his office has already spent $114,000.00 in legal costs through legal maneuvers to prevent an actual trial being held on the facts. ---- Becky Johnson, editor





Robert Norse: City Council silencing dissenting voices

Posted: 11/22/2009 01:30:26 AM PST



When courts support police misconduct and government repression, what can the public do? Two recent court decisions have brought this issue home to me sharply and personally.

The Sentinel inaccurately covered both cases. In one, I challenged two false arrests by the Santa Cruz City Council, including a brief don't act like Nazis salute shown in detail here.

In the second, a Metro bus station security guard insisted I leave the property because I'd pulled out a tape recorder after he accosted me and refused to identify himself.

Photo: Robert Norse interviews Metro Security Guard, Dan Delgadillo for Free Radio Santa Cruz on Nov 26 2008. Photo by Becky Johnson.

In both cases, courts ruled against me audio here and here ; fast forward to the relevant sections; transcript found here .

I offended politicians and police in both cases, but broke no laws. The Metro case is still being appealed, but poor and homeless people there are still being harassed with no police accountability.


Photo: The same security guard who refused to identify himself the day he had Norse arrested for trespassing at the Metro Transit Center, provided his card and allowed it to be photographed. Photo by Becky Johnson



The City Council has gone so far as to prohibit audience booing but not cheering. How far can our City Council going threatening, expelling, even arresting members of the public when their criticism offends but doesn't actually disrupt? This was the issue in my court case which we are now appealing to a higher panel.


Only one council member even noticed my brief silent political gesture of condemnation. Is it then a real disruption? Or was the arrest an attempt to punish ? Wasn't Councilman Tim Fitzmaurice's insistence on stopping the meeting itself the actual disruption? If I'd held up a sign instead saying don't act like a Nazi, would the Council have been equally justified in throwing me out? This is the issue a jury would have decided. I am still fighting these cases.



PHOTO: Councilmember Tim Fitzmaurice July 26, 2005 Photo by Becky Johnson.

The District Attorney knew a bad case when he saw one. I was arrested, jailed, but never charged. I then sued for false arrest. Two weeks later I and others made the same Nazi salute again, explaining it was neither pro-Nazi nor disruptive but rather an expression of outrage at abusive City Council process. The Council made no arrests.


Nationally, Bush's unlawful enemy combatants are now Obama's underprivileged enemy belligerents They face the same kangaroo military commissions. They are held in the same secret camps after being kidnapped, held without charges, and tortured year after year.


PHOTO: The main sign in front of the Metro Center which Norse was cited for failing to move away from. Photo by Becky Johnson Nov 26 2008.

Locals driven into homelessness by the economy face new Council-concocted anti-homeless laws. Benches are disappearing from Pacific Avenue under pressure from NIMBY groups like the Santa Cruz Neighbors and the Downtown Association. Police ticket poor people for holding up a spare change sign after dark. The city fences off another 25 seating spaces in front of New Leaf Market at the cost of thousands of dollars to stop people from sitting on the edge of the planter. The city attorney justifies a citywide outdoor sleeping ban that makes homeless people criminals. L.A. and San Diego have suspended their sleeping bans.

PHOTO: Warning sign at the Metro Center which is not in front of the large sign in front where Norse was cited for failing to move away from. Photo by Becky Johnson Nov 26 2008

When we bring these matters to the City Council, they devise new ways of silencing the public. They move items six hours ahead to late at night, cram everything onto rushed afternoon sessions, end public comment on individual agenda items unless a council member agrees, circumvent public commissions, and malign members of the public without right of reply. Does this kind of expanded power help or hurt us?


/Robert Norse is a longtime opponent of the Santa Cruz city sleeping ban and an activist for homeless rights/

Robert Norse can be contacted at: Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom
309 Cedar St. PMB 14B --- Santa Cruz, Ca. 95060 Phone: (831) 423-HUFF
www.huffsantacruz.org

Debunking of Past SENTINEL coverage of "Nazi Salute" case

by Becky Johnson
July 18, 2009

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- Since the Santa Cruz Sentinel is the paper of record in the City of Santa Cruz, it's particularly egregious when those reporters shoddily report events or outright misreport them. Since this tendency imbues all SENTINEL writers, I tend to suspect the editorial board is the party responsible rather than any individual reporter at any time. Shanna McCord is no exception. The bias from the editorial board is to present a Chamber-of-Commerce type view of Santa Cruz, which is pro-business, pro-police, and anti-homeless.

In this article, I post the April 4, 2007 SENTINEL article in its entirety titled "Judge rules Nazi salute too disruptive for public venue. " I have imbedded my comments to voice my concerns or to add in information which the reader might not know. I did attend this hearing and took notes.


This post is based on a previous post at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/huffsantacruz.

FROM 2007:

from: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2007/April/04/local/stories/09local.htm (LINK APPARENTLY BROKEN NOW)



Judge rules Nazi salute too disruptive for public venue

By Shanna McCord

Sentinel staff writer
April 4, 2007

SANTA CRUZ - Free speech goes only so far inside City Hall.

A federal judge has ruled that city officials had the right to eject a homeless-rights advocate from a council meeting in 2002 for giving a Nazi salute. The judge said the action was too disruptive for the venue.

BECKY: False. The Judge did not rule that the Nazi Salute is a disruption. His ruling turned on the fact that Norse had been warned previously against using a Nazi Salute in council chambers and that the chair has "wide discretion." The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had also examined the "Nazi Salute" previously, and saw no disruption. The Judge ruled that Mayor Krohn had "qualified immunity" and therefore could not be prosecuted.

SENTINEL: "You don't have the same First Amendment rights in a meeting as you do on the street," said attorney George Kovacevich, who represented the city in the five-year, $100,000 legal fray. "You have the right to attend, but you don't have the right to say whatever you want, whenever you want"

BECKY: Note that this $100,000 which John Barisone now bills the City for is not covered in the $500,000 for Barisone's contract. This case included writing a 70-page brief in response to an 8-page brief and other tactics to bill the City the maximum amount his office could possibly bill.

SENTINEL: Robert Norse sued the city for alleged violations of his civil rights under the First and Fourth amendments shortly after being arrested at a council meeting in March 2002.

BECKY: For his one and a half-second raising of his arm silently from the side of the room, Norse was handcuffed and carted off to jail. The alleged "disruption" was never prosecuted as the DA determined there was not enough evidence to press charges.

SENTINEL: Then-Mayor Christopher Krohn had called an end to the public-comment period of the meeting and instructed a woman to step away from the microphone. After twice being told to leave the microphone, the woman walked over to Norse, who raised his right arm toward council members in a Nazi salute, the way Nazi supporters saluted German dictator
Adolph Hitler during World War II.

BECKY: Krohn had earlier asked how many wanted to speak at oral communications. Activist, Susan Zeman was in the earlier group who had raised her hand. She believed she had been granted permission to speak and was shocked to walk up to the podium and have Krohn cut off oral communications right in front of her. Nor would he listen to her appeal to allow her to speak. When Krohn threatened to have her removed, Norse responded with the Nazi Salute. Note, the SENTINEL uses the word "Nazi" twice and the name "Adolph Hitler" once in the same paragraph. Norse has characterized his salute as meaning rote obedience to a fascist authority. And Norse raised his left arm.

SENTINEL: Then-Councilman Tim Fitzmaurice interrupted Krohn to ask Norse to leave the meeting, saying the salute was an insult to the "dignity of the body"

BECKY: This was content-based. No one can say that if Norse had given a "thumbs up" he would have been arrested. Offending the "dignity of the body" can happen when citizens are redressing government grievances. Norse contends that the "rules of decorum" forbid citizens from criticizing their government.

SENTINEL: Norse refused to leave and was subsequently arrested.

BECKY: The problem with Norse raising his arm to the council was not the meaning of the salute, but rather the disruption the salute caused, according to U.S. District Judge Ronald M. Whyte, who issued the decision last week.

SENTINEL: A City Council policy states that people who "interrupt and refuse to keep quiet or take a seat when ordered to do so by the presiding officer or otherwise disrupt the proceedings of the council" may be removed from a meeting.

BECKY: It's clear from the videotapes that it was Fitzmaurice who interrupted the council meeting with his delicate sensitivities, no doubt fueled by his dislike of Robert Norse (who he has walked out on twice while speaking) and his desire to have him removed from the meeting. Attorney Kate Wells, (who McCord declined to interview) said "The Council has a practice of interrupting their own meetings and then blaming individual citizens for the disruptions they themselves caused."

SENTINEL: Norse, a council gadfly who often launches bitter attacks on the city's homeless policies, said the salute was meant as a protest to the city's refusal to deal with homeless issues.

He plans to appeal Whyte's decision to the 9th District Court of Appeals.

BECKY: No doubt this case will move forward as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals did not see the same "disruption" that Whyte did.

see: http://beckyjohnsononewomantalking.blogspot.com/2009/07/9th-circuit-court-hears-arguments-on.html

SENTINEL: "This is not about the Nazis and this is not about me," Norse said Tuesday. "This is about mayoral actions that involve oppression. What I'm fighting is not the Nazi salute. I'm fighting council oppression"

BECKY: Norse has been arrested four times, three times at City Council and once on the sidewalk in front of New Leaf Market. He was not prosecuted in any of these arrests, and won a settlement from the City for the New Leaf incident where he sued for false arrest. Unfortunately, The City was able to exclude any evidence of these arrests or subsequent lack of convictions from the trial.

SENTINEL: Rules limiting speech at council meetings are absolutely necessary to conduct city business, Kovacevich said.

BECKY: Norse doesn't dispute this. He contends his Nazi Salute was non-interruptive, and protected by his first amendment rights. Otherwise, it would be okay to agree with what council is doing but not to disagree. The salute happened in the time interval in which one item had ended and the next item had not yet started.

SENTINEL: Federal law also gives added protections to city officials in cases of alleged civil rights violations. City officials can mistakenly violate a person's rights and not be held liable.

"They have to make spontaneous calls and run a meeting and not be
afraid of getting sued every day," Kovacevich said.

BECKY: This was the actual ruling by Judge Ronald Whyte: that the councilmembers are immune from liability despite a pattern of false arrests. Despite rules that violate the 1st amendment and eliminate the right of the citizen to disapprove of what the council is doing.

SENTINEL: Former Mayor Scott Kennedy, serving on the council in 2002, said Norse's salute was disruptive because he was standing in the front of the room where the council and public audience could see him.

"In my view, it was not the content," Kennedy said. "It was the time and place, and it did disrupt the meeting"

BECKY: Kennedy himself was named in another incident on Jan 13, 2004 where he arbitrarily established a system of tallies for warnings, which included calling holding a sign a "disruption" or inaudible whispering in the audience a "disruption" . His "system" , under which he had Norse physically arrested, didn't even last to the next council meeting. Norse was never prosecuted for this arrest.

SENTINEL: Councilman Mike Rotkin, not on the council in March 2002, said Norse has a long history of arguing with council members and straying from the topic being discussed.

BECKY: Kovacevich did an exhaustive analysis of every time Norse has spoken at City Council since 1999. Norse was ruled "off-topic" in less than 5% of comments. Rotkin also had Norse arrested at a council meeting in June of 2005 for violating the "5-minute rule" in which Rotkin limited comments on all consent agenda items by members of the public to a total of 5 minutes, which means that members of the public have little or no time to speak on items on the agenda, despite the Brown Act assurance that they do. Norse faced charges for 16-months only to have all charges dropped a week before trial.

SENTINEL: "The entire council meeting is not a free speech forum," Rotkin said. "We go out of our way to make ourselves open and accessible to everybody. Robert needs to follow the process like everyone else, which is what the court told us"

BECKY: The court told the council they are immune from liability no matter what they do. Norse has offered to settle for his attorney fees and minor changes in the rules of decorum at City Council meetings.

Read Judge Ronald Whyte's decision at:

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/03/27/18383947.php

SENTINEL: Contact Shanna McCord at smccord@santacruzsentinel.com.

9th Circuit Court hears arguments on "Nazi Salute" case

Photo of Robert Norse speaking at a City Council meeting on a different occasion dressed in his bathrobe with his Teddy Bear, which he wears in deference to homeless people who must do things out of doors, housed people would choose to do in a bathrobe.


by Becky Johnson
July 15, 2009

Santa Cruz, Ca. --- What Robert Norse called "a fascist salute" and what Councilmember Tim Fitzmaurice called "a Nazi Salute" has wended its way for a second time to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, CA.

Here is the 40-minute audio statements by Attorneys for the plaintiff, David Beauvais of Berkeley, Ca. and his co-counsel, Attorney Kate Wells of Santa Cruz, Ca. City Attorney, George Kovacevich appears on behalf of the City of Santa Cruz.

The two tapes referred to are the normal City Council video that is made at each meeting. There were two of these. One for the meeting in 2002 where Mayor Christopher Krohn ejected Robert Norse for a brief, silent, hand gesture. The second meeting in 2004, Mayor Scott Kennedy ejected and arrested Robert Norse for "whispering." I was at both meetings and filmed with my own camera. The justices also saw my footage which shows that the Sgt. of Arms, Loran "Butchie" Baker saw the "Nazi Salute" directly and took no action to stop Norse's behavior nor to arrest or eject him, although he had the power to do so. The tape also shows Baker telling Norse he doesn't know what charge he is being arrested under, and he goes and talks to the City Attorney who listens and then responds and then Baker returns to Norse to tell him he is being arrested for misdemeanor "disrupting a public meeting".

"We've already spent more time on this case than we did with the Exxon Valdez." --Circuit Court Justice in her conclusions on this "Nazi Salute" case.

Robert Norse who was born Robert Kahn is Jewish.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_subpage.php?pk_id=0000003646