HUFF Web Log

Norse Hearing Postponed from Friday June 16th to early August TBA
by Robert Norse
Thu Jun 15 16:56:39 2006

A hearing prior to the jury trial of Robert Norse (aka Robert Norris Kahn)
to investigate complaints against arresting officer Steve Clark will be
postponed from Friday June 16 to early August time TBA.

This update is for those following my criminal case.

Mayor Mike Rotkin and District Attorney Bob Lee have charged me with
“disrupting a city council meeting” and “obstructing an officer” back in
June of 2005. The case can be examined at the Municipal/Superior Court
clerk’s office under the name “Robert Norris Kahn” (my family name).

The case has been repeatedly postponed, most recently because of apparent
SCPD, D.A., or judicial lack of compliance with a “Pitchess Hearing”
requirement.

The “Pitchess Hearing” is a judicial examination behind closed doors of all
formal complaints against a police officer for the last five years on a
particular issue (in Clark’s case “excessive force” and “lying by statement
or omission”). Judge Burdick is being asked to look again at Clark’s file
since some new complaints have “appeared” that apparently weren’t there or
were overlooked before.

Originally scheduled for Friday morning June 16th (not June 11th as
mistakenly reported), the hearing has been postponed until August because
D.A. Archie Webber, the go-getter in charge of the case, will be out of
town.

The guy who filed the complaints about Clark or knows about then is a former
D.A. investigator, is currently in Europe, who won’t be back til mid-summer.

Apparently SCPD Police chief Skerry himself has sustained at least one
complaint against Clark for misuse of information. A second complaint
against him for lying is also at issue (though apparently not sustained).
Whether sustained or not, we’re entitled to have access to the names and
phone numbers of who filed the complaints, so we can use them as witnesses
to impeach Clark.

I shall let folks know through indymedia the exact time and date of that
August hearing and of my trial date, now scheduled for September 11th (!).
Because of this postponement, the trial itself may also be postponed.

I am also suing former Mayors Krohn, Fitzmaurice, and Kennedy in federal
court for a continuing pattern of harassment at City Council. This federal
case has been postponed as well (since the criminal case affects it).

David Beauvais will discuss the issue tonight on Free Radio Santa Cruz (7 PM
Thursday June 15th at http://www.freakradio.org and/or 101.1 FM).

The show will be archived at http://www.huffsantacruz.org .

More history of the case:
http://indybay.org/newsitems/2006/04/18/18160331.phpNorse Hearing Postponed from Friday June 16th to early August TBA
by Robert Norse
Thu Jun 15 16:56:39 2006

A hearing prior to the jury trial of Robert Norse (aka Robert Norris Kahn)
to investigate complaints against arresting officer Steve Clark will be
postponed from Friday June 16 to early August time TBA.

This update is for those following my criminal case.

Mayor Mike Rotkin and District Attorney Bob Lee have charged me with
“disrupting a city council meeting” and “obstructing an officer” back in
June of 2005. The case can be examined at the Municipal/Superior Court
clerk’s office under the name “Robert Norris Kahn” (my family name).

The case has been repeatedly postponed, most recently because of apparent
SCPD, D.A., or judicial lack of compliance with a “Pitchess Hearing”
requirement.

The “Pitchess Hearing” is a judicial examination behind closed doors of all
formal complaints against a police officer for the last five years on a
particular issue (in Clark’s case “excessive force” and “lying by statement
or omission”). Judge Burdick is being asked to look again at Clark’s file
since some new complaints have “appeared” that apparently weren’t there or
were overlooked before.

Originally scheduled for Friday morning June 16th (not June 11th as
mistakenly reported), the hearing has been postponed until August because
D.A. Archie Webber, the go-getter in charge of the case, will be out of
town.

The guy who filed the complaints about Clark or knows about then is a former
D.A. investigator, is currently in Europe, who won’t be back til mid-summer.

Apparently SCPD Police chief Skerry himself has sustained at least one
complaint against Clark for misuse of information. A second complaint
against him for lying is also at issue (though apparently not sustained).
Whether sustained or not, we’re entitled to have access to the names and
phone numbers of who filed the complaints, so we can use them as witnesses
to impeach Clark.

I shall let folks know through indymedia the exact time and date of that
August hearing and of my trial date, now scheduled for September 11th (!).
Because of this postponement, the trial itself may also be postponed.

I am also suing former Mayors Krohn, Fitzmaurice, and Kennedy in federal
court for a continuing pattern of harassment at City Council. This federal
case has been postponed as well (since the criminal case affects it).

David Beauvais will discuss the issue tonight on Free Radio Santa Cruz (7 PM
Thursday June 15th at http://www.freakradio.org and/or 101.1 FM).

The show will be archived at http://www.huffsantacruz.org .

More history of the case:
http://indybay.org/newsitems/2006/04/18/18160331.php

to: the Santa Cruz City Council
re: upcoming clarification of the solicitation ordinance

for City Council meeting on Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Dear Mayor Cynthia Mathews and members of the Santa Cruz City Council,

HUFF calls for major reform of the Soliciting ordinance (MC 9.10.010) on Tuesday May 23, 2006 from the Santa Cruz City Council.

Since the City Council must rewrite their anti-homeless panhandling law due to a recent loss in federal court which declared the law unconstitutional, we at HUFF urge them to fix the anti-homeless and draconian measures regulating those asking for acts of charity.

While asking for spare change is a protected activity under the 1st amendment free speech protections, the courts have ruled that time, place, and manner restrictions are allowed if the government can present a signficant government interest—usually a health or safety concern.

HUFF questions whether any public health or safety concern is addressed by restrictions such as not soliciting from a seated position, in groups of two or more, or holding a sign asking for food after dark? Actually, these ordinances THREATEN the health and safety of hungry homeless people!

HUFF reminds the citizenry that laws against fraud or assault will still apply and we support those laws.

HUFF urges the Santa Cruz City Council to humanize its ordinance against begging, which is undoubtedly violated only by the poorest of the poor, in the following manner:

1. reduce the 50 foot restriction from a change-dispensing machine to 15 feet.
2. remove the dusk to dawn prohibition
3. allow people to solicit while in a seated position
4. allow people to solicit in groups of up to four people
5. remove all prohibitions against soliciting with a sign
6. remove all locations of restriction to prohibited ONLY where they obstruct a
sidewalk or a doorway
7. strike the section on misleading solicitation
8. remove prohibitions against leaning on public property while soliciting

We prefer that the City send this matter to the Downtown Commission for a thorough examination and review first. Reasonable and humane ordinances in other cities can also be studied. HUFF will remain available as a community resource for feedback on proposed language.

— Becky Johnson of HUFF

[Pending a restructuring of the HUFF web site, I’m posting this here. You can read Street Spirit on the web at: http://www.thestreetspirit.org. -Thomas]

Street Spirit Index: Stories by or about Santa Cruz or by Santa Cruz
Writers
[through September 2005; does not include photo credits]

August 1996 p. 1 Marathon Protest Defies Santa Cruz Sleeping Ban by Becky
Johnson (BJ) & Robert Norse (RN)
p. 5 SoupCrime in San Francisco by RN
Amnesty International Denounces S.F. Anti-Homeless Laws by Pierre Sane (AI
Secretary General)
September 1996 p. 4 Cops Jail Four at Santa Cruz Sleepers Protest by The
City Hall Sleepers Protest
October 1996 p. 1 Santa Cruz ‘Sleep Protest’ Faces New Police Attacks by
RN
p. 10 When Journalism Stoops to Homeless Bashing by BJ
November 1996 p. 3 To Give Is Human, to Beg a Crime by BJ
p. 8 Protesters Carry on the Fight to Legalize Sleep by RN
p. 8 Howard Zinn Disturbs the Sleep of the Elite by BJ
December 1996 p. 3 For the Poor, A Campground is an Illegal Dream by BJ

January 1997 p. 1 Santa Cruz City Council Silences The Public, Censors
Dissent, Upholds Camping Ban by BJ
February 1997 p. 2 Protesters Demand Amnesty for ‘Sleepcrimes’ by RN
March 1997 p. 1 The Lost Children of the Poor by BJ
p. 5 Santa Cruz Convicts the Homeless of ‘Sleep Crimes’ by RN
p. 6 Jailed for Activism in Santa Cruz by Laura Tucker
p. 6 Rehab, Down at the Farm by David ‘BD’ Dumars
p. 10 Traveling the Oregon Homeless Trial by BJ
April 1997 p. 1 Sleepcrime Defendants are Vindicated by RN
p. 13 Attorneys Must Learn to Serve the Homeless Movement by RN
May 1997 p. 5 Sitting Ban Opens ‘Pandori’s Box’ by BJ
p. 5 ‘Sitcrimes’ in Santa Barbara by RN
June 1997 p. 2 Creative Protests Challenge Sitting Ban in Santa Barbara by
RN
p. 3 Let Them Eat Paper by BJ
p. 4 ‘Mean Sweeps’ From Sea to Shining Sea by BJ and RN
July 1997 p. 1 Police Crackdowns Hit Santa Monica’s Homeless Community by
RN
p. 4 The Odyssey of Ran McMinn
August 1997 p. 1 Compassion on Trial in Buena Park by RN
p. 4 Youth is a Crime in Santa Cruz by BJ
p. 4 Teens Confront City over ‘Child Protection Curfew’ by Linda Lemaster
p. 12 Human Rights Activist Found Guilty of Sleeping by BJ and RN
September 1997 p. 2 Struggling with the Sleeping Ban in Santa Cruz by RN
p. 3 Homeless Teens and the Youth Curfew by BJ
October 1997 p. 2 Massive Homeless Deportation in Eureka by RN
p. 2 The Death of a Child is the Worst by BJ
p. 11 Rev. Drake Wins a Moral Victory by RN
November 1997 p. 1 Eureka’s Homeless Refugees by RN
p. 4 SCAN Endorses Repeal of Santa Cruz Sleeping Ban by BJ
December 1997 p. 8 Questions Remain in Santa Cruz Police Shooting by Lucy
Kemnitzer, RN, and BJ

January 1998 p. 1 Santa Monica Activists Challenge Church and State by RN
p. 5 Santa Cruz Initiative to Repeal Sleeping Ban Gains Momentum by BJ
p. 8 Unasked Questions, Foregone Conclusions by BJ
February 1998 (nothing)
March 1998 p. 7 Calling the Poor Out of the Garden by BJ
April 1998 p. 2 Persecuting the Poor in the Name of John Steinbeck by BJ
p. 4 Justice News and Homeless Blues from Around California by RN
May 1998 p. 3 Justice News and Homeless Blues from Around California by RN
p. 12 Neighbors and Family Shocked by Santa Cruz Police Shooting by BJ
June 1998 p. 2 Scapegoat City, California: Vigil at Santa Monica City
Hall…by BJ
July 1998 p. 6 San Jose Food Not Bombs Declares That Parks Are for All the
People by BJ and RN
August 1998 (Nothing)
September 1998 (Nothing–poetry issue)
October 1998 p. 1 Bulldozing Low-Cost Housing in Beach Flats by BJ
p. 2 Salinas Judge Upholds Civil rights of the Poor by RN
November 1998 p. 2 First Amendment Rights of Street Spirit Vendors Upheld
by RN
p. 4 Ganged-Up: The Case of Miguel Guttierez by BJ
p. 8 Beach Flats Neighborhood Saved–But S.C. Activists Wonder How
Long…by RN and BJ
December 1998 p. 4 First Amendment Jailed in Santa Cruz by RN

January 1999 p. 1 Activists fight Santa Cruz Sleeping Bay by RN
p. 10 Affordable Housing vs. NIMBYism by LL
February 1999 p. 2 Santa Cruz Wrestles With Its Conscience by BJ
March 1999 p. 4 Not Even the Crumbs of Justice by BJ
p. 4 Eichorn Decision Upholds Sleep as a Human Right by RN
April 1999 p. 5 Activists Charge ‘Bad Faith’ as Santa Cruz Upholds
Sleeping Ban by RN
May 1999 (Nothing–poetry issue)
June 1999 p. 1 Hunger Strike in Santa Cruz by BJ
p. 2 Santa Cruz Authorities Stonewall Homeless Beatings by RN
p. 4 Eichorn Decision: New Tool to Reclaim Old Liberties by RN
p. 9 Street Wise Santa Cruz - A ‘Musical Ministry’ by Sherry Conable
July 1999 p. 2 Debunking the Magnet Theory by BJ
p. 4 Homeless Activists Faces Years in Prison for coming to Defense of
Mother and Child…by BJ
August 1999 (Nothing)
September 1999 (Nothing–poetry issue)
October 1999 p. 4 Hate Crimes Against the Poor Don’t Count by LK
p. 13 The Simi Valley Jury Shows Up in Santa Cruz by BJ and RN
November 1999 p. 2 Colorful Protest Challenges Santa Cruz Sleeping Bay by
BJ
p. 2 Homeless Issues Task Force Recommends Repeal of Camping Ban in Santa
Cruz by LK
December 1999 p. 4 Cruel Policy Drives Homeless Poor into the Winter Rains
by SC
p. 4 Resisting the Goliath of Anti-Homeless Bureaucracy by BJ

January 2000 p. 4 Maybe They Can Sleep Next November by RN (and BJ)
February 2000 p. 1 Civil Disobedience in Silicon Valley by RN and BJ
p. 2 Police Report 51 Assaults on Homeless People in Santa Cruz by BJ
p. 2 Compassion from the Strangest Places by BJ
p. 6 Homeless Man Fights Back Against Ban by Merchants by BJ
p. 9 A Fast for Those with Nowhere to Go by Roxanne Acquistapache
March 2000 p. 1 Meet the Future Homeless Residents of Santa Cruz by RA
p. 2 When Mercy and Charity are Evicted by BJ
p. 2 San Jose Housing Protest Ends in 23 Arrests by RN
p. 7 ‘Long Live the World We All Dreamed About…’ by LL
April 2000 p. 6 Homeless Protesters Occupy Plush Hotel Lobby by BJ
p. 6 Sleeping Ban Protest Prompts Mayor and Council to Walk Out by BJ
May 2000 p. 6 Policing the Homeless in Santa Cruz by BJ
June 2000 p. 5 Historic Victory for Homeless People in Santa Cruz by RN,
BJ, and David Silva
July 2000 p. 2 Smoke, Mirrors, and Texas Instruments by BJ and RN
August 2000 p. 5 Taking A Stand Against the Bulldozers and Evictors by BJ
September 2000 (Nothing–poetry issue)
October 2000 (Nothing–reprints issue)
November 2000 p. 5 (reprints) ‘Mean Sweeps’ from Sea to Shining Sea by BJ
and RN (from 6-97)
p. 6 Eichorn Decision Upholds a Human Right by RN (from 3-99)
p. 6 Eichorn Decision: New Tool to Reclaim Old Liberties by RN (from 6-99)
p. 7. Hate Crimes Against the Poor Don’t Count by LK (from 10-99)
December 2000 p. 3 More Hardships Than Ever by BJ
p. 3 New Santa Cruz Dining Room Gives Warm Refuge to the Poor by Alene
Smith (photographer too)

January 2001 p. 3 Still Waiting for Justice by BJ
February 2001 p. 3 Santa Cruz Holds Memorial for 41 Homeless Death by BJ
In Memory of Those Outside Who Died This Year by AS
March 2001 p. 6 Reporting from the Center of the Struggle; Rising Up: A
Tasty Tale… by RN
April 2001 p. 15 Homeless Activists Banned from City Hall by BJ
May 2001 (No issue)
June 2001 p. 6 Homeless Protests Force San Jose Mayor’s Hand by RN
p. 7 Santa Barbara’s Sleeping Ban Stumbles in the Courts by RN
July 2001 p. 4 Camp Paradise vs. City Hall by RN
p. 4 City’s Suit Dismissed Against Koffee Klatch 3
August 2001 p. 2 Camp Paradise Residents Vow to Resist Expulsion by BJ
and RN
p. 2 A Visit to Camp Paradise by Lydia Gans
September 2001 p. 5 Santa Cruz Shows Solidarity with Camp Paradise by BJ
p. 9 New Blows Against the Santa Barbara Sleeping Ban by RN
October 2001 p. 1 Santa Cruz Ratchets Up Anti-Homeless Campaign by BJ
p. 4 Camp Paradise Wins Reprieve Despite City Opposition by RN
p. 4 A Soul Cleansing by the Riverside by LL
November 2001 p. 4 City Council’s Underhanded Attack on Camp Paradise by
RN
December 2001 p. 6 No Necessity for Homeless Survival by BJ and RN
p. 6 Are the Greenbelts Just for Joggers and Polo Ponies

January 2002 p. 1 Their Shelter Emergency is Now Over Forever by BJ
p. 5 After the Deluge–Camp Paradise Faces Exile by RN and BJ
p. 10 Homelessness, Human Rights, and Political Repression by Steve Argue
February 2002 p.4 Defender of the Homeless Wins Important Court Ruling
(Santa Barbara) by RN
p.6 Liberal Santa Cruz is Named One of Meanest Cities by BJ
March 2002 (nothing)
April 2002 p. 5 Activists Win Survival Victories in Santa Cruz by RN
Homeless Summit in Santa Cruz by RN
p. 12 We Reserve the Right to Discriminate Against Anyone (Santa Monica) by
BJ and RN
May 2002 p. 9 Activist Challenges Discrimination in Santa Monica by BJ and
RN
June 2002 p. 2 Homeless Activists Nail a Plank in Green Party Platform
p. 3 Growing Federal Attack on Poor Families on Welfare by BJ
July 2002 (nothing)
August 2002 p. 10 Fast Track Repression Stalks Santa Cruz by BJ and RN
p. 11 Political Chalk Writing — a Crime Against the State by BJ
September 2002 p. 7 The Forbidden Zone — Santa Cruz Bans the Beggars by
BJ
October 2002 p. 7 Driving on a Long Road to Nowhere (Santa Barbara) by RN
November 2002 p. 10 Hard Times in Santa Cruz by BJ
December 2002 (nothing)

January 2003 (nothing)
February 2003 (nothing)
March 2003 p. 2 Santa Cruz Liberals Back the Police Against the Homeless
by RN and BJ
p.18 Santa Cruz Activist Files Suit to Stop Police Attacks on Homeless by
Thomas Leavitt
p. 18 Chalkers Fight for Free Speech by Elaine Charkowski
April 2003 p. 3 Taking Bigoted City Laws to Court in Santa Barbara by RN
p. 12 Santa Cruz Vigil Against Two Wars by BJ
May 2003 p. 6 Racial and Economic Cleansing by Santa Cruz Police by BJ &
RN
p.13 Anti-Depressants Prescribed to Cure Anti-War Blues by Roxanne
Acquistapace
June 2003 p. 4 Not Enough Hate for a Hate Crime by BJ
p. 18 Santa Cruz Concocts New Homeless-Removal Plan by BJ
July 2003 (nothing)
August 2003 p. 4 Forced Treatment: Coming Soon to a County Near You? by RN
September 2003 p. 5 Illegal to be Homeless: the NCH report by RN & BJ
October 2003 (nothing)
November 2003 (nothing)
December 2003 p.5 Faces of Homelessness in Santa Cruz by BJ & RN

January 2004 (nothing)
February 2004 p. 6 Santa Cruz Mayor Banishes Peaceful Protest, Jails
Activist by BJ
March 2004 (nothing)
April 2004 p. 12 Dignity and Respect Are Owed to All Those We Help by RA
p. 20 Victory for Free Speech in Santa Cruz by BJ
May 2004 p. 5 Arcata Activist Resists ‘Homeless Cleansing’ by RN
p. 5 Rousted and Robbed by Robocop by BJ
p. 16 First Amendment Under Attack by Sherry Conable
June 2004 Liberal Mayor Breaks Promise to Santa Cruz Homeless by BJ
July 2004 (nothing)
August 2004 (nothing)
September 2004 p. 2 No Homeless Parking: New Police Attack on the Poor by
RN
p. 2 Reclaim the Streets in Santa Cruz by Christopher Robin
October 2004 p.3 Homeless Activist Wins in Federal Court Suit Against Santa
Cruz Police for False Arrest by RN
November 2004 p. 1 FCC Steals the Voice of the Poor by BJ
December 2004 (nothing)

January 2005 p. 2 A Lonely Death on the Doorstep of City Hall by BJ
p. 5 Fighting Bad Laws with Good Lawyers [in Santa Barbara] by RN
February 2005 (nothing)
March 2005 (nothing)
April 2005 p. 7 Homeless People Face a Ban On Existence by BJ
May 2005 p.7 Nonviolent Students Brualized at UC Santa Cruz by BJ
p.12 No Tolerance for Medical Marijuana in Santa Cruz by BJ
June 2005 p.1 Court Victory Upholds Legal Rights of Homeless People by RN
July 2005 p. 6 Assaulted and Arrested for Speaking Out at City Hall by BJ
p. 6 Police Officer’s Confrontational History with Homeless People in Santa
Cruz by BJ
August 2005 p. 20 SEIU Holds Heated Debate Over the Sleeping Ban by BJ
September 2005 p. 7 Thankful Memories of All the Love Lotus Gave by Linda
Lemaster

[Note: we discovered that Tom B. has been uploading Bathrobespierre’s Broadsides to their normal location, and we’ve updated the site to include links to the latest shows, etc. We’ve also gotten in contact with Tom B. via email. All is well on that front. -Thomas]

HUFF meeting updates:

Last week (10-5), Bob Patton and I met for about an hour next to the coffee
cart in the breezeway/atrium between the County Building and the Courthouse.

Bob and John continue to hold regular meetings of the Human Rights
Organization out at the Dining Bay of the Homeless Services Center every
Saturday at 1:45 p.m. for an hour. Bob agreed to help me work on some
political/legal strategies for my criminal case (disrupting a meeting,
resisting arrest) —which comes up for trial readiness on October 19th.
We’ll be working on a second flier describing City Council procedural and
substantive repression punishing those trying to bring up homeless subjects.

I noted I’d put in a second Public Records Act request for SCPD tasering
guidelines. I’ve put out a flier attacking what seems to be a coverup in
the tasering death of David Anthony Crosby (see
www.santacruz.indymedia.org).

Today (10-12), Bob, Sharon P., Jeremiah, David T., and I met for an hour and
a half. Weather is getting chillier, so folks should bring sweaters. I’ll
try to bring hot chocolate/coffee in a megamug.

Jeremiah announced he was going to trial on “resisting arrest” charges from
this spring/summer which he got up at UCSC. He declined again to give his
full name and/or show us the police report, which he had in his backpack,
but invited folks to show up at 8:30 AM .in the American cafe (basement of
the County Building) for “trial readiness” on October 19th and for jury
selection on October 24th. Similar “resisting arrest” charges against
Chris Brozda, Hotrod (John Rapaport), and Dennis Holt have all been dropped
when the defendants refused to plea bargain at pre-trial within the last two
months.

October 18th is Sharon Paight’s birthday.

HUFF passed a resolution supporting the strike and asking that the Metro
Board resign. We also agreed the Board should continue rapid negotiations
in good faith and so encourage the union to stop the strike (the UTU has
said they don’t need a settled contract, just a substantial indication of
good faith to end the strike). We also want the Board to be transparent in
letting the public know who voted how on important votes like the one that
sabotaged the contract negotiated by their own team.

Jeremiah reported he was verbally attacked by an employee up at UCSC at the
Kreske Food Co-Op after he’d purchased food and sat down to eat. But
further details were hard to come by.

The HRO’s Bob P. noted the HRO was now an official member of the National
Coalition for the Homeless. He alsos aid they were planning an event to
include food, poetry, blanket-distribution. I suggested it be a forum on
“The Winter Shelter Crisis in Santa Cruz” or “Setting up a Tent City”.

I noted Leslie Cook, City Clerk, was requiring me to fill out a new request
to the SCPD to get the SCPD’s tasering guidelines rather than forwarding my
September 24th Public Records Act request there. I told folks that in
early November former Mayors Fitzmaurice, Kennedy, and Krohn would be called
in to answer questions under oath in the upcoming federal lawsuit, suing the
City for civil damages for my false arrest at City Council in March 2002,
when I silently raised my arm in a “you’re acting like a bunch of Nazis”
salute. I suggested we coordinate some public event around it, if we have
the personpower.

Bob P. and I will continue to work on a flier about City Council procedural
blockage and its impact on the homeless and homeless activists.

Bob may speak on Free Radio Santa Cruz Sunday on the scavenging issue (city
harassing and ticketing homeless recyclers).

I passed on verbally Becky J.’s account of her meeting with Santa Cruz
indymedia activists at their open meeting last Sunday. Becky is currently
banned from the indymedia website for unclear reasons, partially having to
do with her views on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, partially with her
associations with pro-Israeli government activists.

Thomas L., though unable to attend meetings, has succeeded in
reestablishing the HUFF website at www.huffsantacruz.org as well as many of
the Bathrobespierre’s Broadsides files. Our inability to contact Thomas B.
has temporarily stopped the archiving of those sound files from Free Radio,
but Thomas L. is trying to get in touch with Thomas B. If anyone knows how
to reach him, let us know.

Free Radio experienced a virus which destroyed all the old sound
files there, so we are currently missing some September sound files, for
those interested in hearing the old Bathrobespierre’s Broadsides shows.

I am still eager to get help preparing for my criminal and civil
cases, which involves listening to old audio and video tapes of City Council
to pin down where Councilmembers acted repressively.

The HUFF website also need to be updated with new articles and
its front page revamped. Suggestions and articles should be e-mailed to
Thoams L. at thomas@thomasleavitt.org .

The HUFF Web Log is back. And comment-spam free (ARGH!). With protection against comment spam and trackback spam. Feel free to register, post articles, comment, etc.

How the Santa Cruz City Council Fails To Respect the Spirit and Intent Of The Brown Act and First Amendment
By Thomas Leavitt

As citizens, we have certain rights, guaranteed by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, and further enhanced and procedurally detailed by California’s Ralph M. Brown Act, whose introductory section reads thusly:

“In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.

The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”

The Brown Act specifies exactly how and under what conditions public meetings of local government agencies may be held, what rights we as citizens of California have to participate in these meetings, and what limited constraints on our participation the agencies may impose.

Our rights include advance notice (72 hours) of when and where meetings will be held, and what will be discussed at the meeting (an agenda detailing these items must be made available) (§ 54954.2(a).). They also include “the right to provide testimony at any regular or special meeting on any subject which will be considered by the legislative body before or during its consideration of the item. (§ 54954.3(a).)”, as well as the “right at every regular meeting to provide testimony on any matter under the legislative body’s jurisdiction. (§ 54954.3(a).)” (i.e., matters not on the agenda). The “Oral Communications” segment of Santa Cruz City Council meetings fulfills this requirement. We also have the right to criticize “the policies, procedures, programs, or services of the agency, or of the acts or omissions of the legislative body. (§ 54954.3(c).)”

(Quotes sourced from “The Brown Act: Open Meetings For Local Legislative Bodies”, prepared under the aegis of California Attorney General Bill Lockyer in 2003, and available on the web at ag.ca.gov/publications/ in the “Open Government” section).

Importantly, according to Attorney General Bill Lockyer, “Public meetings of governmental bodies have been found to be limited public fora. As such, members of the public have broad constitutional rights to comment on any subject relating to the business of the governmental body. Any attempt to restrict the content of such speech must be narrowly tailored to effectuate a compelling state interest.”

The provisions cited above are designed to ensure that the affairs of our local governments are handled in a fashion that is as transparent as possible, and to ensure the ability of the public to provide feedback on any and all issues they consider. Unfortunately for the citizens of Santa Cruz, our City Council has chosen to take a very narrow view of how these rights can be exercised.

The latest manifestation of this is the City Council’s recent imposition of a 5 minute limit on the total amount of time an individual may speak on items contained in the City Council’s “Consent Agenda”. Since this portion of the agenda often contains as many as twenty items (sometimes more), this effectively limits folks to as little as 15 seconds per item of comment time. While it is unlikely that anyone would want to speak to every item on the consent agenda, it isn’t out of the realm of consideration that an individual might want to speak to four or five items – under these circumstances, this time limit severely limits the ability to speak effectively to the issues at hand. As well, it is not unreasonable or unlikely that an individual might be motivated to speak on items he or she had not otherwise planned to comment on (perhaps in reaction to comments made by other members of the public), but be prevented from doing so because he or she has already used up his or her allocated time.

This is a significant change from the rules and practices that previously prevailed, under which an individual could speak for up to three minutes on each and every item, or at worst would be subject to a shorter time limit on each individual item, if the Mayor decided to temporarily alter the Council’s normal practice. It is also in stark contrast to the way almost every other city council or other local government body in the state chooses to manage public input. Reading through the rules of numerous other City Councils, I was unable to find any analogous practice that imposed an overall time limit on comments made by an individual.

This is only one in a series of questionable practices engaged in by our City Council that have had a chilling effect on public participation by making it difficult to impossible to effectively exercise one’s rights under the Brown Act and First Amendment and or by explicitly violating them. Among the most egregious, to which I can personally attest, are the following:

a) “decorum” rules that ban “impertinent, personal, or slanderous” remarks, enforcement of which is a patent violation of the First Amendment, according to Terry Franke of California Aware (a non-profit organization specializing in “public forum” law) and others familiar with law and practice in this area that I’ve consulted with.

b) selectively re-scheduling consideration of agenda items in a fashion clearly intended to discourage public input or render it effectively impossible by requiring those desiring to speak to return at a later (and often indefinite) time, or remain present long past the time one expected to be able to speak.

c) canceling evening sessions and then moving “Oral Communcations” (which normally occurs at a set time, 7:00 p.m., every meeting) to the end of the afternoon agenda at an unspecified time. This essentially requires members of the public who wish to speak to the City Council on a matter not on the agenda to be present for most of the afternoon session, as it is impossible to anticipate how quickly (or slowly) the City Council will move through its scheduled agenda, and prevents the working public (folks working from 9-5) from being heard by the City Council during these meetings.

d) establishing a “blacklist” of “disruptive” members of the public, and threatening to limit their ability to participate in City Council meetings based on a cumulative series of “rules violations” over multiple meetings spanning an unspecified period. Again, according to Terry Franke and others, this is a blatant violation of the Brown Act, which requires that sanctions such as eviction from a meeting or other restrictions on participation be based solely on whether an individual action, separate and apart from any and all prior conduct at previous meetings, rises to the level of “willfully caus[ing] a disruption of a meeting so that it cannot be conducted in an orderly fashion” (to quote Mr. Lockyer’s office).

The City Council’s actions have rendered the city vulnerable to legal action and create an unknown but potentially significant financial liability to the city’s taxpayers. This liability is not just theoretical–the city is currently being sued in federal court by a public interest lawyer acting on behalf of homeless civil rights activist /general governmental gadfly Robert Norse. The City has already lost round one of this dispute, when the lawsuit was re-instated by a federal appeals who found that the plaintiff had a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits of his case.

Norse, a particularly persistent and often abrasive critic of the City Council and its actions, credibly contends that many of these limitations are specifically targeted at him (a clear violation of the First Amendment) since more often than not they have had a disproportionate impact on his individual participation. The 5 minute rule is an obvious example of this, having clearly been imposed in an attempt to formalize and justify an ad hoc restriction specifically and exclusively imposed on him by the Mayor at a prior meeting, in response his habit of frequently speaking to multiple Consent Agenda items.

Mr. Norse is unquestionably a controversial figure, but regardless of what you think of him, if you care about your right to participate in the City Council’s deliberative process, you should concerned about these changes. The actions taken by current and previous City Councils in an attempt to muzzle him and other activists have established dangerous precedents that future City Councils (who may not be as friendly to the causes favored by the current council) could use to silence and/or discourage critics.

The City Council could take a small but significant step back from its trend of increasingly restrictive limitations on public participation by rescinding the 5 minute rule and formally committing to ensuring that all members of the public are able to speak to each agenda item as it is considered, without fearing retaliatory imposition of arbitrary restrictions on their participation.

David Anthony Cross died after being taisered in jail last weekend. Enough!
STOP TASER ABUSE IN SANTA CRUZ

What are sheriff’s deputies doing tasering an unarmed man in jail?

According to Sentinel reports, on September 18th, Santa Cruz Sheriff Robbins’ Deputies tasered* David Anthony Cross inside the Santa Cruz County Jail, alleged to “control” him after he began banging his head on the cell door and “acting irrationally.” The five second “stun” charge of 50,000 volts was applied directly to his shoulder “once or twice” rather than at a distance, according to Lt. Phil Wowak.

Cross stopped breathing, lost consciousness, and never regained it. His family was notified of his death Sunday night, but not that he’d been hospitalized.

The sheriff’s videotapes of the tasering and death have not been released. Nor have the names of the tasering officers.

On September 20th, the same day the Sentinel released the story, county pathologist Richard Mason after an autopsy ruled the death “accidental”, apparently rejecting the alternative categories of natural, accidental, suicide, homicide, pending, and undetermined.

According to Coroner’s Deputy Steve Plasket “Cross lost the ability to breathe due to chest compression during the restraint…went into cardiopulmonary arrest, then anoxic encephalopathy, or lack of oxygen to the brain.” The death certificates contributing causes of hypertensive heart disease and obesity (Cross weighed 260 pounds). Amphetamine was found in Cross’s system, but could not be determined as a contributing cause without further testing. Taser use is not listed as a contributing cause to his death.

In April, Santa Cruz Mayor Mike Rotkin refused to direct the police department to open its records regarding taser use. On September 24th, a Public Records Act request was filed with the City, seeking to determine how widespread police use of tasers is.

Taser is acronym for “Thomas A. Swift’s Electrical Rifle”

Call Sheriff Robbins to Stop Taser use Now !: 454-2414

Call the Supervisors to Demand an Independent Investigation: 454-2200

Call Mayor Rotkin to Stop SCPD Use of Tasers: 420-5023

Flyer by Norse of SPAN (Stop Police Abuse Now!) 831-423-4833