Trial of couple cited for repeatedly violating city's camping ban e...

Full story: Santa Cruz Sentinel

The Santa Cruz homeless couple repeatedly cited for violating city ordinances must wait one more week to hear whether they will be permanently banned from camping downtown after final testimony was heard in a Santa Cruz court on Thursday.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 17 of17
Citizens Arise

Santa Cruz, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Aug 12, 2010
 

Judged:

3

1

1

If the police and courts don't deal with it, then most likely citizens will take matters into their own hands.

TAKE BACK SANTA CRUZ
Idiot Merchants

Aptos, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Aug 12, 2010
 

Judged:

6

5

3

What a biased article. It's all about what the merchants want. Santa Cruz has gone to the dogs...the merchants looking to fleece the tourists. Nothing about what the citizens and residents of Santa Cruz want. I think I'll shop elsewhere from now on.

TAKE BACK SANTA CRUZ...let the homeless be.

Since: May 08

Santa Cruz, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Aug 12, 2010
 

Judged:

3

2

1

I'm not sure that I understand what "permanently banned" means. It's already illegal for these two (or anyone else) to camp downtown. So what does "permanently banned from camping downtown" mean? How does it differ?
Reality Check

Hayward, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Aug 12, 2010
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Idiot Merchants wrote:
What a biased article. It's all about what the merchants want. Santa Cruz has gone to the dogs...the merchants looking to fleece the tourists. Nothing about what the citizens and residents of Santa Cruz want. I think I'll shop elsewhere from now on.
TAKE BACK SANTA CRUZ...let the homeless be.
Feel free to post your address. I'll be happy to transport a dozen or so to your house each night so we can 'let the homeless be' in your yard.
All knowing

Boulder Creek, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Aug 12, 2010
 

Judged:

3

"The ban prevents them from camping inside an area equal to one-tenth of a square mile, stretching from the River Street shops to Laurel Street and from Pacific Avenue to the riverbank."

How very convenient! Subrosas is past Laurel and the booze-em-up bar and even the card room. It is not even on the riverbank side of Pacific! So when is the moving-in party?
Siler

Hayward, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Aug 12, 2010
 

Judged:

2

2

Idiot wrote:
What a biased article. It's all about what the merchants want. Santa Cruz has gone to the dogs...the merchants looking to fleece the tourists. Nothing about what the citizens and residents of Santa Cruz want. I think I'll shop elsewhere from now on.

TAKE BACK SANTA CRUZ...let the homeless be.
Well, got your name half right - so will this elsewhere of which you speak be a place with aggressive panhandlers, bums, used needles, human excrement and trash in that particular shopping district... or do you prefer something a little cleaner?
All knowing

Boulder Creek, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Aug 12, 2010
 
Idiot Merchants wrote:
. I think I'll shop elsewhere from now on.
TAKE BACK SANTA CRUZ.
Thank you. With that, new apartments and several new shops - my cup runneth over. My; the air is improving already
What it means

Scotts Valley, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Aug 12, 2010
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Xanthippe wrote:
I'm not sure that I understand what "permanently banned" means. It's already illegal for these two (or anyone else) to camp downtown. So what does "permanently banned from camping downtown" mean? How does it differ?
As it is now, the police simply cite them. However if they are banned, then caught where they are banned from. It would be contempt of court, then they will be arrested. If they get arrested on a Friday night, it'll be till Monday before they can go to court. And The judge may sentence them to a longer term in jail.
Dough Boy

Fair Oaks, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Aug 12, 2010
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Why can't they go stay with BJ or Robert? I really don't get it?
smoked out

Las Vegas, NV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Aug 13, 2010
 

Judged:

1

Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Feel free to post your address. I'll be happy to transport a dozen or so to your house each night so we can 'let the homeless be' in your yard.
o.k. the el view hotel on third street
Robert Norse

Walnut Creek, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Aug 13, 2010
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Alia's article has significant misinformation as well as minor errors (It's "Daniel White" not "Dana White").

The Preliminary Injunction issued last year banned sleeping at night and covering up with blankets at night as well as setting up a campsite. None of the other behaviors so prejudicially itemized in her article were banned because they weren't found to have been proved.

Nor were any of the sleeping, blanket, or camping bans ever taken to a real criminal trial--where they would have been defeated by the necessity defense, since--for half the year anyway--there is absolutely no walk-in emergency shelter.

Instead City Attorneys Barisone tried a slippery slimy backdoor method (actually more expensive) that denied the two a public defender--a Civil Injunction for Public Nuisance.

If Judge Volkman accepts this reasoning (which he may, since the original Preliminary Injunction was granted) that means survival sleeping by homeless people in a community without shelter for them can simply be banned as a nuisance per see without a criminal trial because it technically violates the letter of an unconstitutional law.

Attorneys Gettleman and Briscoe were so outraged by this anti-homeless progrom that they signed on pro bono to defend the two--though they will get nothing out of it.

The latest dog-and-pony show by Susan Barisone scheduled 23 witnesses to testify that the two homeless musicians slept outside at night and they didn't like the look of it! The estimated costs of this bigoted extravaganza:$50,000-$100,000.

Alia also omits the fact that nighttime sleeping for the homeless is everywhere banned in all public spaces in Santa Cruz at night. Nor that there is no shelter space for them tonight or any night for the next few months at least (Don Miller's fantasies notwithstanding).

More extensive analysis as well as the legal briefs involved can be found at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/06/17/1... .("City Attorney Barisone's Attack on 2 Homeless: Sentinel Smear and Activist Response")

In April, the SCPD and City Attorne--after dogging their steps for months--failed to get Judge Volkman to agree that sleeping next to your possessions during the day was "camping". See "Homeless Couple victorious against contempt charges" at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/03/20/1... .

See "Homeless Frame-Up by Cops and City Attorney Defeated in Rare Court Victory" for my analysis of this well-funded farce.

More extensive analysis as well as the legal briefs involved can be found at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/06/17/1... .("City Attorney Barisone's Attack on 2 Homeless: Sentinel Smear and Activist Response").

In future, Alia might check out other sources before passing on the usual police and city attorney propaganda.
Siler

Hayward, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Aug 13, 2010
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Robert Norse wrote:
Alia's article has significant misinformation as well as minor errors (It's "Daniel White" not "Dana White").

[bah blah blah......]zzzz zzzzz

In future, Alia might check out other sources before passing on the usual police and city attorney propaganda.
Now who do we know who is all about misinformation and propaganda..?

Since: May 08

Santa Cruz, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Aug 13, 2010
 

Judged:

4

4

4

What it means wrote:
<quoted text>
As it is now, the police simply cite them. However if they are banned, then caught where they are banned from. It would be contempt of court, then they will be arrested. If they get arrested on a Friday night, it'll be till Monday before they can go to court. And The judge may sentence them to a longer term in jail.
Awesome. Perhaps that will get their attention. They seem to be failing at grasping the concept that they need to find another place to sleep besides downtown.

Since: May 08

Santa Cruz, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Aug 13, 2010
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Robert Norse wrote:
Attorneys Gettleman and Briscoe were so outraged by this anti-homeless progrom that they signed on pro bono to defend the two--though they will get nothing out of it.
But not so outraged, apparently, as to offer their own backyards as camping sites for these two.

Nor are you, nor is Johnson.

"the right to sleep not anywhere-and-everywhere, but somewhere - except not my backyard"

I would love to hear a report on your model citizens after you've hosted them for a week. But you won't do that, will you, Robert?
DBS

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Aug 13, 2010
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Robert Norse wrote:
Alia's article has significant misinformation as well as minor errors (It's "Daniel White" not "Dana White").
The Preliminary Injunction issued last year banned sleeping at night and covering up with blankets at night as well as setting up a campsite. None of the other behaviors so prejudicially itemized in her article were banned because they weren't found to have been proved.
Nor were any of the sleeping, blanket, or camping bans ever taken to a real criminal trial--where they would have been defeated by the necessity defense, since--for half the year anyway--there is absolutely no walk-in emergency shelter.
Instead City Attorneys Barisone tried a slippery slimy backdoor method (actually more expensive) that denied the two a public defender--a Civil Injunction for Public Nuisance.
If Judge Volkman accepts this reasoning (which he may, since the original Preliminary Injunction was granted) that means survival sleeping by homeless people in a community without shelter for them can simply be banned as a nuisance per see without a criminal trial because it technically violates the letter of an unconstitutional law.
Attorneys Gettleman and Briscoe were so outraged by this anti-homeless progrom that they signed on pro bono to defend the two--though they will get nothing out of it.
The latest dog-and-pony show by Susan Barisone scheduled 23 witnesses to testify that the two homeless musicians slept outside at night and they didn't like the look of it! The estimated costs of this bigoted extravaganza:$50,000-$100,000.
Alia also omits the fact that nighttime sleeping for the homeless is everywhere banned in all public spaces in Santa Cruz at night. Nor that there is no shelter space for them tonight or any night for the next few months at least (Don Miller's fantasies notwithstanding).
More extensive analysis as well as the legal briefs involved can be found at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/06/17/1... .("City Attorney Barisone's Attack on 2 Homeless: Sentinel Smear and Activist Response")
In April, the SCPD and City Attorne--after dogging their steps for months--failed to get Judge Volkman to agree that sleeping next to your possessions during the day was "camping". See "Homeless Couple victorious against contempt charges" at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/03/20/1... .
See "Homeless Frame-Up by Cops and City Attorney Defeated in Rare Court Victory" for my analysis of this well-funded farce.
More extensive analysis as well as the legal briefs involved can be found at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/06/17/1... .("City Attorney Barisone's Attack on 2 Homeless: Sentinel Smear and Activist Response").
In future, Alia might check out other sources before passing on the usual police and city attorney propaganda.
If you're SOOOOOOOOOOOOO concerned about these two parasite-class-losers, why don't YOU get out your MULTI-MILLION-DOLLAR-TRUSTFUND CHECKBOOK just ONCE??????

Then you will have ACTUALLY DONE SOMETHING TO HELP!!!!!!!!!

Oh wait, that's about as likely as BJ going on a hunger strike.
Craig

Santa Monica, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Aug 13, 2010
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Robert Norse wrote:
Alia's article has significant misinformation as well as minor errors
You mean just like BECKY?

Remember that article BECKY wrote in which she fabricated an entirely different ending to Camp Paradise? She wrote in her article that it was destroyed by the SCPD rather than the truth of it being torrential rains and a flood.

Now that's rather significant.

Or when she wrote in one of her blog articles that Donald Schmidt had NEVER been diagnosed as a pedophile, EVER. She argued that this person, who self admittedly raped a baby and then killed her, did not suffer from this affliction. She even said that the ONLY people to "claim" he was a pedophile worked for the DA. Then we found proof that he had been diagnosed as such by more than one doctor, who were directly involved with his treatment, and who did not work for the DA.

That's rather significant.

She gets peoples names wrong too. Heck, I've even seen YOU get called out for getting peoples names wrong in your own writing on Indybay.

How about when BECKY wrote that the protesters at your recent event were always near, tidy, organized, and respectful of their surroundings? We all know how significantly wrong that turned out to be. There are pictures to prove she was wrong, errrr, "mistaken".
Buzz

Santa Cruz, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Aug 13, 2010
 

Judged:

2

2

2

I really hope the judge doesn't wimp out on this. The city does need to have some effective way of clearing the undesirable element from downtown. Nowhere but in Santa Cruz would this problem would be tolerated for such a prolonged period.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 17 of17
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

9 Users are viewing the Santa Cruz Forum right now

Search the Santa Cruz Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
TBSC Super Troll Samantha Olden 1 hr Super Troll Sam Olden 89
cfabsc 2 hr Cartman 451
CA Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 4 hr Cali Girl 2014 199,131
Archive for Jim Spring posts 4 hr Donny B 266
TBSC compared to NEO NAZIS 4 hr Donny B 22
SV Teacher "Buzz" still stalking topix users 5 hr DBS 176
Caught DBS Lying Again 5 hr DBS 6
•••
•••
•••
•••

Santa Cruz Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Santa Cruz People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••