Santa Cruz Indymedia : http://santacruz.indymedia.org
LOCAL News :: Civil & Human Rights
The Santa Cruz City Government Versus The Bill Of Rights
The struggle to defend the Bill of Rights in Santa Cruz.
The Santa Cruz City Government Versus The Bill Of Rights
lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news
By STEVE ARGUE
On November 12, 2002 the Santa Cruz City Council passed a resolution stating opposition to the so-called “USA Patriot Act�. Missing from the resolution, however, were elements of the original text that would have instructed City staff against cooperating with the federal government. This author spoke out at that meeting against those changes to the original text, but my suggestions were ignored.
Patriot Acts One and Two give the US government the legal authority to jail Americans without charges, deny us the right to an attorney, deny us the right to confront witnesses against us, denies us the right to attorney client confidentiality in communications; gives the government the legal ability to hold us indefinitely without trial, to hold us in secret, to monitor political and religious groups without any probable cause of a crime, to search and seize belongings without probable cause if the government claims it is part of an anti-terrorism investigation, and to prosecute any librarian or telecommunications official that reveal subpoenas where they are forced to turn over information for government spying.
Since the city government passed their symbolic resolution an organization called the Santa Cruz Bill of Rights Defense Committee has sprung up with their primary campaign being to pressure the Santa Cruz City Council to pass a more meaningful resolution against the Patriot Acts that calls for non-cooperation with federal authorities.
For those of us in the Revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg Club of the Peace and Freedom Party (RRLC-PFP), who have been working to defend the Bill of Rights both nationally and locally, the new activities of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee are a welcome addition to the local struggle.
The resolution of the Santa Cruz City Council on the Patriot Acts is one of a number of symbolic acts by the city government that are designed to make them look good, but have no impact on local policy. Another good example was the media circus medical marijuana give-away carried out by the city government at city hall. That action served about twelve people for one day while the same city government had already shut down the medical marijuana providers of the city through extremely restrictive and prohibitive zoning regulations. Those providers had been serving many hundreds of patients before they were shut down.
These are symbolic resolutions and actions that do not impact the daily workings of the federal government, capitalist system, or local police state. Yet they do create the illusion amongst some activists who are not looking at the full picture that the progressive movement has control of the city government in Santa Cruz. It is with the left cover of this illusion that the city government then imposes its anti-working class and anti-poor police state measures in the city of Santa Cruz.
The true picture of the Santa Cruz “progressive� city council has been one of silencing the Bill of Rights through police violence and harassment against activists as well as carrying out a police war against the poor.
The recent arrests of Matt Hartogh and myself for political tabling for more than an hour is only the most recent chapter in the struggle for democratic rights against the local city government. We were arrested under a new law passed by the “progressive� city government that makes this free speech activity illegal if it is done for more than an hour. Tables, signs, and literature were seized as evidence and I am to appear in courtroom 2 on Water and Ocean Streets on September 11th at 10 PM for pre-trial.
The City Council is the boss of the city police and is directly responsible for their actions, not just through the anti-poor and unconstitutional laws they pass, but also in the direction they give their employees. Thus the City government violates rights by making it illegal to have a political table up for more than an hour as well as making it illegal for the homeless to sleep at night, but they also direct the police to target certain individuals and groups for repression as well.
In the 1980s the Santa Cruz Police, according to the courtroom testimony of fellow officers, carried out beatings of homeless people in an operation they called Operation Code Blue over their police radios. What code blue meant was that officers were to arrive on the scene where they were to beat a homeless person to death. This activity was no more than an extension of the official city policy making it illegal to be homeless (caught in the act of sleeping outside, in a vehicle, or in a tent).
Some cops were fired for these murders, but some are now working for other cities. None went to jail or prison.
In an attempt to starve homeless people the Santa Cruz police arrested Sandy Loranger. She did time in jail. Her crime? Feeding the homeless soup. When the judge offered her counseling instead of jail Sandy Loranger replied, "If feeding my fellow man is a crime I am beyond rehabilitation." Later in the 1990s, Sean Alami who started Feed the People, was repeatedly harassed and ticketed for things like leaning against a tree while he was feeding the poor and a similar group called Food Not Bombs has at times faced a lot of harassment as well.
In 1994 the “progressive� city council passed a new set of laws designed to harass the homeless. These laws included one making it illegal to sit down on downtown sidewalks as well as others that set up all kinds of strange arbitrary distances from water fountains, buildings, etc. where panhandling was allowed. Hundreds protested these new laws in an action that included the civil disobedience of simply sitting on the sidewalk. In response, as was described by legal observers on video at the scene, the police beat on demonstrators causing injury and in one case induced the abortion of a woman’s fetus through their violence.
In the 1990s film footage shows radical homeless activist B.D. being tackled and pepper sprayed by the Santa Cruz Police. His crime? He was merely giving a speech for the rights of the homeless on a downtown sidewalk. In a similar manner film footage shows Jim Cosner being tackled down and arrested for taping up a poster of political prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal on a downtown fence that surrounded a vacant lot.
On November 12, 1997 homeless and anti-police brutality activist John Dine was shot and killed by Santa Cruz Police Officer Connor Carey. The claim by Police Chief Belcher was that John Dine was pointing a toy gun at the officer before he was shot. Yet none of the many independent eyewitnesses backed up that claim.
Even the Citizen's Police Review Board (appointed by the City Council) recognized that John Dine was not pointing a gun. Yet the Citizen's Police Review Board (CPRB) claimed not to be contradicting Chief Belcher in their findings despite telling an entirely different story.
The CPRB's report stated that the shooting of John Dine was justified because he was reaching for what appeared to be a gun. Because of activism, too much of the truth had gotten out to the public for the CPRB to stick with Chief Belcher's version of a pointed gun, but the CPRB continued the cover-up with this new falsified version of events where John Dine is supposedly reaching for what appears to be a gun. The independent eyewitnesses refuted this CPRB version of events as well.
Some of the eyewitnesses had become so upset about the cover-up by the city government, DA, and the corporate media that they became activists in trying to get out the truth and punish those responsible. Yet the “progressive� Santa Cruz City Council has taken no action and the Santa Cruz Sentinel, one of the main corporate newspapers in Santa Cruz, continues to refer to John Dine as "a deranged man who was pointing a toy gun at police".
On November 12, 1998, the one-year anniversary of the police murder of John Dine, a protest of 100 people was organized demanding an end to the cover-up. Speakers at that event included newly elected City Council Persons Christopher Krohn and Keith Sugar along with this author. The following day a photo of all three standing in front of the demonstrators was prominently displayed on page 2 of the Santa Cruz Sentinel.
That same day, November 13th, I was brutalized and arrested by Santa Cruz Police Officer Garner. The pretext for arrest was that I was selling newspapers without a license. Yet the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is very clear about protecting freedom of press. It states, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." In fact the city law, on paper anyway, also allows the selling of newspapers. Officer Garner's request for a license brings my arrest and beating further to the level of absurdity because the city does not even have a license that it issues for selling newspapers in the first place.
Up until November of 1998 the police regularly harassed and at times ticketed those who distributed more truthful news than can be found in the corporate media. Those papers include the newspaper Street Spirit which advocates human rights for the homeless, various socialist papers, and the revolutionary unionist paper: The Industrial Worker. Both the Industrial Worker and Socialist Action Newspapers had recently been distributed in the city with articles written by myself that exposed the police murder of John Dine.
I was released from jail without charges after four days, and after being brutalized by arresting officers on the street, and also being beaten by sheriffs in the county jail. In addition Christopher Krohn and Keith Sugar were criticized in an editorial in the Santa Cruz Sentinel for their participation in the November 12th demonstration. After facing that criticism Democrats Krohn and Sugar shut their mouths about police brutality for the rest of their terms, including in the cases of John Dine and myself.
I, on the other hand, knowing that freedoms have to be fought for, was back out on the street selling newspapers immediately after my release from jail. I also spoke out on the radio, TV, and in the newspapers for freedom of press. As a result of my actions and other activists publicizing the case, the police have, for the most part, stopped violating the right of people to buy and sell newspapers in the City of Santa Cruz. One of the exceptions was in 2000 when I was once again threatened with arrest for selling newspapers. I refused to back down and eventually the police backed down instead.
My attorney, Kate Wells, and I also filed a lawsuit in federal court for the City’s violations of the constitutional rights of the people of Santa Cruz to free speech. The attorney for the City, who works for the City’s Green / Democrat City Council, argued that it is not legal to sell newspapers on the street in Santa Cruz. Federal Judge Ware, however, ruled that not only was my arrest a clear violation of constitutional rights, but that the way the City was trying to defend its actions now shows that it is City policy to violate constitutional rights.
While I was defending the constitution in the streets the “progressive� City Council that is the boss of the police that consisted of members Tim Fitzmaurice (G), Christopher Krohn (D), Keith Sugar (D), Mike Rotkin (D), Catherine Biers (D), and Cynthia Matthews (D) did nothing to defend freedom of press or speak out for my freedom.
These are not small questions. They involve the protection, or not, of the most fundamental free speech rights. Freedom of press is difficult enough in America as it is without arrest because of the lack of advertising and accompanied low budgets that those who try to get out the truth have to deal with. John Dine can no longer pass out flyers or participate in protests to end the sleeping ban because he is dead. The fact that his murderer, Connor Carey, is still on the police force, serves as a powerful warning to other would be homeless activists that they may die for their convictions.
The silence of the City Council only helps to promote this repressive atmosphere. The City Council is the boss of the police through City Manager Dick Wilson, who they have the authority to fire. Repressive and murderous cops have to be taught that there are consequences for their crimes.
Other activists for the rights of the homeless have had their rights trampled by the police under the “progressive� Green Party / Democrat Party rule in Santa Cruz as well. These have included James Nay and Becky Johnson who were arrested for writing things in chalk on the sidewalk opposing the sleeping ban, and David Silva who was arrested and given a psychiatric evaluation for asking the City Council, "What's it going to take, self emollition to end the sleeping ban?"
Activist for the homeless, Robert Norse, was illegally arrested on September 19th and on October 3rd 2001 for circulating a petition at the Farmer's Market asking for an end to police harassment of musicians, artisans, and activists by the Santa Cruz Police at the Farmer's Market. The Farmer's Market is held in a publicly owned parking lot and as a public gathering space courts have ruled even on private property such as malls, that the First Amendment still applies. The need for the petition was partially inspired by the threat of police to arrest peace and Mumia Abu-Jamal activist John Theilking for a literature table he had set up on September 5th.
Judge Stevens later dropped the charges against Robert Norse in court along with dismissing the attempt at an injunction against him, but the arrests were another clear violation of the free speech rights of the people of Santa Cruz. These arrests have been coupled with the Green / Democrat City Government's blatant fencing off of most of the areas that used to be used for free speech tables at the Farmer's Market.
Activists regularly pass out fliers, set up literature tables, and circulate petitions at the Farmer's Market for many causes. In 1999 rent control activist Bob Lamonica and activists for freeing U.S. political prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal were both threatened with ticketing and potential arrest by Officer Howes. Activists for both causes spoke out against the violation of their rights, and in the following weeks they defiantly set up literature tables and were left alone.
Coupled with these blatant attacks on free speech is a constant low intensity warfare of harassment against human rights activists, the homeless, and street artisans and musicians. As the police often say to their victims, "This is Santa Cruz, we can find a law for anything." In 2000 Robert Norse was ticketed for sitting on the base of Tom Scribner's Statue. Charges were later dropped when he produced a photo of City Council members doing the same thing. K.C., who has attended a number of anti-war demonstrations, was ticketed for blowing bubbles, which the officer claimed were projectiles being thrown into traffic. That charge was dropped when it made the national news. Robert Norse and myself have also been the victims of repeated jaywalking tickets, and in a couple cases this petty, but expensive, charge was completely false.
When dealing with the homeless the police often illegally steal backpacks, vehicles, and identification. The police confiscations of identification have now become especially serious with the City’s emergency shelter program now requiring identification to be admitted into emergency winter shelter. There is no Santa Cruz emergency shelter in the summer except that which takes months to get into and only lasts one month. The new rule on identification doesn’t stop terrorists, but gives the police one more opportunity to victimize the homeless. This new rule also victimizes undocumented immigrants who may need emergency shelter as well.
The police also took my car without legitimate legal pretext on July 22, 1999 and arrested me that same day for watching, without intervening, the police hassle a homeless man. I never got my car back, but the charge for witnessing police misconduct and then becoming a victim of it myself was thrown out of court, after a tape of the incident made by activist and Free Radio DJ Vinny Lombardo was played for the judge.
Emboldened by years of repression and harassment against the homeless and activists dealing with local issues, the Santa Cruz Police attacked anti-war protesters on May 22, 1999. By Sgt. MacMahon's own admission it was a lawful protest until the police intervened. The protest was against the US bombing of Yugoslavia. The target of the protest was a Democrat Party fundraiser where Democrat Representative Sam Farr was giving a speech. Sam Farr had the nerve to vote for the war and then turn around and say on the news "Give peace a chance." Protesters were demanding an end to the war and exposing Sam Farr's real policies. Police brutalized protesters and five were arrested.
One of the main culprits in the attack was Officer David LaFavor. He had stated a couple years earlier to activist David Silva that it was his goal to clean the scum off of the streets of Santa Cruz. When asked who the scum were he listed the homeless, political activists, and street musicians. David Silva warned the City Council about LaFavor at that time.
The first person arrested, without reason, was Kao Ling Lao. The charge against her was “Disturbing the Peace�. This charge was later thrown out of court. She was grabbed by police and taken through the crowd to a waiting patty-wagon. Angry protesters wanted to know what she was arrested for and followed the police to the patty-wagon, which they peacefully surrounded and blocked its exit. As if to inflame the protesters to react with another provocation, the police then went after the only two people in the crowd who were carrying small children.
Videotape shows Officer LaFavor passing up other protesters and walking up to Julien who is holding her four-year old child. LaFavor immediately grabbed Julien's wrist and put her in a pain compliance hold. A man with an infant was also grabbed by Officer LaMoss. Officer LaFavor then drags Julien around the patty-wagon and stops in front of me with Julien's child screaming in fear and Julien screaming in pain, her hand turned purple from the pain compliance hold. I demanded that LaFavor stop torturing the woman. LaFavor did not comply with my reasonable commands. I then used the force necessary to stop the crime he was carrying out by punching LaFavor in the nose. Julien and her child were then able to escape and Julien’s hand was still red the next day.
Nassim Zarriffi stepped in against the other case of police child abuse that day. He came up from behind and pulled LaMoss's arm up saying, "You're hurting the baby". This was a situation where the baby was getting pressed in between the arresting officer and the father. The father and child were then also able to escape as the police turned on Nassim Zarriffi. He was charged with Misdemeanor Assault on an Officer and Misdemeanor Resisting Arrest, I was charged with Felony Assault and Battery on an Officer and Misdemeanor Resisting Arrest. In addition Jim Cosner and Vinny Lombardo were charged with Resisting Arrest. The arrested became known as the Santa Cruz 5 and gained support in Santa Cruz, around the country, and around the world.
Due to massive pressure demanding justice, the Citizen's Police Review Board found that excessive force was used against Julien that endangered her child, and against myself when I was arrested. Despite these facts I was convicted in court due to the actions of a hostile judge, Judge Attack; the incompetence of my attorney, Ben Rice; and the conservative nature of the jury. I endured 7 months in the Santa Cruz County Jail where I was beaten by guards and faced other abuses from authorities.
Officer Lafavor no longer works for the City Government. According to a source in the City Government LaFavor was given the choice of being fired or resigning. He has, however, after resigning gotten a job in another police department.
Today the slander against the May 22 demonstration continues in the corporate media on the national TV show called "Great Police Chases." They have repeatedly shown falsified video completely out of sequence showing me punching LaFavor, but removing the video of Julien and her child before the punch and replacing it with other video of Officer LaFavor. The show, after deliberately falsifying the events of the demonstration also mocks the protesters for being pacifists. Opposing America's unjust wars and bombing of civilians does not necessarily make one a pacifist, however, and I have never claimed to be one.
Despite the clear video tapes showing the violence and abuses of the police, no member of the Green / Democrat City Council ever took any action on behalf of the Santa Cruz 5 and the right to protest while we were still facing charges. Tim Fitzmaurice's silence can be contrasted to the decision of the membership of the Green Party to put out a statement demanding the charges against me be dropped and that LaFavor be fired.
In opposition to any illusions in the city government I promote methods of class struggle against all exploiters who trample on the rights of the poor and working class whether they be big or small. I call for doubling the minimum wage. Any business that can't pay a living wage should be driven under. I call for rent control to curb the gouging of the landlords. I call for firing the city manager, the chief of police, and Officer Connor Carey as a first step towards curbing police abuse. I call for an end to anti-homeless laws. I call for the city employee's living wage to be extended to part time employees paid for with cuts in the six digit salaries of the likes of City Manager Dick Wilson. I call for the unity of working and poor people against the bosses and their government and call for an end to all racist, sexist, and homophobic policies. I oppose US wars to subjugate the people of the world to U.S. corporate interests. I oppose the degradation of the planets ecology for the profits of the capitalists. I support the people in organizing unions, strikes, demonstrations, alternative media, and anti-capitalist and worker's political parties to take on the power of the capitalist system.
It is on this platform that I ran for city office while being homeless in 2000 and received close to 3,000 votes, and it is on this platform that I ran again in 2002 getting 15% of the vote. This was very respectable given the fact that the winners in the elections got a lot more money than me as well as the backing of the corporate media. I may run in 2004 again, but whether I run or not, and whether I win or not, change will only come through all who are fed up with the system taking an active role in making change. In addition change will only come through brutal honesty about those in power who want to pretend they are our friends.
The homepage for Liberation News can be found at
lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news
People may subscribe to the list by sending email to
liberation_news-subscribe (at) lists.riseup.net
lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news
By STEVE ARGUE
On November 12, 2002 the Santa Cruz City Council passed a resolution stating opposition to the so-called “USA Patriot Act�. Missing from the resolution, however, were elements of the original text that would have instructed City staff against cooperating with the federal government. This author spoke out at that meeting against those changes to the original text, but my suggestions were ignored.
Patriot Acts One and Two give the US government the legal authority to jail Americans without charges, deny us the right to an attorney, deny us the right to confront witnesses against us, denies us the right to attorney client confidentiality in communications; gives the government the legal ability to hold us indefinitely without trial, to hold us in secret, to monitor political and religious groups without any probable cause of a crime, to search and seize belongings without probable cause if the government claims it is part of an anti-terrorism investigation, and to prosecute any librarian or telecommunications official that reveal subpoenas where they are forced to turn over information for government spying.
Since the city government passed their symbolic resolution an organization called the Santa Cruz Bill of Rights Defense Committee has sprung up with their primary campaign being to pressure the Santa Cruz City Council to pass a more meaningful resolution against the Patriot Acts that calls for non-cooperation with federal authorities.
For those of us in the Revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg Club of the Peace and Freedom Party (RRLC-PFP), who have been working to defend the Bill of Rights both nationally and locally, the new activities of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee are a welcome addition to the local struggle.
The resolution of the Santa Cruz City Council on the Patriot Acts is one of a number of symbolic acts by the city government that are designed to make them look good, but have no impact on local policy. Another good example was the media circus medical marijuana give-away carried out by the city government at city hall. That action served about twelve people for one day while the same city government had already shut down the medical marijuana providers of the city through extremely restrictive and prohibitive zoning regulations. Those providers had been serving many hundreds of patients before they were shut down.
These are symbolic resolutions and actions that do not impact the daily workings of the federal government, capitalist system, or local police state. Yet they do create the illusion amongst some activists who are not looking at the full picture that the progressive movement has control of the city government in Santa Cruz. It is with the left cover of this illusion that the city government then imposes its anti-working class and anti-poor police state measures in the city of Santa Cruz.
The true picture of the Santa Cruz “progressive� city council has been one of silencing the Bill of Rights through police violence and harassment against activists as well as carrying out a police war against the poor.
The recent arrests of Matt Hartogh and myself for political tabling for more than an hour is only the most recent chapter in the struggle for democratic rights against the local city government. We were arrested under a new law passed by the “progressive� city government that makes this free speech activity illegal if it is done for more than an hour. Tables, signs, and literature were seized as evidence and I am to appear in courtroom 2 on Water and Ocean Streets on September 11th at 10 PM for pre-trial.
The City Council is the boss of the city police and is directly responsible for their actions, not just through the anti-poor and unconstitutional laws they pass, but also in the direction they give their employees. Thus the City government violates rights by making it illegal to have a political table up for more than an hour as well as making it illegal for the homeless to sleep at night, but they also direct the police to target certain individuals and groups for repression as well.
In the 1980s the Santa Cruz Police, according to the courtroom testimony of fellow officers, carried out beatings of homeless people in an operation they called Operation Code Blue over their police radios. What code blue meant was that officers were to arrive on the scene where they were to beat a homeless person to death. This activity was no more than an extension of the official city policy making it illegal to be homeless (caught in the act of sleeping outside, in a vehicle, or in a tent).
Some cops were fired for these murders, but some are now working for other cities. None went to jail or prison.
In an attempt to starve homeless people the Santa Cruz police arrested Sandy Loranger. She did time in jail. Her crime? Feeding the homeless soup. When the judge offered her counseling instead of jail Sandy Loranger replied, "If feeding my fellow man is a crime I am beyond rehabilitation." Later in the 1990s, Sean Alami who started Feed the People, was repeatedly harassed and ticketed for things like leaning against a tree while he was feeding the poor and a similar group called Food Not Bombs has at times faced a lot of harassment as well.
In 1994 the “progressive� city council passed a new set of laws designed to harass the homeless. These laws included one making it illegal to sit down on downtown sidewalks as well as others that set up all kinds of strange arbitrary distances from water fountains, buildings, etc. where panhandling was allowed. Hundreds protested these new laws in an action that included the civil disobedience of simply sitting on the sidewalk. In response, as was described by legal observers on video at the scene, the police beat on demonstrators causing injury and in one case induced the abortion of a woman’s fetus through their violence.
In the 1990s film footage shows radical homeless activist B.D. being tackled and pepper sprayed by the Santa Cruz Police. His crime? He was merely giving a speech for the rights of the homeless on a downtown sidewalk. In a similar manner film footage shows Jim Cosner being tackled down and arrested for taping up a poster of political prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal on a downtown fence that surrounded a vacant lot.
On November 12, 1997 homeless and anti-police brutality activist John Dine was shot and killed by Santa Cruz Police Officer Connor Carey. The claim by Police Chief Belcher was that John Dine was pointing a toy gun at the officer before he was shot. Yet none of the many independent eyewitnesses backed up that claim.
Even the Citizen's Police Review Board (appointed by the City Council) recognized that John Dine was not pointing a gun. Yet the Citizen's Police Review Board (CPRB) claimed not to be contradicting Chief Belcher in their findings despite telling an entirely different story.
The CPRB's report stated that the shooting of John Dine was justified because he was reaching for what appeared to be a gun. Because of activism, too much of the truth had gotten out to the public for the CPRB to stick with Chief Belcher's version of a pointed gun, but the CPRB continued the cover-up with this new falsified version of events where John Dine is supposedly reaching for what appears to be a gun. The independent eyewitnesses refuted this CPRB version of events as well.
Some of the eyewitnesses had become so upset about the cover-up by the city government, DA, and the corporate media that they became activists in trying to get out the truth and punish those responsible. Yet the “progressive� Santa Cruz City Council has taken no action and the Santa Cruz Sentinel, one of the main corporate newspapers in Santa Cruz, continues to refer to John Dine as "a deranged man who was pointing a toy gun at police".
On November 12, 1998, the one-year anniversary of the police murder of John Dine, a protest of 100 people was organized demanding an end to the cover-up. Speakers at that event included newly elected City Council Persons Christopher Krohn and Keith Sugar along with this author. The following day a photo of all three standing in front of the demonstrators was prominently displayed on page 2 of the Santa Cruz Sentinel.
That same day, November 13th, I was brutalized and arrested by Santa Cruz Police Officer Garner. The pretext for arrest was that I was selling newspapers without a license. Yet the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is very clear about protecting freedom of press. It states, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." In fact the city law, on paper anyway, also allows the selling of newspapers. Officer Garner's request for a license brings my arrest and beating further to the level of absurdity because the city does not even have a license that it issues for selling newspapers in the first place.
Up until November of 1998 the police regularly harassed and at times ticketed those who distributed more truthful news than can be found in the corporate media. Those papers include the newspaper Street Spirit which advocates human rights for the homeless, various socialist papers, and the revolutionary unionist paper: The Industrial Worker. Both the Industrial Worker and Socialist Action Newspapers had recently been distributed in the city with articles written by myself that exposed the police murder of John Dine.
I was released from jail without charges after four days, and after being brutalized by arresting officers on the street, and also being beaten by sheriffs in the county jail. In addition Christopher Krohn and Keith Sugar were criticized in an editorial in the Santa Cruz Sentinel for their participation in the November 12th demonstration. After facing that criticism Democrats Krohn and Sugar shut their mouths about police brutality for the rest of their terms, including in the cases of John Dine and myself.
I, on the other hand, knowing that freedoms have to be fought for, was back out on the street selling newspapers immediately after my release from jail. I also spoke out on the radio, TV, and in the newspapers for freedom of press. As a result of my actions and other activists publicizing the case, the police have, for the most part, stopped violating the right of people to buy and sell newspapers in the City of Santa Cruz. One of the exceptions was in 2000 when I was once again threatened with arrest for selling newspapers. I refused to back down and eventually the police backed down instead.
My attorney, Kate Wells, and I also filed a lawsuit in federal court for the City’s violations of the constitutional rights of the people of Santa Cruz to free speech. The attorney for the City, who works for the City’s Green / Democrat City Council, argued that it is not legal to sell newspapers on the street in Santa Cruz. Federal Judge Ware, however, ruled that not only was my arrest a clear violation of constitutional rights, but that the way the City was trying to defend its actions now shows that it is City policy to violate constitutional rights.
While I was defending the constitution in the streets the “progressive� City Council that is the boss of the police that consisted of members Tim Fitzmaurice (G), Christopher Krohn (D), Keith Sugar (D), Mike Rotkin (D), Catherine Biers (D), and Cynthia Matthews (D) did nothing to defend freedom of press or speak out for my freedom.
These are not small questions. They involve the protection, or not, of the most fundamental free speech rights. Freedom of press is difficult enough in America as it is without arrest because of the lack of advertising and accompanied low budgets that those who try to get out the truth have to deal with. John Dine can no longer pass out flyers or participate in protests to end the sleeping ban because he is dead. The fact that his murderer, Connor Carey, is still on the police force, serves as a powerful warning to other would be homeless activists that they may die for their convictions.
The silence of the City Council only helps to promote this repressive atmosphere. The City Council is the boss of the police through City Manager Dick Wilson, who they have the authority to fire. Repressive and murderous cops have to be taught that there are consequences for their crimes.
Other activists for the rights of the homeless have had their rights trampled by the police under the “progressive� Green Party / Democrat Party rule in Santa Cruz as well. These have included James Nay and Becky Johnson who were arrested for writing things in chalk on the sidewalk opposing the sleeping ban, and David Silva who was arrested and given a psychiatric evaluation for asking the City Council, "What's it going to take, self emollition to end the sleeping ban?"
Activist for the homeless, Robert Norse, was illegally arrested on September 19th and on October 3rd 2001 for circulating a petition at the Farmer's Market asking for an end to police harassment of musicians, artisans, and activists by the Santa Cruz Police at the Farmer's Market. The Farmer's Market is held in a publicly owned parking lot and as a public gathering space courts have ruled even on private property such as malls, that the First Amendment still applies. The need for the petition was partially inspired by the threat of police to arrest peace and Mumia Abu-Jamal activist John Theilking for a literature table he had set up on September 5th.
Judge Stevens later dropped the charges against Robert Norse in court along with dismissing the attempt at an injunction against him, but the arrests were another clear violation of the free speech rights of the people of Santa Cruz. These arrests have been coupled with the Green / Democrat City Government's blatant fencing off of most of the areas that used to be used for free speech tables at the Farmer's Market.
Activists regularly pass out fliers, set up literature tables, and circulate petitions at the Farmer's Market for many causes. In 1999 rent control activist Bob Lamonica and activists for freeing U.S. political prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal were both threatened with ticketing and potential arrest by Officer Howes. Activists for both causes spoke out against the violation of their rights, and in the following weeks they defiantly set up literature tables and were left alone.
Coupled with these blatant attacks on free speech is a constant low intensity warfare of harassment against human rights activists, the homeless, and street artisans and musicians. As the police often say to their victims, "This is Santa Cruz, we can find a law for anything." In 2000 Robert Norse was ticketed for sitting on the base of Tom Scribner's Statue. Charges were later dropped when he produced a photo of City Council members doing the same thing. K.C., who has attended a number of anti-war demonstrations, was ticketed for blowing bubbles, which the officer claimed were projectiles being thrown into traffic. That charge was dropped when it made the national news. Robert Norse and myself have also been the victims of repeated jaywalking tickets, and in a couple cases this petty, but expensive, charge was completely false.
When dealing with the homeless the police often illegally steal backpacks, vehicles, and identification. The police confiscations of identification have now become especially serious with the City’s emergency shelter program now requiring identification to be admitted into emergency winter shelter. There is no Santa Cruz emergency shelter in the summer except that which takes months to get into and only lasts one month. The new rule on identification doesn’t stop terrorists, but gives the police one more opportunity to victimize the homeless. This new rule also victimizes undocumented immigrants who may need emergency shelter as well.
The police also took my car without legitimate legal pretext on July 22, 1999 and arrested me that same day for watching, without intervening, the police hassle a homeless man. I never got my car back, but the charge for witnessing police misconduct and then becoming a victim of it myself was thrown out of court, after a tape of the incident made by activist and Free Radio DJ Vinny Lombardo was played for the judge.
Emboldened by years of repression and harassment against the homeless and activists dealing with local issues, the Santa Cruz Police attacked anti-war protesters on May 22, 1999. By Sgt. MacMahon's own admission it was a lawful protest until the police intervened. The protest was against the US bombing of Yugoslavia. The target of the protest was a Democrat Party fundraiser where Democrat Representative Sam Farr was giving a speech. Sam Farr had the nerve to vote for the war and then turn around and say on the news "Give peace a chance." Protesters were demanding an end to the war and exposing Sam Farr's real policies. Police brutalized protesters and five were arrested.
One of the main culprits in the attack was Officer David LaFavor. He had stated a couple years earlier to activist David Silva that it was his goal to clean the scum off of the streets of Santa Cruz. When asked who the scum were he listed the homeless, political activists, and street musicians. David Silva warned the City Council about LaFavor at that time.
The first person arrested, without reason, was Kao Ling Lao. The charge against her was “Disturbing the Peace�. This charge was later thrown out of court. She was grabbed by police and taken through the crowd to a waiting patty-wagon. Angry protesters wanted to know what she was arrested for and followed the police to the patty-wagon, which they peacefully surrounded and blocked its exit. As if to inflame the protesters to react with another provocation, the police then went after the only two people in the crowd who were carrying small children.
Videotape shows Officer LaFavor passing up other protesters and walking up to Julien who is holding her four-year old child. LaFavor immediately grabbed Julien's wrist and put her in a pain compliance hold. A man with an infant was also grabbed by Officer LaMoss. Officer LaFavor then drags Julien around the patty-wagon and stops in front of me with Julien's child screaming in fear and Julien screaming in pain, her hand turned purple from the pain compliance hold. I demanded that LaFavor stop torturing the woman. LaFavor did not comply with my reasonable commands. I then used the force necessary to stop the crime he was carrying out by punching LaFavor in the nose. Julien and her child were then able to escape and Julien’s hand was still red the next day.
Nassim Zarriffi stepped in against the other case of police child abuse that day. He came up from behind and pulled LaMoss's arm up saying, "You're hurting the baby". This was a situation where the baby was getting pressed in between the arresting officer and the father. The father and child were then also able to escape as the police turned on Nassim Zarriffi. He was charged with Misdemeanor Assault on an Officer and Misdemeanor Resisting Arrest, I was charged with Felony Assault and Battery on an Officer and Misdemeanor Resisting Arrest. In addition Jim Cosner and Vinny Lombardo were charged with Resisting Arrest. The arrested became known as the Santa Cruz 5 and gained support in Santa Cruz, around the country, and around the world.
Due to massive pressure demanding justice, the Citizen's Police Review Board found that excessive force was used against Julien that endangered her child, and against myself when I was arrested. Despite these facts I was convicted in court due to the actions of a hostile judge, Judge Attack; the incompetence of my attorney, Ben Rice; and the conservative nature of the jury. I endured 7 months in the Santa Cruz County Jail where I was beaten by guards and faced other abuses from authorities.
Officer Lafavor no longer works for the City Government. According to a source in the City Government LaFavor was given the choice of being fired or resigning. He has, however, after resigning gotten a job in another police department.
Today the slander against the May 22 demonstration continues in the corporate media on the national TV show called "Great Police Chases." They have repeatedly shown falsified video completely out of sequence showing me punching LaFavor, but removing the video of Julien and her child before the punch and replacing it with other video of Officer LaFavor. The show, after deliberately falsifying the events of the demonstration also mocks the protesters for being pacifists. Opposing America's unjust wars and bombing of civilians does not necessarily make one a pacifist, however, and I have never claimed to be one.
Despite the clear video tapes showing the violence and abuses of the police, no member of the Green / Democrat City Council ever took any action on behalf of the Santa Cruz 5 and the right to protest while we were still facing charges. Tim Fitzmaurice's silence can be contrasted to the decision of the membership of the Green Party to put out a statement demanding the charges against me be dropped and that LaFavor be fired.
In opposition to any illusions in the city government I promote methods of class struggle against all exploiters who trample on the rights of the poor and working class whether they be big or small. I call for doubling the minimum wage. Any business that can't pay a living wage should be driven under. I call for rent control to curb the gouging of the landlords. I call for firing the city manager, the chief of police, and Officer Connor Carey as a first step towards curbing police abuse. I call for an end to anti-homeless laws. I call for the city employee's living wage to be extended to part time employees paid for with cuts in the six digit salaries of the likes of City Manager Dick Wilson. I call for the unity of working and poor people against the bosses and their government and call for an end to all racist, sexist, and homophobic policies. I oppose US wars to subjugate the people of the world to U.S. corporate interests. I oppose the degradation of the planets ecology for the profits of the capitalists. I support the people in organizing unions, strikes, demonstrations, alternative media, and anti-capitalist and worker's political parties to take on the power of the capitalist system.
It is on this platform that I ran for city office while being homeless in 2000 and received close to 3,000 votes, and it is on this platform that I ran again in 2002 getting 15% of the vote. This was very respectable given the fact that the winners in the elections got a lot more money than me as well as the backing of the corporate media. I may run in 2004 again, but whether I run or not, and whether I win or not, change will only come through all who are fed up with the system taking an active role in making change. In addition change will only come through brutal honesty about those in power who want to pretend they are our friends.
The homepage for Liberation News can be found at
lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news
People may subscribe to the list by sending email to
liberation_news-subscribe (at) lists.riseup.net
New Comments are disabled, please visit Indybay.org/SantaCruz
Calendar
No events for this day.
Search
Topics
- Alternative Media
- Animal Rights
- Arts & Culture
- Civil & Human Rights
- Education & Youth
- Environment & Food
- Gender & Sexuality
- Globalization & Capitalism
- Government & Elections
- Health & Drugs
- Labor & Economics
- Media Criticism
- Peace & War
- Police State
- Poverty & Urban Development
- Resistance & Tactics
- Sister Cities
- Technology
- Transportation
- Womyn
Information
Views
Media Centers
- worcester
- western mass
- vermont
- urbana-champaign
- tennessee
- tampa bay
- seattle
- sarasota
- santa cruz, ca
- santa barbara
- san francisco bay area
- san francisco
- san diego
- saint louis
- rogue valley
- rochester
- richmond
- portland
- pittsburgh
- philadelphia
- oklahoma
- nyc
- north texas
- north carolina
- new orleans
- new mexico
- new jersey
- new hampshire
- minneapolis/st. paul
- milwaukee
- michigan
- miami
- maine
- madison
- la
- kansas city
- hudson mohawk
- houston
- hawaii
- dc
- columbus
- colorado
- cleveland
- chicago
- charlottesville
- buffalo
- boston
- binghamton
- big muddy
- baltimore
- austin indymedia
- austin
- atlanta
- asheville
- arkansas
- arizona
- valencia
- united kingdom
- ukraine
- toulouse
- toscana
- torun
- switzerland
- sverige
- scotland
- sardegna
- russia
- romania
- roma
- portugal
- poland
- piemonte
- patras
- paris/ÃŽle-de-france
- oost-vlaanderen
- nottingham
- norway
- northern england
- nice
- netherlands
- napoli
- nantes
- marseille
- malta
- madrid
- london
- lombardia
- linksunten
- lille
- liguria
- liege
- la plana
- italy
- istanbul
- ireland
- hungary
- grenoble
- germany
- galiza
- euskal herria
- estrecho / madiaq
- emilia-romagna
- cyprus
- croatia
- calabria
- bulgaria
- brussels
- bristol
- belgrade
- belgium
- belarus
- barcelona
- austria
- athens
- armenia
- antwerpen
- andorra
- alacant
- abruzzo
Account Login
This site made manifest by dadaIMC software
Comments
Re: The Santa Cruz City Government Versus The Bill Of Rights
Re: The Santa Cruz City Government Versus The Bill Of Rights
Re: The Santa Cruz City Government Versus The Bill Of Rights
Re: The Santa Cruz City Government Versus The Bill Of Rights
Re: The Santa Cruz City Government Versus The Bill Of Rights
Cc: liberation_news (at) lists.riseup.net
Subject: Re: [liberation_news] The Santa Cruz City Government Versus The Bill Of Rights
Sounds like Santa Cruz is very gentrified. I was there once. Everything is soooo expensive. The Pigs want to squash dissent. That must mean that you are having an effect. Keep it up! This kind of oppression is happening everywhere. ((((((((((((((((((FIST))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Re: The Santa Cruz City Government Versus The Bill Of Rights
Re: The Santa Cruz City Government Versus The Bill Of Rights
The work that Steve and others are doing is the MOST important of all, and effects all of us.
The police state that is unfolding is implemented in waves. Most people don't notice or are too distracted to care. We are slowly being conditioned to accept this kind of police control.
Thank you Steve. Santa Cruz thanks you. The country thanks you. You are a true patriot.
Re: The Santa Cruz City Government Versus The Bill Of Rights
Here's a letter I wrote recently to the Bill of Rights Committee locally, which hopes to have a strengthened anti-Patriot Act provision on the City Council agenda in September. They are taking as their model Arcata.
I encourage everyone to call Santa Cruz City Council at 420-5020 to demand immediate action to put teeth into the anti-Patriot Act--teeth that were removed by an amendment from Vice-Mayor Scott Kennedy last November.
Kennedy's number for those who wish to contact him is 420-5028. He may have changed his mind on the resolution (though he is also a supporter of locally repressive laws like the Move Along Every Hour law, the anti-homeless Sleeping Ban, etc.).
Robert Norse
Dear Santa Cruz Bill of Rights Defense Committee Members:
Here are some articles from the Arcata Eye--a print and on-line publication--about the struggle to strengthen anti-Patriot Act provisions up there last spring.
After our August 11 decision to have a subcommittee draw up language and check with the City Attorney (and perhaps independent attorneys), I thought it might be helpful to pass on the language of the Arcata resolution, which I cut and paste below.
The Santa Cruz City webserver doesn't seem to be working too well today: the links aren't working.
But the original language of Santa Cruz's own stronger anti-Patriot Act Resolution from November 12th, should be there. Before Vice-Mayor Kennedy moved to weaken it.
I am also cc-ing this letter to the Santa Cruz City Council and to local media.
Robert Norse
THE ARCATA ORDINANCE
Ordinance No. 1339
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Arcata Amending the Arcata Municipal Code To Defend the Bill of Rights and Civil Liberties
The City Council of the City of Arcata does ordain as follows:
Section 1: Title II: Administration, Chapter 2: Officers and Employees, Article 5: Defending Civil rights and liberties, Sections 2190 - 2194 are hereby added to the Municipal Code as follows:
SEC. 2190: Purposes.
The purposes of this ordinance are as follows:
A. To protect the civil rights and civil liberties for all and to affirm the City's commitment to embody democracy, and to embrace, defend and uphold the inalienable rights and fundamental liberties granted under the United States and the California Constitutions, as set forth in Resolution 023-32, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcata to Defend the Bill of Rights and Civil Liberties, adopted by the Council on January 15, 2003; and
B. To ensure that local law enforcement continues to preserve and uphold residents' freedom of speech, assembly, association, and privacy, the right to counsel and due process in judicial proceedings, and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, even if requested or authorized to infringe upon such rights by federal or state law enforcement agencies acting under new powers created by the USA PATRIOT Act (Public Law 107-56), Homeland Security Act (Public Law 107-296), or related Executive Orders, or by future enacted laws, executive orders or regulations.
SEC. 2191: No Unconstitutional Detentions or Profiling.
No management employee of the City shall officially engage in or permit unlawful detentions or profiling based on race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or political or religious association that are in violation of individuals' civil rights or civil liberties as specified in the Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
SEC. 2192: No Unconstitutional Voluntary Cooperation.
No management employee of the City shall officially assist or voluntarily cooperate with investigations, interrogations, or arrest procedures, public or clandestine, that are in violation of individuals' civil rights or civil liberties as specified in the Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. SEC. 2193: Notification.
Management employees of the City shall promptly notify the City Manager when, in the course of City employment, the following occurs:
A management employee of the City is contacted by another law enforcement agency and asked to cooperate or assist with an investigation, interrogation, or arrest procedure under provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act (Public Law 107-56), Homeland Security Act (Public Law 107-296), or related Executive Orders, or future enacted law, executive order or regulation, where such procedure is in violation of an individual's civil rights or civil liberties as specified in the Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Upon such notification from a management employee, the City Manager shall promptly report to the City Council, specifying the law enforcement agency seeking cooperation or assistance and the actions requested of the management employee.
SEC. 2194: Defense.
The City shall provide legal defense to any management employee who is criminally charged by another entity for his or her actions in compliance with this Ordinance.
SEC. 2195: Severability.
If any section or sections of the ordinance is or are held to be invalid or unenforceable, all other sections shall nevertheless continue in full force and remain in effect.
Section 2: This ordinance will take effect thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption.
Dated: April 2, 2003.
ATTESTED: APPROVED:
City Clerk, City of Arcata Mayor, City of Arcata
Clerk's Certification
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of ordinance No. 1339, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City council of the City of Arcata, Humboldt County, California, on the second day of April, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: 4
NOES: 1
ABSENT: 0
City Clerk, City of Arcata
ARTICLES ABOUT THE STRUGGLE TO PASS THE ORDINANCE FROM THE ARCATA EYE
Rights ordinance gains traction at Town Hall Meeting
By Daniel Mintz, Eye Reporter
February 24, 2003
Does the U.S. Patriot Act protect people from terrorism or threaten them with the loss of
their Constitutional rights?
The majority of Arcata residents attending a Feb. 20 Town Hall Meeting said they feel
their rights are endangered by the Patriot Act. And they support a proposed City
ordinance challenging it.
The municipal law will be discussed by the Arcata City Council on March 5 and is up for a
vote on March 19. It mandates that municipal employees refuse to cooperate with federal
investigators who might seek assistance in carrying out elements of the Patriot Act here.
The City Council recently passed a resolution that defines the Patriot Act as a threat to the
Bill of Rights, and instructs City employees to refuse to cooperate with federal
investigators who are apparently acting the terrorism-inspired act.
According to the resolution, the Patriot Act violates the Constitution by opening gates to
government wiretaps, e-mail monitoring, and the eying of confidential records.
Other cities in the country have passed similar resolutions, but no city has passed an
ordinance that makes cooperation with federal probes a municipal offense.
Small audience, positive response
If such a prospect is controversial, one wouldn't have known it from the sparse turnout at
the Arcata Community Center. The City wasn't able to secure the center's gym, and
officials feared that its senior dining room wouldn't be able to accommodate what was
expected to be a well-attended forum (a town hall meeting on the City's resolution against
U.S. military action in Iraq drew 200 people).
But there were plenty of empty seats - 30 residents attended, and there were moments
when moderator Sondra Schaub had to gently prod the audience into approaching the four
microphones set up for "fishbowl" discussions.
Most of the people there supported the concept of an anti-Patriot Act ordinance. A World
War II veteran said he fought to defend the country, "and a year later, I find that we have
to defend the Constitution from the government."
Demonstrating how right wing and left wing views can sometimes meet, another man who
supported the ordinance said that he'd "like to step up the actions of citizens before we're
thankful for the NRA." (The National Rifle Association's more extreme advocates say
citizens need guns to defend themselves against potential government intrusions.)
Paul Cienfuegos, chair of Arcata's Committee on Democracy and Corporations, warned
that the Bush Administration is already brewing an expansion of the Patriot Act. He said
Quaker-affiliated pacifist groups are being targeted for their views and their donation
choices.
A young woman named Ashley said she's "appalled and disgusted at the U.S. government"
and is saddened that more people aren't questioning whether the country is truly
democratic.
Ashley thinks the ordinance is a statement of unity. "For what it is, it's a beautiful thing
because it's people coming together and saying, 'We will not accept this.'"
A Humboldt State University student suggested that Arcata go further and proclaim itself
"as an international town, a U.N. town - not a part of America, but the world."
'Spinning your wheels'
Three residents, though not necessarily in support of the Patriot Act, had doubts about the
ordinance.
Anthony Porzio questioned the wisdom of "having an ordinance that's in conflict with
Federal law" and suggested impeachment of President Bush as a more effective project.
"What you're doing is spinning your wheels," he continued.
Donn R.J. Filbert said the ordinance gives the city manager too much decisionmaking
power. However, the ordinance stipulates only that City employees "notify" the city
manager.
Saying the City is fighting federal policy "at the wrong level," Bruce Hamilton said he's
"for less government." He also has concerns about Federal policies, but asserted that "the
antidote isn't to have each city - thousands - passing their own little laws."
He'd previously said that "a symbolic gesture is all that we have here."
Tad, a homeless man who's made presentations to the City Council objecting to police
actions in Arcata, said that "if we're truly concerned about upholding human rights, we
have to start at home... this very town won't allow people to sleep unless they're
homeowners or renters."
He supports passing the ordinance, but added that it's only "symbolic" if City police
policies don't reflect the same ideals.
Test case?
Recently elected Councilmember David Meserve had campaigned on a platform that
promised attention to residents' concerns over national and global issues. He proposed the
resolution and also forwarded the ordinance concept, which apparently has the support of
a majority of councilmembers.
In an interview, Meserve referred to Hamilton's mention of Alabama Governor George
Wallace's defiance of Federal laws reversing segregation. "In that case, there was a
Supreme Court decision [backing Federal law]," Meserve continued. "And what we have
now is a law that many believe is unjust and dangerous - a law that hasn't been tested yet,
but will be at some point."
If Arcata passes the ordinance, it will be the country's first and could be a legal test case.
Meserve had earlier told KMUD radio that "We're putting ourselves out there," suggesting
that a court case over an Arcata ordinance might result in the Patriot Act itself being
found unconstitutional.
But after the Town Hall Meeting, he downplayed the possibility of leveraging an Arcata
law into a legal showdown with the Bush administration.
"As long as we haven't actually used the law, it will be a moot point," said Meserve. "No
one will sue over the presence of the ordinance itself. If it does come up, if a City
employee is asked to do something unconstitutional, the City Council will consider the
chance of litigation and balance that against the civil liberties issues."
Meserve is hoping that if the ordinance is passed, other cities will follow Arcata's lead and
a legal case would be forwarded through a class action lawsuit. He doesn't think that
Arcata alone could handle a legal challenge of the Patriot Act, and wouldn't support such
a move. "Because of the expense, I could never encourage that," he said.
But Meserve added that joining a group legal battle is possible, and "in the case of a
lawsuit, we would certainly involve people in the decision on whether to proceed."
Remembering that legal matters are decided in executive session, Meserve clarified that "I
don't think the public could be involved with an exact legal response, but the choice on
whether to go ahead would be made under public scrutiny."
The Federal government has portrayed the Patriot Act as an important lever for combating
terrorism. Might the ordinance be perceived as a means of sheltering terrorists? Sounding
irked by that question, Meserve emphasized that the ordinance would strive to protect
civil rights.
"I have had nobody, out of the hundreds of people I've talked to, say that they favor the
Patriot Act or think it's a good idea," he said. "I have yet to meet a person who feels that
way... the overall intention of this is to protect the people of Arcata from a set of laws
which threaten our civil liberties."
Interim Police Chief Randy Mendosa wasn't available for comment the day after the town
hall meeting. But he attended it and Meserve said Mendosa believes that the ordinance
"reflects the standard that he always holds himself up to" and "appreciates the ordinance
because it backs up the Constitution."
Arcata to defy Patriot Act
By Daniel Mintz, Eye Reporter
March 10, 2003
An Arcata ordinance resisting enforcement of the U.S. Patriot Act has been introduced by
the City Council and is likely to be adopted at its next meeting.
Residents and councilmembers who delivered opinions on the new federal anti-terrorist
law at the March 5 council meeting all but called the White House administration fascist –
and certain councilmembers were themselves plastered with that association during a
previous debate on how the homeless are treated by Arcata police (see related story
below) The proposed City ordinance portrays elements of the Patriot Act as
unconstitutional and mandates that Arcata’s 17 management-level employees refuse to
cooperate with federal investigators whose requests violate civil rights. Due process rights
and “protection from unreasonable searches and seizures� are cited as Constitutional
safeguards endangered by the new federal law.
The ordinance is being forwarded as a local remedy. And most of the residents who spoke
at the meeting clamored for it. They told councilmembers that they don’t trust their
government and are starting to fear it.
Paranoid times
The recents federal police raid on an Arcata glassblowing business that supplied glass
pipes to retailers has added fuel to the paranoia.
“ I am now totally convinced – I feel the long tentacles of the federal government creeping
up everywhere, and quite honestly, I’m scared,� said Susan Brinton. “They just drop like
paratroopers out of the sky into Arcata... I had to look in the dictionary for the definition
of ‘dark ages.’�
Another woman said that her friends joke about federal gumshoes eyeing their e-mails and
anti-war activism – but the jesting has an undercurrent of genuine fear. “Our federal
government is rapidly and seriously curtailing civil liberties – I am heartened by your
ordinance,� she continued.
Carl Magruder said the signs of the times are pointing to the advent of a strongarm
government. “The trend in the U.S. today is very definitely going toward centralized
power, global monopolization... I would just call it fascism, but I don’t want to frighten
people.�
Profiling of Arab-Americans and others who might fall under federal suspicion is also
mentioned in the ordinance as practices to resist. Willow Rain said that she lives here but
is not a U.S. citizen, and “as an immigrant, I don’t feel safe – and I’m white and British.�
She added that she wonders what the feds would do if they were able to look at her library
withdrawal records. “I don’t like thinking like that,� she said.
Ann Beard expressed doubts about the council’s approach, but agreed that the Patriot Act
represents an overreach of federal authority. “I know a lot of people who are staunch
Republicans and supporters of George Bush, and they’re very concerned about what’s
coming down,� she said.
A necessary shield?
Residents did speak in support of the Patriot Act – but they were a small minority.
One man wondered why everyone is so frightened. He said the scariest of events has
already happened – and the Patriot Act is a reasonable response. “Seeing those planes
crash into [the World Trade Center towers] was the worst thing I ever saw, and now the
government is scrambling to protect us.�
He added that the fed-phobia expressed by speakers was a head-scratcher to him, as he
hasn’t had encounters with any level of law enforcement. “I don’t know what you guys are
so scared about... I don’t know what’s going on here, I’m confused about this meeting
and I don’t like it when somebody else decides for me.�
Sioban Martinez doubted that councilmembers had even read the Patriot Act. “If you had,
you would have seen that the Patriot Act already specifies that there will be no profiling,�
she said.
Martinez told Councilmember David Meserve, the ordinance’s key architect, that the
Patriot Act also calls for measures that would speed emergency fire and police response.
She also reminded that the World Trade Center attack was historically unprecedented and
the government has to respond to it.
“ These were our citizens, horribly murdered,� Martinez continued. “I don’t think you can
say that the Patriot Act is hurting your Constitutional rights – it’s helping you, it’s keeping
you safe.�
Her husband, Luis, said the ordinance unreasonably asks Arcata department heads to
break the law and is the wrong way to address Constitutional concerns. Meserve has
indicated that the City may not even do anything with the ordinance beyond the symbolic
gesture of passing it – and Martinez questioned the efficacy of that approach.
“ When a City Council makes a statement as dramatic as this and isn’t willing to follow
through with it, all it shows is how truly impotent you are.�
Machi: Take it to court
A majority of councilmembers will vote in favor of passing the ordinance. Councilmember
Michael Machi, however, cast a lone vote against introducing it.
He said he also has concerns about the Patriot Act but argued that alternatives to the
ordinance have not been explored. And he added that if the Constitution and Bill of Rights
are to be taken seriously, the council should pay attention to what those documents say
about court processes.
“ Our enacting this ordinance doesn’t defend the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, it does
exactly the opposite,� Machi continued. “ This ordinance in itself threatens due process
because the City has no jurisdiction over what is and isn’t Constitutional... we would be
doing the same thing we’re saying the Patriot Act does. We’re skipping due process here,
too – this needs to go through the court system.�
Machi encouraged Arcata to either join or launch a drive for court proceedings that would
decide the Constitutionality of the controversial Patriot Act.
Other councilmembers didn’t agree. Councilmember Connie Stewart couched her
commentary in the context of her experiences as a black woman. Profiling is of particular
concern to her.
“ I am singled out at the airport a lot more than white people are, and that’s human nature,
to be afraid of difference,� she said after mentioning that in the long list of names of
people detained by the feds so far, “exactly two names are not Arab.�
Stewart also mentioned the country’s homegrown Oklahoma City bombing and said “in
that instance, we had a terrorist act committed by a white man and we did not go to war
against the Midwest – yet we’re feeding on that type of fear now.�
She concluded by saying that “as a black person, it’s really troubling to me to see some of
this stuff and I’m really glad to see that so many white people are troubled as well.�
Meserve is one of them. A municipal representative of the City’s activist community, he’s
worried that the term “terrorist� will be extended to “nonviolent demonstration.�
He asked how someone who’s had due process rights denied can implement court
processes. And he added that if the Patriot Act “ is indeed harmless, this ordinance does
nothing anyway... this ordinance does one thing and one thing only – it protects people
from having their rights denied by the government.�
Mayor Bob Ornelas views the administration of President George Bush as a mechanism of
“faith-based bigotry.� He thinks support of Bush’s directives indicates “a naivete, and
belief based on political preference.�
Ornelas said he’s glad to live in a place that upholds liberal ideals. “I do not trust the feds,
I do not trust George Bush and I feel like introducing this ordinance is a way to express
my distrust and protect people from hatred and bigotry.�
(Councilmember Elizabeth Conner was not able to attend the meeting due to a medical
emergency involving surgery. “I’m looking forward to jumping back in to council business
and a normal life,� she said later.)
The council agreed to add a clause to the ordinance that specifies the City will provide
legal support to employees charged with violating federal law. The ordinance had
originally included all City employees, but the focus was narrowed to management at the
request of employee unions.
The ordinance will be voted on – and, it appears, approved – at the March 19 council
meeting.
Arcata City Council passes “Anti-Patriot Act� ordinance
By Daniel Mintz, Eye Reporter
April 7, 2003
In what has been heralded as a historic move, the Arcata City Council has passed a law
that resists the U.S. Patriot Act – but the Boston Tea Party it isn't.
Comments from councilmembers and City officials prior to adopting the law indicate that
there is only a very remote chance that it will ever be tested.
But there is plenty of symbolic significance behind the ordinance, which was adopted at
the City Council's April 2 meeting. When the law goes into effect in 30 days, it will be a
municipal offense for any City management employee to voluntarily comply with federal
agents who make unconstitutional requests under the authority of the Patriot Act.
The ordinance cites the Patriot Act's provisions for searches and access to confidential
records as unconstitutional. When the City law was first proposed, little controversy
emerged but there were lots of questions about what would happen if the feds actually ask
City of Arcata employees to assist their Patriot Act-sanctioned investigations.
It appears that the possibility is so unlikely that it isn't worth a substantial analysis. Even if
the new municipal law is met with federal pressure, the City Council could discuss striking
it to sidestep legal issues.
And an employee who violates the ordinance and complies with unconstitutional requests
would be subjected to the same penalty that's levied for any first-time infraction offense: a
$57 fine.
August 18: Letter to the Editor
The People Are With Us
Just read about the brave stance of your city council regarding the so-called "Patriot Act."
I have been a military man all my life, and have served in the defense of my country for
some almost 50 years... And, as such, I think I am a credentialed, card carrying member of
the "establishment." I have demonstrated that I love my country.
I only say this because I want to separate myself from the "communist, hippie,
anti-American" genre that the people in Washington want us to believe that anyone who
stands for the American Dream in opposition to federal policy is....
You are taking a stand for my country. Not the military adventures for oil and gold. Not
the arrogant posturing for power and wealth.
But for a simple, American "thing."
That "thing" holds that every American possesses a life that is inviolate of any and every
law provided he or she cannot be proven to have broken a law, that we are all free and
sovereign individuals and that no power can intrude on our personal lives without just and
documentable cause.
But, then, you know that. And I am just writing to tell you that, all over this United States
of America, we, the People, are with you.
The American Dream doesn't exist in Washington. It resides in small towns of individual
people like you, who possess the courage to stand up and say... "Not in my town."
You go, guys.
I wish I could get my little town to stand up too.
Re: The Santa Cruz City Government Versus The Bill Of Rights
Re: The Santa Cruz City Government Versus The Bill Of Rights
Though this may be ultimately true, I believe strongly that Arcata has it right in standing against enforcing these actions. I am surprised that Santa Cruz has weakened it's wording on this. I support the Santa Cruz Bill of Rights Defense folks in calling for stronger opposition to this horrific "act" that goes against the foundations of this country. Of course "patriot act 2" is standing on the sideline, just waiting for another staged "terrorist attack" to create fear in the public, so that it can be passed. The more awareness that is generated now about this abomination the better. The text of "Patriot Act 2" can be found at: www.infowars.com with commentary by Alex Jones.
Also: Jerry, I stand corrected in my comment, and have ommitted it from my post. Thank you.
Re: The Santa Cruz City Government Versus The Bill Of Rights