What is 75 River Street worth to Wells Fargo?

 

For Lease sign at 75 River Street May 2012 photo by Becky Johnson

by Becky Johnson
December 23, 2012

Santa Cruz, Ca. --  On November 30th 2011, 100 to 200 people entered an empty bank building leased to Wells Fargo and turned it into a community center.  After 3 days, they cleaned up the building and silently departed, having made their point: Empty Buildings ARE the crime!  Especially in a City where over 1000 homeless people shiver in the cold each night, and hundreds of people would welcome having a space such as 75 River Street in which to open a business, a non-profit, or some City service which serves the public. Instead, we get nothing. No jobs. No services. Very little in the way of taxes. A deadspot right downtown, so central to Santa Cruz it shares a boundary with the main Santa Cruz Post Office property.

A forlorn-looking "For Lease" sign has been hanging on the north-west corner for years now. Records show that last time the building had an occupant was in 2008 when Wells Fargo "merged" with the locally-owned Coast Commercial Bank. As of this date, its been empty for four years and counting.

Portion of lease owned by Wells Fargo for 75 River Street

Here is why we shouldn't expect this building to have a tenant anytime soon, especially not at the $28,790/mo. asking rent. You see, the ACTUAL rent Wells Fargo is paying to property owner, Barry Swenson Properties, is $37, 714.90/month. Rentals of commercial properties in downtown Santa Cruz are extremely costly, but even so, no one has rented this space at only 76% of its actual cost.

To understand why Wells Fargo continues this practice, one must understand how banks work. This isn't the easiest of tasks as bank practices are shrouded in mystery, with all disputes settled in mediation and not subject to criminal prosecution or public record. However, back in the early '90's, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago published a helpful pamphlet called "Modern Money Mechanics." While currently out of print, some enterprising person photo-copied it and helpfully posted it online here.

Here is undoubtedly what Wells Fargo is doing with the property at 75 River Street.

Taking the higher amount (the ACTUAL rental cost) of $37, 714.90/mo. we multiply this by 12 so we can determine the yearly value/cost of the lease = $452,578.80/yr

This value is added to Wells Fargo's portfolio as an asset with a dollar value, whether it is rented out or not. According to the rules of the Federal Reserve fractional banking system, WF must keep 1/10th on hand and can lend out 9/10ths of the value to its customers in the form of home, car, and business loans. Therefore, the $452,578.80 becomes the 1/10th and WF legally places 9/10ths of that amount into its general accounts, manufacturing that amount completely out of thin air.

Wells Fargo now has $4,073,209.20 to lend out to you and to me. EVERY YEAR!

Cumulative expansion in deposits on initial deposit of $10,000 over several stages resulting in over $95,000 after 20 stages under Federal Reserve fractional banking system. --From Modern Money Mechanics

They get to keep all of the interest made too.

Out of  this inflated amount they pay Barry Swenson Properties $452,578.80 a year rent. He pays the property taxes of $40,000/yr. netting a profit of $412,578.80 per year on the vacant building.

Wells Fargo is now $3,620,630.20 to the good for just one year. This exceeds the asking rental amount of $345,480.00/yr rental income they would get if they actually rented it out to a tenant. Since the property is NOT rented, WF is probably deducting either the lower amount or the higher amount of $452,578.80/yr as a LOSS to offset profits elsewhere in their portfolio.

Now if Wells Fargo has any kind of relationship with any other bank, let's just say Bank of America, since they have a legal relationship with any bank registered with the Central Banking system of the United States, including BofA. They can "lend" the lease to B of A as a "Stage 2" deposit (minus the 10% WF keeps in its reserves).  So  B of A then takes the $4,073, 209.20 WF has available to loan.

Since they too are a bank, they can keep 10% as reserves so that THEY can now lend out $36,658,881 keeping the $4,073,209.20 "in reserve". B of A can now "lend" this amount to another Central Bank, say Chase as a "Stage 3" deposit and they can inflate the amount by nine-fold as well. And this is how money is created.

Why do bankers get to manufacture all this money out of thin air? Because of the Federal Reserve System which was established in 1913.  Why do we allow bankers to profit so immensely while leaving "dead spots" in our community? I guess because no one can believe what the enormity of their crimes.

Currently I am facing 4 charges leveled by Wells Fargo against 11 local activists, Occupy Santa Cruz members, and alternative media journalists. I am accused of felony conspiracy to trespass and felony conspiracy to vandalize the empty building at 75 River Street, as well as 2 misdemeanor counts of trespass and vandalism.  You see, as a homeless activist, I believe these buildings should be used for housing, businesses, non-profits, or community services. With homeless people dying on our streets, Empty Building ARE the Crime! While I am innocent of these charges, I considered the 3-day occupation of the building to be a righteous act drawing attention to an injustice occurring right in our community.

In addition, Wells Fargo has cooked up enormously overblown charges of $26,000 in "damages" for which they have submitted billing sheets. Of the 9 contractors WF used, not a single one was from Santa Cruz County, including rekeying the entire building using a locksmith in Foster City and charging $6,545.41 to remove "broken" furniture and take it to the dump by a contractor in San Leandro, California. In fact, these invoices for "damages" mirror the trumped-up documents Wells Fargo uses as assets to charge you and me REAL money.

But until the fractional banking reserve system is reformed, we will see no changes. Empty buildings surround every bank we see. And indeed, in Santa Cruz, they are everywhere.

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

Case against Santa Cruz Eleven is crumbling

By Becky Johnson
August 18, 2012

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- The case against eleven mostly long-time and well-known activists or alternative media journalists seems to be falling apart.

On Friday, DA Rebekah Young was made to answer for video discovery not delivered, potentially exculpatory evidence not turned over, billing sheets confirming allegations of damages still missing, and promises made not kept.

"She still has not turned over the second videotape mentioned in police reports about my client," charged defense attorney, Alexa Briggs. "And the first tape is exculpatory as it shows my client, Mr. Laurendau leave the building when warned."

Judge Burdick cancelled the Preliminary hearing on August 20th and ordered Young to show cause why he should not dismiss all charges.

A 9am hearing is scheduled.

Bruce Bratton weighs in on the Santa Cruz Eleven

 NOTE TO READER: Longtime columnist, Bruce Bratton wrote for the SENTINEL, then the Goodtimes, and finally Metro Santa Cruz. When that ended, Bratton chose to go online and post his columns where anyone with a computer connection could read them. He was a blogger before the word "blogger" had been invented. In this weeks edition, Bratton has weighed in on the Santa Cruz Eleven, and while promoting the July 1st fundraiser at India Joze, has some sharp words of criticism for DA Bob Lee.  ---- Becky Johnson, SC 11 defendant

 

 Bruce Bratton while a columnist

for Metro Santa Cruz

BRUCE BRATTON:
Found online here.

SANTA CRUZ 11 FUND RAISER. There’s going to be a fundraiser for the SC11 & Desiree Foster at INDIA JOZE starring RICK WALKER & TOM NODDY. The Santa Cruz Eleven are local community members who have been charged with an unprecedented variety of offenses arising from their alleged involvement with the occupation of a long-time vacant bank building late last fall, 2011.These defendants are either journalists, members of our local press, and/or activists supportive of the Occupy movement.

The Santa Cruz Eleven defendants were participating in constitutionally protected activities either as news gatherers, observers, or as supporters, including a mediator between police and activists inside the occupied building. Hundreds of individuals, if not more, entered and exited the bank building during the 75-hour occupation, including local elected officials, corporate press and “citizen journalist” bloggers.

Only the Santa Cruz Eleven have been charged, scape-goating those few who’re recognizable to police who never conducted an investigation of who actually broke into and/or damaged the building. http://santacruzeleven.org/about/

India Joze and the co-defendants are hosting this community gathering to bring awareness to the SC11 and to help out Desire Foster who is experiencing financial hardships. Grant Wilson says “Desiree Foster is the youngest person (of the SC-11) charged with 2 Felonies she’s 19 yrs old. She has been caring for her mother – diagnosed with a serious form of cancer.

If that wasn’t enough trauma for a 19 year old, in early February, without any advance notice, Desiree was arrested in her mother’s home, handcuffed, taken to jail & later released on $5000 bail*. As a result, Desiree tried unsuccessfully, to commit suicide.

Once again, it makes me deeply question the ethics & motives of District Attorney Bob Lee. You would think that a good District Attorney, anywhere in the country, would be focused on confronting and reducing suffering and crime in their community. But, in this situation, it seems as though there’s a serious miscarriage of justice. Our DA is, in fact, causing suffering!

 The event happens Sunday July 1st 3pm – 6pm at India Joze 418 Front St. Santa Cruz, CA

* While Foster was initially held on $5000 bail, after 9 hours she was released on her own recognizance without explanation

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

Treading on the Occupation

Santa Cruz County has chosen to interpret gathering in a long empty building as a felony, so as to ensure the sanctity of corporate possessions. The current charges consider dialog as conspiracy and support as aiding and abetting.  Occupy is regenerating in New York. And in Santa Cruz?

Treading on the Occupation

by Sylvia Caras
Sunday Apr 15th, 2012

From: Indybay.org/santacruz 

  CLICK HERE TO VIEW ORIGINAL ARTICLE.

Santa Cruz County has chosen to interpret gathering in a long empty building as a felony, so as to ensure the sanctity of corporate possessions. The current charges consider dialog as conspiracy and support as aiding and abetting.

The District Attorney has posted online video and photos, asking residents to identify those not so far charged. I'm reminded of the Salem Witchcraft trials, informers during World War II, McCarthyism. Since when do we encourage friends to betray friends? To ask friends to tell on each other?

Speech and assembly are sacred principles in the United States, and respect for law under girds our social cooperation. But believing that assembly is conspiracy and possessions of corporations are entitled to the same courtesy as human beings is an unbalanced use of the authority of elected office. Law is based on common sense and subject to change as society changes. And society is changing very fast.

Those involved in social protest are not slackers. Quite the opposite. They are working hard to educate, to make sure even those who are very very busy are aware of how badly governance is functioning. Common law adjusts for the common good; governance needs a major adjustment.

Law enforcement nationally was disrespectful to Occupy, tread on encampments, bullied earnest speakers. Locally Santa Cruz imposed a curfew on assembly.

Domineering constraint is apt to trigger the desire to do more of the thing suppressed. So far this intimidating strategy has frightened many, reduced the size of the Occupy Santa Cruz General Assemblies, and lead to loss of licenses and credentials.

Occupy is regenerating in New York. And in Santa Cruz?

Support the Santa Cruz Eleven!  Log onto santacruzeleven.org to sign the petition.

Comments on DA Bob Lee's Witch Hunt

 The Santa Cruz Eleven are charged with 23 felonies and misdemeanors for their presence at a peaceful occupation of a long-vacant bank, leased by Wells Fargo Corporation. A petition urging DA Bob Lee to dismiss the charges can be found here. 

 Some of those who signed the petition have also left comments. Here is a selection:

I think that given the circumstances, and the spirit of solidarity that these protestors demonstrated for a cause that supports our ever increasing population of poverty stricken Americans. It has become important to tolerate different nonviolent forms of protest. These people were protesting the fact that the Banking system was bailed out with money contributed by the Tax Payers of the United States, yet they have foreclosed on many working citizens in our neighborhoods. I think occupying an empty bank fits right into this theme, and did do not much damage or hurt anyone. By dropping these charges, it will send a message that we value the people of our community that are trying to make a difference for the poor working man.
Allen Noonan, CA

I agree with the actions of non-violent activists and support their actions regarding the bank protest. It is unfair to target certain individuals and punish them, for speaking for the majority of Americans. Please see that the case is thrown out.
Mr. Nick Hendricks, CA

Our local culture is inclusive and forgiving - UCSC named themselves City on a Hill and professors consider Santa Cruz The Leftmost City. Eyes are on us, even iPhone's Siri recognizes Santa Cruz. How about a less moralistic, more pragmatic resolution? The charges themselves demonstrate the county's sense of affront. It's enough. Let's dismiss all the related charges and cases and not file any more!
Sylvia Caras, CA

D.A. Bob Lee is using his office to stifle peaceful dissent.
Ms. Gail Williamson, CA

Felony charges are unjustified for trespassing on a vacant property. Considering that the sincere purpose for those involved was an act of political free speech and that many others were also there and NOT charged any charges at all are unjustified.
Mr. Joseph Vella, CA

Dear Sir, During this time of the Occupy Movement, as you know, there have been thousands and thousands of peaceful demonstrations WORLDWIDE. These brave patriots here in our city of Santa Cruz made a valid point with their Occupation of the vacant building, leaving once that point was made, hurting no one whatsoever. There is a time and a season for these demonstrations and it was exactly when needed. These courageous people do not need to be in prison, they need to be heard; they echo the voices of millions on this planet we share and call HOME. In this day and age of war and occupation, the points to be made sometimes need to be theatrical-- as in these people never intended to lay down and stay there for good, only stand up peacefully for the beliefs of so many over the entire globe. Please lower or drop the charges. Sincerely, Patricia Wieder, a mom in Soquel.
Ms. Patricia Wieder, CA

As if eleven activists charged with fabricated felonies wasn't enough, Bob Lee is apparently seeking new victims.
Robert Norse, CA

Stop the war on journalists and activists and start attacking the problems we are pointing out!
Ms. Denica De Foy, CA

This is a farce, and a gross miscarriage of justice. It is transparently obvious that the DA is trying to "make an example" of the few most outspoken members of the community in an attempt to suppress dissent. The prosecution of this case is clearly at odds with public interest, and charges should be dropped immediately!
Mr. John Yerger, CA

This is oppression of the worst sort. Surely you know that activists vote.
Sheila Connell, CA

Don't prosecute journalists for covering a story, and don't prosecute activists just because they aren't liked by city officials.
Mr. Peter Maiden, CA

These are not felonies, and trying to make an example of these patriotic individuals is nonsense, and can only backfire in the long run.
Kyle Griffin, CA

These felonies are heavy-handed and unjust. Some of these folks who were charged were simply journalists covering the occupation of this long vacant bank building. It isn't right to make examples of them, as 200-300 others had entered the building over the 3-day occupation.
Mr. Spencer Wilkinson, CA

I would feel safer as an American citizen if Santa Cruz County's District Attorney's office were proceeding with greater care for our Nation's and state Constitutions this matter.
Ms. Linda Ellen Lemaster, CA

It is absurdly obvious that the DA is trying to make an example of these people because they are intelligent enough to be critical of the police department, and utilize journalism to raise awareness and create community dialogue. This is extremely valuable to the people of Santa Cruz, and is a protective right.
Courtney Hanson, CA

Good Lord, what has this country come to, when journalists not of some people's choosing are charged with felony when covering a human protest?
Lydia Blanchard, CA

Please drop the charges! These allegations are ridiculous and a poor use of governmental, local funds!
Marisol de la Luz, CA

To the District Attorney: What, exactly, are your criteria for PICKING ON PEOPLE???
Ms. Linda Rosch, DC

Judging from the preliminary brief including the pictures and videos, the Santa Cruz DA HAS NO case.
Mr. Leigh Meyers, CA

FTP.
Gio Andollo, NY

I don't know why Santa Cruz is wasting money on this case, in clear violation of the defendants' constitutional rights. There are so many things our city and county needs, and yet time and money are spent on these spurious cases. Let these people go!
Dorah Rosen, CA

My wish would be for justice being distributed equally for all. Selective prosecution with political motives does not align with my notion of what a just judicial system would look like.
R. Garimo Pape, CA

We are a nation born on the principles of freedom. Let's stand up for that.
Mr. Charles Feldman, RI

Solidarity! Thanks for putting your bodies against the gears of the machine.
Kari Sprung, MN

Please stop harassing these people. The occupy movement is attempting to take back the government for the people of whom you are a part of. Journalists have an obligation to cover the peoples' news. Stop acting like some dystopic totalitarian state agency.
Mrs. Lynne Heller, CA

"I would like to add that this entire thing is grossly unfair and these people are mostly vegetarians and would not hurt a fly. Prosecuting them for such a minor thing is completely ridiculous."   --  Blind Bear  Mar 29 2012

DA Bob Lee asks the public to turn in friends, neighbors, and family members

Santa Cruz DA Bob Lee has posted 11 videos on the 75 River St. Occupation

While police detectives testified that they reviewed "20 hours of videotape"

less than an hour of that video has been posted, and only one with its soundtrack intact. None have any date or time stamps. Defense attorneys are complaining this is a completely inadequate way of producing discovery,  by posting on youtube and Facebook.  Robert Norse and I have had our preliminary hearing postponed to May 29th because DA Rebekah Young has failed to produce discovery in a timely manner (and Norse switched attorneys).  The links to Bob Lee's videos are found here with brief descriptions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6F9eIeZqcA&feature=channel 13:15 possibly the 1st video taken , shows couch and furniture, pallets arriving with police officers doing nothing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pt5PLYzmWt4&feature=channel 7:30min shows Becky outside in almost last frame on the far, far right (a blur)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxDIjs5AL_M&feature=channel 0:26 min guys on the roof, one hands a sandbag to another (to weigh down banner which was turning over in the wind)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZ-FVkGo4bo&feature=channel 1:43 min starts showing Chris Doyon across the street and shows Norse in the doorway at 1:22min either standing there or walking out of building.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQMJAfaVmDM&feature=channel&list=ULhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQMJAfaVmDM&feature=channel&list=UL  8:16 min shows person puts yellow sticker above doorway, people come and go freely as police watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pt5PLYzmWt4&feature=channel 45 sec lone guy on the roof

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pt5PLYzmWt4&feature=channel 11:34 min starts with Becky on far left, holding a sign saying "Organize!" ; She is seen talking to Katherine Beiers & handing her a red flyer; shows Robert Norse outside building. Identifies Bradley on the roof.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1m2rES6u6qQ&feature=channel Is that Sean Reilly seen entering the building at the start of this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1m2rES6u6qQ&feature=channel 4:04 min people coming and going without any police telling them to stay out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjClx4dor-w&feature=relmfuhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjClx4dor-w&feature=relmfu  3:39 min called "The Interview" this video is the only one released with its soundtrack intact. In it, Brent Adams explains the purpose of the Occupation as he sees it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YPXKH_JUVg&feature=relmfu 10:38 Video apparently taken on Dec 2nd when Officer Hedley, Williams, and Det. Gunter came onto the property to post "no trespassing" signs. Seen inside the window directly staring back at police appears to be Cameron Larandeau, who, when warned, is seen exiting the building less than two minutes later. 

Oh, and if you'd rather use FACEBOOK to turn in your friends and neighbors, go here.

ACLU of Santa Cruz County supports the Santa Cruz 11

ACLU of Santa Cruz County

123 Liberty Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060

santacruzaclu@gmail.com

STATEMENT OF SUPPORT

Eleven local activists have been charged with a variety of offenses arising from the occupation of a vacant bank building last fall. We have two primary concerns regarding this prosecution. First, at least some of the defendants are journalists who were present to report on the protest. We condemn any attempt to criminalize their exercise of the crucial First Amendment right to gather and disseminate information about this newsworthy event. All charges based on this constitutionally protected activity should be dropped immediately.

Second, it appears that some of the defendants may have been charged due to their past adversarial relationship with law enforcement officials. The Constitution requires that the enormous power of government be exercised fairly and even handedly, and not be based on the identity or past actions of the defendants. The District Attorney should re-examine the basis for the charges, and the Court must ensure that these activists are not being selectively prosecuted.

Very truly yours,

Peter Gelblum

Chair, Board of Directors

ACLU–Santa Cruz Chapter

 

ACLU of Santa Cruz County

123 Liberty Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060

santacruzaclu@gmail.com

April 4, 2012

Ashley Morris

ACLU of Northern California

39 Drumm Street

San Francisco, California 94111

Dear Ashley:

The following case summary and request for support is being submitted on behalf of the entire Board of Directors of the Santa Cruz County Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and its more than 2,000 members:

As you may know, several of our local activists have been charged with a variety of offenses arising from their alleged involvement with the occupation of a vacant bank building late last fall. That matter is referenced as Santa Cruz County Superior Court Case Number F22196. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press submitted an amicus Letter Brief on behalf of two of the defendants in early March. I have attached a copy of that brief for your review, and the pdf may also be found online at santacruzindymedia on the Indybay.org website.

There are several reasons why we believe that Northern California should rise to the defense of these members of our community individually and as a group:

First, all of these defendants are either journalists, members of our local press, and/or activists committed to the Occupy Movement––and particularly Occupy Santa Cruz. Therefore, we believe that civil liberties are being broadly threatened by the continuing prosecution of these cases.

Secondly, none of these defendants "occupied" the premises in the same sense that those who remained on the property for several days did. (See Reporters Committee Letter Brief, page three, paragraph 4.) Indeed, these defendants were participating in constitutionally protected activities either as news gatherers or as supporters of the activists inside the occupied building.

Thirdly, in our opinion, the charges being pursued by our local District Attorney are over broad and overreaching in consideration of the facts. Each of these defendants has been charged with (1) felony conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor (Penal Code Section 182(a)(1); felony vandalism (PC Section 594(b)(1); misdemeanor trespass by entering and occupying (PC Section 602(M); and misdemeanor trespass and refusing to leave private property (PC Section 602(O). The facts in support of these charges as adduced through discovery provided by the District Attorney are both scant and unpersuasive even in the absence of any civil liberty considerations.

Ashley Morris

Page Two

April 4, 2012

Fourthly, it is also our opinion that these defendants are being selectively prosecuted in a manner directly related to the existing adversarial relationship several of these defendants have with both our local police department and the District Attorney's office. According to reports published and/or broadcast by local news media, anywhere from 150 to 300 individuals entered and exited the bank building during the 75-hour occupation, including local elected officials. And, yet, only these eleven defendants have been charged.

Fifthly, we believe that significant civil liberty issues arise on the facts of this case. Although we are mindful that the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and free assembly do not confer immunity from prosecution on those who choose to participate in arguably unlawful activities, it is of critical importance that clear distinctions be made between the exercise of the aforementioned rights in the context of direct political action. In our view, these defendants posed no threat to public order or private property by their actions either as chroniclers of the events or as ardent supporters of the occupiers and the occupation.

It is therefore our considered opinion, duly ratified by a unanimous vote of our Board, that an amicus Letter Brief appropriate to these facts and circumstances be submitted to our Superior Court on behalf and in support of the named defendants. Although the submission of an amici curiae brief is procedurally unusual at the non-appellate level, it is not barred by existing case law and may serve to provide the presiding Court with relevant information.

Should Northern California agree to draft and submit such a brief, it may be addressed to:

Honorable Paul P. Burdick

Judge of the Superior Court

County of Santa Cruz

Santa Cruz Courthouse

701 Ocean Street

Santa Cruz, CA 95060

Of course, you and your staff will need to independently review and assess the merits of this case in light of our shared mission to defend civil liberties. Please feel free contact to me directly via e-mail or by phone should you have any additional questions.

On behalf of the Board of Directors, Santa Cruz Chapter ACLU, I thank you for your consideration of this matter of local importance and concern.

Very truly yours,

Peter Gelblum

Chair, Board of Directors

ACLU–Santa Cruz Chapter