Lemaster Lodging trial turns into inquisition and hate-fest

Linda Lemaster (left) attending one of many pre-trial hearings with supporters, Leslie and Kent, November 2, 2012 for a "lodging" ticket she got two years ago. Photo by Becky Johnson

 by Becky Johnson

November 9, 2012

Santa Cruz, Ca. --  According to ADA Alex Byers, Linda Lemaster faces Six Months in Jail for the "crime"of sleeping/not sleeping on public/private property with /without possessions for a long/short period of time which can be intentional/unintentional, all subject to the "permission" of the "authority."
  

Linda is on trial for PC 647 ( e ) or  illegal "lodging" under a little-used portion of the State code, which sheriff's had not used before citing protestors at Peace Camp 2010.

According to Byers,  a protester with his/her sign attempting to peaceably assemble to seek redress of government grievances may do so: 
  

ONLY where the govt. tells them they can.

ONLY when the govt. tells them they can.

And, apparently, NOT while sitting, lying down, or sleeping since these = lodging. And if a Sheriff tells you you can't "lodge" then whatever you are doing is "lodging." According to Byers, Sheriff's didn't need to prove a person was "lodging" in order to issue a citation. Only that they were "still there on the steps when sheriff's came back."

 On the night of August 10th, as Linda Lemaster was cited for illegal lodging, Sheriff's moved elderly, Collette Connolly off the steps. Here she collapses in exhaustion on her belongings a scant 50 feet from the courthouse. Why Sheriff's told us the steps of the courthouse were illegal at 4:30AM but the parking lot was not was only one of the many arbitrary and confusing encounters Peace Camp 2010 had with law enforcement. Photo by Becky Johnson

Oh, THAT's a convenient definition of the code! When a sheriff hands you an unsigned piece of paper, then, according to Byers, that person "has been educated"that they no longer have the right to carry a sign, to protest, or to seek redress of government grievances.  And if a protester wants to publicly assemble? They must follow "time, place, and manner restrictions" which are not written in the law anywhere.

Christopher Doyon a.k.a. "X" of Peace Camp 2010 pauses on the lower steps at Peace Camp 2010. In the background, Ed Frey's white, pick-up truck can be seen hitched to the camp porto-pottie. Other than Ed's privy, homeless people had no access to a bathroom at night other than at Peace Camp 2010. Photo by Becky Johnson July 30, 2010

For ADA Alex Byers, camping = lodging except that "camping" is not illegal in that particular location under County Code.

While camping is , according to Byers, essentially the same thing, "lodging" rates 6 months in jail and/or a $1000 fine. And CAMPING is legal in the location where Linda was cited.   Committing the same crime in the City (and Lemaster WAS in the City when she was cited) rates a $92 citation or 8 hours of community service as a possible consequence. So why did the sheriff's use the statewide "lodging" code rather than the County's camping code or the City's Sleeping and Blanket ban?

According to ADA, Alex Byers, it was due to "tolerance."

Those at Peace Camp 2010 know better. The plucky little group had discovered that the County's camping ban does not apply to the grounds around the courthouse and government center. In other words "camping" is legal there. Also, due to jurisdictional agreements, City police do not patrol the grounds at the Government Center. Sheriff's opted to not enforce City codes against Sleeping and using  blankets. Codes that are all infractions, violations of which do not include jail. These were the twin laws the protest had assembled to challenge.

On July 29th, 2010, Ed Frey received a letter from County Counsel, Dana McCrae. She informed Frey that city ordinances ARE enforceable at the County Center, since it is within the City limits.  The SENTINEL reported that the reason no citations had yet been issued was because "government officials, law enforcement officers and legal experts (had to) sort out what rules apply to the property."

Peace Camp 2010 used public space which is unused at night. This photo taken on July 20th at 8:13PM shows people setting up bedding. At 8:00AM, Ed Frey would drive the porto-pottie off of the property and normal use of the facilities would commence.  Photo by Becky Johnson

Around the end of July,  County Counsel, Dana McCrae dusted off the lawbooks and dug up a code which used language lifted from an 1880 law in California designed to keep freed slaves from moving into the State. Judges Gallagher and in this trial, Connolly further eroded civil rights by creating a definition which lifts language from the 1851 Indiana State Constitution which states:  "No Negro or Mulatto shall come into, or settle in, the State..."

The new definition of lodging which Judge Rebecca Connolly approved: "To occupy a place temporarily or permanently, or temporarily settle or to live in a place, it may, but does not have to include sleeping. It means more than just sleeping and less than moving into a place permanently." 

Byers told jurors of the flyer sheriff's passed out willy-nilly to anyone who wanted one: The flyer only stated you are illegally lodging without permission. Merely telling Petitioner or anyone else that they are lodging or that they do not have the owner’s permission in no way clarifies what lodging means or how one can avoid it. In this circumstance “to lodge” illegally appears to have meant to the deputies- to further physically occupy space in any manner on the steps of the Santa Cruz County courthouse.

Sheriff's deputies stopped calling what we were doing as "camping" and started to accuse us of "lodging." We knew something was coming. About a week later, sheriff's handed out this flyer which had no letterhead, was unsigned, and unconvincing in its text as part of their "Education phase."  --Photo by Becky Johnson Aug 7 2010

THE COUNTY'S PLAN

Byers told jurors about a 2-phased Plan to get the protesters to leave the location.

--Education phase followed by an Enforcement phase.

"Lt. Plageman testified that they weren't' interfering with the right to protest.

Their goal was to stop people from the intent of the protest which was to violate

the law." He told jurors that flyers were handed out in the following way:  "If you were lying down, you were sleeping, you were violating the law. At 4:30AM, they were already lodging when the

Sheriffs deputies arrived. They were already breaking the law."
 

Sounds like a slam-dunk. 
  

So does the "law" outlaw lying down, or sleeping? No. PC 647( e ) outlaws "lodging"

but that word is not defined anywhere in the code. In 2011, at the Peace Camp Six

trial, Judge John Gallagher made up a definition by looking at old codes and

a dictionary.  Judge Rebecca Connolly has made up a new definition. In neither

case, were any of the defendants allowed access to either definition of lodging

when cited two years ago. 
  

"The dictionary includes 14 different definitions of "lodging," Defense Attorney Jonathon Gettleman quickly added in.

But Connolly had decided 18 months ago that PC 647( e ) is Constitutional, so

jurors don't know that defendants (and their attorneys) have challenged that

Constitutionality. See:"Sleeping is not a Constitutionally protected right" 

Byers showed some really dark and grainy videos which roughly show a mess. John Valley's voice can be heard and the sound of Linda coughing.  Even worse, he paints the protest as characterized as "junk all over", none of which has ANYTHING to do with Linda Lemaster. Linda was wide awake at 11PM with no bedding. That, at 4:30AM, sheriff's came and found her sitting up and looking sleepy, doesn't mean a crime was committed.

Byers asserted more claims that I doubt are true.
 

"No one is allowed to lodge on the steps of the courthouse at night." Huh? Lodging isn't defined as an activity done at night only. And when Linda Lemaster was there at 4:30AM, she wasn't trespassing. The courthouse steps were a legal public place to be (at the time. Since this has been changed by County administration to make it a crime to BE THERE between 7PM and 7AM).

Cease activity constituting lodging

This notice was handed to me by Lt. Amy Christie of the Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office in the predawn hours when 20 sheriff's demanded protesters at Occupy Santa Cruz remove several tents and a dome structure. Photo courtesy of Auntie Imperial November 12, 2011

What if that "activity" which "constitutes lodging" is the same activity a people use when peaceably assembled to seek redress of government grievances?

by Becky Johnson

November 12, 2011

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- It is 5:40AM on a Saturday morning, and I have arrived at the Santa Cruz County Courthouse to find a Sheriff's raid in progress. Deputies are loading deflated tents into waiting sheriff's vehicles while sleepy-looking Occupy Santa Cruz protesters carry on a myriad of conversations with a dozen different deputies. Supervised and directed by Lt. Amy Christie, the sheriff's deputies were making videotapes of the area, conversing with the protesters, loading tents into police vehicles, and handing out notices.

"My tent was taken, " one thin, scared young woman told me. I could see her shivering.

"They made me drag my tent to the curb," another man told me as I surveyed a wreck of wet blankets, tarps, personal belongings, and a deflated tent all piled up in the gutter. Another woman pointed to a tent she'd placed on top of her vehicle.

"They told me to take it down, but I refused. I told them 'It's my property and I'm not going to take it down."

" Who is in charge here?" I asked, as a Sheriff's deputy pointed to his commander.
"Lt. Christie is in charge, " he told me.

I found her and immediately began to question exactly what it was she thought she was doing there.

"Is it illegal to camp here? According to the County Camping ordinance, is it illegal? You know it's not."

"What are the elements of 'lodging' that you see here, Lt. Christie?"
" We're done. You're illegally lodging here, " she told me. "I'm going to give you this and ask you to walk away from me." She handed me a piece of paper that had the letterhead for the County of Santa Cruz on it.
"I'm not lodging here," I said. "Yeah, you are," she insisted with robot-like speech.

This was not the first raid on Occupy Santa Cruz but the first one where I was able to witness some the actions of the deputies firsthand. In the raid on November 3rd and 4th, 1 man, Felix Krull, was physically arrested and 3 people were cited. Krull was jailed for five days for not having I. D. and released without charges. On November 5th,Chris Doyon was cited by Sgt. Esther Beckman while 7 others were cited under the now-infamous PC 647 (e) on November 11th.

The section is found under the "Disorderly Conduct" section of the California Penal Code. However, the only people I witnessed "disturbing the peace" in the predawn hours were the sheriff's! No one was arrested or cited, but police did seize two tents as "unclaimed property" as protesters followed them back to the basement of the County Building with chants of "We're the 99% You're the 99%!" I'm not sure that applies to Lt. Amy Christie. SHE may be one of the 1%.
She certainly SERVES the interests of the 1%.

Looking at the new "Lodging" notice, I can see that this version is decidedly different than the last version. Not only has the County letterhead been added, but much of the language appears to specifically apply to Occupy Santa Cruz including outlawing of "domes whether covered or not". Since the doors to the courthouse on the north side of the building have been closed to the public for a decade, the area is, in no way, obstructing or interfering with any of the normal business conducted in the Courthouse or the County Building.

The first line, however is wrong. It says "This property is owned by the County of Santa Cruz." Technically, it is the citizens of Santa Cruz County which collectively "own" Santa Cruz County public property. And the Courthouse itself is owned collectively by the citizenry of the State of California, being State land. Clearly this land is not "owned" by County CEO, Susan Mauriello, however, if HER signature were on the document, along with the date and time of the warning, it MIGHT have some legal sway.

The next difference I noticed was this: "All of these structures must be removed or.... they will be removed for you and stored safely for pick up by the owners." THAT's new!

Perhaps the County Counsel has been reading up on the Kincaid Decision in Fresno where the City was forced to pay the claims of dozens of homeless people who'd had their property confiscated and destroyed by Fresno Police? Or perhaps the Sheriffs have simply become more humane and eschew destroying survival sleeping gear and tents from poor people?

There is just no way on God's Green Earth that PC 647 (e) can be Constitutional. How can a person be ARRESTED and JAILED for not having a motel receipt? It's vague, overbroad, ANND selectively enforced. The notice Amy Christie handed me this morning says "You are being requested to cease activity constituting lodging." Here we go again.

What IS "activity constituting lodging?" DA Sara Dabkowski in January of 2011 said "To 'lodge' somewhere, it's common knowledge. To lodge, live, stay the night, where they don't have permission." Yet on May 4th 2011, Judge John Gallagher told a jury that "to lodge means to settle or live in a place, that may include sleeping." Judge Rebecca Connolly also found PC 647 (e) to be Constitutional. She faced Public Defender Mark Garver who said " if "lodging" can be defined as someone who stands, sits, or publicly assembles in a protest, it can be used to disperse that protest. I am challenging this ordinance on its face as well as as applied."

So "settling in" or "living in a place" is an arrestable crime? Where have we heard that language used before?

Remembering 647 (e) "anti-lodging" Police Repression

In Santa Cruz, we organized Peace Camp 2010, a demonstration at both City Hall and on the steps of the Santa Cruz County Superior Court in order to protest against laws which prohibit the act of sleeping or use of a blanket. We consider these as crimes against humanity and a matter of conscience to oppose. First we were ignored. Then we were ridiculed. Then they really cracked down. Can a win be far away?

Sheriff's Deputies attempt to awaken a sleeping man to tell him he can't
protest there anymore or face immediate arrest for unlawful "lodging."
Aug 6 2010 Photo by Becky Johnson

An unknown protester lies under a camouflage tarp with a copy of the Santa Cruz Sentinel prominently displayed with the title of the article "Homeless Protesters ready to 'resist.'" Photo August 6, 2011 by Becky Johnson











Sheriff's Deputies awake and cite a homeless man for PC 647 (e), unlawful "lodging", in an effort to shut down the protest which County officials had "tolerated" too long. Deputies could not tell any of the protesters where they could go and legally sleep. Nine months later, DA Sarah Dabkowski introduced evidence of 1 or 2 possible shelter beds the sixty some homeless protesters could theoretically have slept in that night as evidence of their "choice."






(on left)
Sheriff's Deputies pour over the art supplies of artist, Dreamcatcher, as
well as bedrolls,
clothing, and food supplies. In court, they referred to these things as "garbage" which was offending the "aesthetics" of the courthouse grounds.





(on right) 72-yr-old Collette Connolly is cited by SCPD for unlawful sleeping. She was convicted of misdemeanor lodging May 4, 2011 and now faces up to 6 months in jail and/or $1000 fine. Connolly is both mentally and physically disabled and homeless.








Gary Johnson gets cited for use of a blanket when he is cited for sitting up, awake, in a charge, but covered with a sleeping bag. Video by Chris Doyon.

Klieg lights, costing about $100 a night to operate, shine down on Peace Camp 2010 at City Hall in a scene reminiscent of Guantanamo Bay. This along with the posting of "No Trespassing" signs at both City Hall and at the Public Library across the street by Parks and Rec Chief, Dannette Shoemaker were justified as "an oversight." Protesters claim the City Council wanted to shut down their legal protest. Photo by Becky Johnson August 19, 2010.

After nearly 165 years of open access by the public to the public grounds of City Hall, "No Trespassing" signs were installed after the arrival of the demonstration against the Sleeping Ban. Unless the public objects, less and less of public space is available for use by the public. Photo by Becky Johnson Aug 21, 2010