What is Occupy Eureka? (one video perspective)

Read Full Post »

Illegal To Feed Homeless- Man Arrested 2009 [Video]

The “soup wars” continue… If you don’t buy it, if you don’t sell it- you’re a criminal. And not everybody who eats free food is homeless. The State just wants to make sure people who are really hungry and don’t have money, can’t eat.

In PEOPLE PROJECT, we say “This ain’t charity, it’s survival!” We know that the only way we’ll all make it is through SHARING. Read about Grub-n-Grab‘s and PEOPLE PROJECT’s Good Morning Neighbors Breakfast Program.

More about Grub-n-Grab’s:

https://peopleproject.wordpress.com/2009/01/10/236/

More about Good Morning Neighbors Breakfast Program:

humboldt-grassroots-1 5

More about Food Not Bombs:

THE STORY OF FOOD NOT BOMBS

or Read/Download:

The Story of Food Not Bombs

Here’s a small handout about Food Not Bombs, with a song on the 2nd side:

Read Full Post »

9th Circuit Mandates New Trial in Free Speech “Nazi Salute” Lawsuit Against City of Santa Cruz

by Robert Norse Wednesday Dec 15th, 2010
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/12/15/18666771.php

VIDEO of Robert Norse “Nazi Salute”: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2…

Today the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted me a new trial against the City for its actions in harassing, excluding, and arresting me for making a mock-Nazi salute at a March 2002 City Council meeting after the Mayor had threatened a diminutive peace activist with arrest for stepping up to the microphone in search of her Oral Communications time. I’ll be posting a link to the full decision shortly, But in the meantime, I invite Free Speech advocates to savor a few of the phrases used by the unanimous court as well as a few stronger ones used by the two judges who would have defended my rights even further.

In an earlier article (“9th Circuit Court Slaps Santa Cruz City Attorney in Mock-Nazi Salute Case” at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/06/28/18652079.php), I I discuss the 10-judge hearing down in Pasadena this summer and how badly City Attorney Kovocevitch’s arguments came off. For once, it seemed, judges were actually listening.

This case concerns the civil rights of advocates in a stacked forum (City Council) which has traditionally been hostile to homeless civil rights on the streets. Many people rightly wonder, “why bother with City Council anyway?” After years of frustration, I don’t really have a good answer.

A body stacked with neo-liberal gentrification maestros masquerades as progressives or “moderates”. It has legislated away civil rights for the poor on the streets and continues to make the act of sleeping at night outside (in a city with no shelter for 85% of its homeless). The point: to establish a “comfort zone” for the frightened and prejudices, whose legitimate concerns about housing, health care, jobs, the war, and the economy are being displaced onto “the smelly homeless”. “Quality of life” is to be regained under this deluded theory by driving the poor out of sight and out of town instead of ending the economy-devouring Imperial War Machine and the lopsided wealth distribution.

Some courts, we can see, still defend the right to attend a Council meeting and speak there for three minutes (even if you can’t get your subject on the agenda). But this whole issue doesn’t mean much in the day-to-day homeless life where basic concerns are denied like the basic right to sleep legally somewhere), the right to not have one’s property searched and seized arbitrarily, the right to protest these conditions, the right to fair treatment by public agencies and private businesses, etc.

Still, while I’d have much preferred to see a successful assault on the Sleeping Ban (as was the case in L.A., San Diego, Fresno, and Laguna Beach), this seemed a good well-documented opportunity to force the City Council to cut back on its repression. This arrest in March of 2002 was the latest in a cycle of repressive incidents.

The cycle of repression has continued. With Mayor Coonerty coming back into power with a right-wing majority on the Council, the federal courts and the streets may be the only avenues of redress.

Hopefully this court decision–and a subsequent victory in the trial–will make the Coonerty Council and its cops more reluctant to stifle regular human dialogue and protest at City Council. And perhaps cut short some of its homeless-ophobia downtown.

There were some strong and encouraging statements made by the 10-judge panel:

THE ENTIRE 10-JUDGE PANEL unanimously wrote:

“The City contends that only certain portions of its meetings are limited public forums and that no members of the public have any First Amendment rights at all once the public comment period has concluded. The City cites no support for this proposition, and there is none.

In City of Norwalk, we held that city council meetings, once open to public participation, are limited public forums. 900 F.2d at 1425. A council can regulate not only the time, place, and manner of speech in a limited public forum, but also the content of speech—as long as content-based regulations are viewpoint neutral and enforced that way.

What a city council may not do is, in effect, close an open meeting by declaring that the public has no First Amendment right whatsoever once the public comment
period has closed. As we explained in Norwalk, the entire city council meeting held in public is a limited public forum. But the fact that a city may impose reasonable time limitations on speech does not mean it can transform the nature of the forum by doing so, much less extinguish all First Amendment rights. A limited public forum is a limited public forum. Perhaps nothing more, but certainly nothing less. The City’s theory would turn the entire concept on its head.

Thus, even though we can tell from the face of the amended complaint that Norse’s provocative gesture was made after the public comment period closed, Norse still had a First Amendment right to be free from viewpoint discrimination at that time. The City’s argument proves the danger of its theory. The City contended at oral argument before us that, because the public had no First Amendment rights after the public comment period had closed, the Council could legitimately eject members of the public who made a “thumbs down” gesture, but allow members of the public who made a “thumbs up” gesture to remain.11

We note that we have been unable to find a single First Amendment case where a person has the right to be in a place but has no First Amendment rights once there. Rather, the First Amendment test itself accounts for the nature of the forum and, at its most restrictive, only permits viewpoint neutral restrictions that are “reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum.”) (“[S]tudent First Amendment rights are applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment.”) (“[A] prison inmate retains those First Amendment rights that are not inconsistent with his status as a prisoner or with the legitimate penological
objectives of the corrections system.”).

When queried at oral argument whether that action would constitute classic viewpoint discrimination, the City responded that it was “just human nature.” We decline the City’s invitation to rewrite First Amendment law to extinguish the rights that citizens have when they attend public meetings.

We also decline the City’s invitation to rewrite the rule announced in Norwalk. There, we held that a city’s “Rules of Decorum” are not facially over-broad where they only permit a presiding officer to eject an attendee for actually disturbing or impeding a meeting. In this case, the City argues that cities may define “disturbance”
in any way they choose. Specifically, the City argues that it has defined any violation of its decorum rules to be a “disturbance.” Therefore, it reasons, Norwalk permits the City to eject anyone for violation of the City’s rules—rules that were only held to be facially valid to the extent that they require a person actually to disturb a meeting before being ejected.

We must respectfully reject the City’s attempt to engage us in doublespeak. Actual disruption means actual disruption. It does not mean constructive disruption, technical disruption, virtual disruption, nunc pro tunc disruption, or imaginary disruption. The City cannot define disruption so as to include non-disruption to invoke the aid of Norwalk.

The city officials are not entitled to absolute immunity. Local legislators are absolutely immune from liability… But “not all governmental acts by . . . a local legislature[ ] are necessarily legislative in nature.”. “Whether an act is legislative turns on the nature of the act, rather than on the motive or intent of the
official performing it.” Thus, we must determine whether the actions of the Council members, when “stripped of all considerations of intent and motive,” were
legislative rather than administrative or executive.

In this Circuit, we have developed a four-part test to determine whether an action is legislative in nature. We consider
(1) whether the act involves ad hoc decisionmaking, or the formulation of policy;
(2) whether the act applies to a few individuals, or to the public at large;
(3) whether the act is formally legislative in character; and
(4) whether it bears all the hallmarks of traditional legislation.”

In this case, we are dealing with city officials who ejected one individual from City Council meetings. Separately, and with regard to his argument for municipal liability, Norse argues that the officials were formulating policy. We need not determine whether the ejections “effectuate[d] policy,” because the second, third, and
fourth factors clearly point to this being an administrative rather than legislative act. Thus, Krohn, Kennedy, and Fitzmaurice are not entitled to absolute immunity for their part in removing Norse from the meetings. Although the record is incomplete, it appears that in both 2002 and 2004 Norse was singled out for expulsion and arrest. Mayors Krohn and Kennedy did not take any formal legislative action, but rather ordered Norse out of the room. And both expulsions lacked the hallmarks of the legislative process.

With respect to the 2002 arrest, Krohn ordered Norse to leave on Fitzmaurice’s motion without any debate. The motion was predicated on the “dignity” of the council rather than the council’s performance of its obligations to the citizens of Santa Cruz. And with respect to the 2004 arrest, the record does not reveal a motion based even on dignity, let alone a legislative decisionmaking process. Thus the decisions to expel Norse were administrative, not legislative, so the defendants are not entitled to absolute immunity.

Chief Judge KOZINSKI, with whom Judge REINHARDT ADDITIONALLY WROTE:

I join Judge Thomas’s opinion because it’s clearly right. I write only to observe that, even after the procedural irregularities that deprived Norse an opportunity to present evidence,

it’s clear that the council members aren’t entitled to qualified immunity. In the Age of YouTube, there’s no need to take my word for it: There is a video of the incident that I’m “happy to allow . . . to speak for itself.” see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOssHWB6WBI (last visited Nov. 16, 2010).

This video (also found in the record) clearly shows that Norse’s sieg heil was momentary and casual, causing no disruption whatsoever.

It would have remained entirely unnoticed, had a city councilman not interrupted the proceedings to take umbrage and insist that Norse be cast out of the meeting.
Councilman Fitzmaurice clearly wants Norse expelled because the “Nazi salute” is “against the dignity of this body and the decorum of this body” and not because of any disruption. But, unlike der Führer, government officials in America occasionally must tolerate offensive or irritating speech.

The Supreme Court long ago explained that “in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression.” Even in a limited public forum like a city council meeting, the First Amendment tightly constrains the government’s power; speakers may be removed only if they are actually disruptive.

We’ve said so twice. In White v. City of Norwalk,we explained that speech must “disrupt[,] disturb[ ] or otherwise impede[ ] the orderly conduct of the Council meeting” before the speaker could be removed. …We upheld a spectator’s ejection from a public meeting only because he was “disrupting the proceedings by yelling and trying to speak when it was not time for” discussion..

Had he been given a chance, Norse could no doubt have presented lots more evidence that he never disrupted the Santa Cruz council meeting, but what would have been the point? The video speaks for itself: Norse raises his hand in a brief, silent protest of the mayor’s treatment of another speaker. The mayor ignores Norse’s fleeting gesture until Councilman Fitzmaurice throws a hissy fit.

“Listeners’ reaction to speech is not a content-neutral basis for regulation. . . . Speech cannot be . . . punished or banned[ ] simply because it might offend a hostile” member of the Santa Cruz City Council. The council members should have known that the government may never suppress viewpoints it doesn’t like. Though
defendants point to Norse’s reaction to Councilman Fitzmaurice as the “disruption” that warranted carting him off to jail, Norse’s calm assertion of his constitutional rights was not the least bit disruptive.

The First Amendment would be meaningless if Councilman Fitzmaurice’s petty pique justified Norse’s arrest and removal.

Even viewing the facts most favorably to the city council members, their behavior amounts to classic viewpoint discrimination for which they’re not entitled to qualified immunity. And that’s what the district court should have held when it set about resolving qualified immunity as a matter of law. If it was going to take it upon itself to grant summary judgment to anyone on that issue, it should have been to Norse.

On remand, the district court can set things right by holding, as a matter of law, that the city council members are not entitled to qualified immunity, and proceeding to assess damages.

ATTORNEY BEAUVAIS TO DISCUSS CASE THURSDAY DECEMBER 16TH ON FREE RADIO SANTA CRUZ

At 7 PM one of the two attorneys who argued the case before the court (and has fought this battle before a district judge (twice) and the court of appeals (twice) will discuss the case and its significance at 101.1 FM (http://www.freakradio.org). Call in questions and comments at 831-427-3772.

BACKGROUND

More background on the case can be found at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/06/28/18652079.php (“9th Circuit Court Slaps Santa Cruz City Attorney in Mock-Nazi Salute Case”)

Read Full Post »

Savannah Georgia Says It Blatant

Read Full Post »

Protest in Santa Cruz Against Camping Ban!

HUFF [Homeless United for Friendship and Freedom] is soliciting blankets, sleeping bags, pillows, tarps, and food donations for our nightly event. Please come by, sign our petition, and lie down with us against the Sleeping Ban (MC 6.36.010 section a). If you would like to add your name to our list of endorsers, please e-mail me back at the above e-mail address. — Becky Johnson of HUFF

Homeless, their advocates sleep at county courthouse to protest Santa Cruz’s camping ban

By Kimberly White
Posted: 07/06/2010 01:30:54 AM PDT

found online at: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ ci_15446448

SANTA CRUZ — A handful of homeless men and homeless rights advocates gathered in front of the Santa Cruz County courthouse Monday night, spreading out blankets and unfurling their sleeping bags in a willful violation of a city ordinance that prohibits camping within city limits.

Leigh, who declined to provide his last name, was preparing to sleep out on the courthouse steps for the second night. He said he has lived in Santa Cruz for 35 years and has been “houseless” for the last four or five years.

“I understand at some legal level why the ban was implemented, ” he said. “I also understand that it was implemented due to the city’s intentional oversight in the creation of housing and jobs for people that actually live here. They’re in violation of the state charter that requires them to build housing for people that actually work here, or at least plan for it.”

He called the ban a “draconian measure” aimed at making it “harder for people that they do displace to stay here” and then criminalizing the resulting behavior.

“The problem is, for a lot of people here, there’s no place to go,” he said.

Organizers of the “Peace Camp” say they will continue camping on the courthouse steps every night from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. until the city either scraps what they call a “sleeping ban” or creates a safe shelter with additional capacity.

Santa Cruz Vice Mayor Ryan Coonerty said the city attorney automatically dismisses any citations handed out for illegal camping, provided there is proof that all available beds at the various shelters around the city are full.

“He’ll dismiss it,” agreed Ed Frey, a local attorney who helped organize the protest, “but he won’t stop the police from waking people up, writing them a ticket, making them go to court twice, and go over to the homeless services shelter and get an affidavit to the effect that there were no beds available that night. And then the law, in its majesty, will grant you a not guilty verdict.”
According to the 2009 Santa Cruz Homeless Census and Survey, about 2,260 people in the county are homeless.

Coonerty estimated that through a combination of city programs and a partnership with area churches, roughly 400 beds are available each night — and the latest report that came out last month showed that the shelters averaged about 84 percent capacity total.

“I’m not even sure that any area churches are participating anymore in that program,” said Becky Johnson, a member of advocacy group HUFF, or Homeless United for Friendship and Freedom, which is backing the protest. HUFF estimates that shelter space is available for only 8 percent of that population, or about 180.

She said the Interfaith Satellite Shelter Project is now redirecting their staffing and funding into the Paul Lee Loft, a new facility at the Homeless Services shelter.

Frey said about 10 of the about 30 people who arrived at the courthouse lawn Sunday night slept there overnight. Deputies eventually came by “and checked us out,” he said, but ultimately left without issuing any citations.

Paul Tashiro, patrol supervisor for the Sheriff’s Office, saw several people camped out on the platform in front of the courthouse Sunday night, but said no citations were issued because the protesters were peaceful and not creating any disturbances.

In fact, Tashiro said Monday afternoon — before that evening’s vigil began — that he didn’t even know what they were protesting.
“I don’t know how much attention they brought to the homelessness issue in the middle of the night on a holiday weekend,” he said when he learned that they are protesting the sleeping ban. He noted that if they are gone by 8 a.m. today, “they won’t disrupt any services because the county doesn’t even open until after 8 a.m.”

Asked what the advocates hope to accomplish, Frey said they want to “put pressure on the city government and courts to do the right thing” and stop depriving the homeless of sleep. Instead of forcing the homeless to jump through so many hoops to get the fines dismissed, police should simply call the shelter themselves to confirm that it is full, he said.

“The solution is to follow the law … which gives the homeless a right to privacy, a right to be left alone, a right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, a right to due process of the law, and a right to be free from torture,” Frey said.

“If they think it’s unconstitutional, they should challenge it,” Coonerty said. “If they want to change the policy, they should have people run for City Council. … I don’t think camping out is the most effective way” to create the change they want.

Read Full Post »

Sidewalks Are For The People!

::: SIDEWALKS 4 PEOPLE PART II :::
::: SAT. APRIL 24 :::
::: ALL DAY / CITYWIDE :::
::: SAN FRANCISCO :::

WE HAD SO MUCH FUN ON THE SIDEWALKS ON MARCH 27th, WE MADE IT A MONTHLY RITUAL!

MORE INFO AT:
www.StandAgainstSitLie.org.

:::WHAT::: SIDEWALKS ARE FOR PEOPLE is a monthly citywide celebration of San Francisco’s public space, its vibrant and diverse culture, and its tradition of tolerance and compassion. People from all walks of life, across the city, will be doing what they love on the city’s sidewalks: barbecues, chalk drawing, chess, yoga, reading, knitting, jumprope, playing music, painting, tea/coffee parties, sunbathing, meditating, DJing, hanging out, tai chi, hot tub parties, dancing, anything — you name it!

::: WHERE/WHEN ::: Gatherings will be happening all day in multiple locations across the city. People can post their events or find other events on the official map at www.StandAgainstSitLie.org.

::: WHY ::: The Board of Supervisors will soon be voting on a “Sit/Lie” law that would make it illegal to sit or lie on the sidewalk anywhere in San Francisco. We think it’s a really bad idea to criminalize the act of sitting in public space and that it’s a clear violation of our basic civil liberties. We think public spaces are safer when people are encouraged to use them to meet with neighbors, friends, family and others from the community. We like how our sidewalks reflect the diverse, vibrant culture
of our city. We believe in freedom of expression, the right to peaceably assemble, and the pursuit of happiness on our sidewalks!

We acknowledge and empathize with legitimate fears or frustrations that people encounter while sharing public space with others, but we do not believe that a sit/lie ordinance would address these fears and frustrations in a truly effective way. We are interested in participating in dialogue around real solutions they address core issues. For starters check out, A Very Different Approach to the Sit-Lie Law by Gabriel Haaland.

::: RSVP on facebook :::
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=112164578810394&ref=ts

::: WHAT CAN DO FOR SIDEWALKS ARE FOR PEOPLE? :::
Anything you want! Be creative — or not. It doesn’t matter! Just be sure to have fun on the sidewalk and invite friends, family, and neighbors to join you. Please avoid obstructing the free flow of our fellow San Franciscans! Take pictures and shoot video to document your event. Post your event on the interactive map at StandAgainstSitLie.org so that we can show that people all across our fair city love our public spaces.

We will provide you with some basic materials to hand out to curious pedestrians, along with tools to support you in orchestrating this in the most effective way. Other than that, we leave it up to you to organize the best event that you can. You can do whatever you want, but please do something!

CONTACT: info@StandAgainstStiLie.org if you have questions or would like to offer your skills and passion to help put this event together. Or call Andy at 415-533-4694.

Read Full Post »

from the first Eureka 2010 protests to END THE WAR ON THE POOR

“End the War on the Poor!”

All wars are wars against the poor, the Earth, and the most vulnerable. The wars on the poor take many forms, including heavy military recruitment of poor youth, persecution of immigrant families, 500 years of violence against and incarceration of indigenous and black communities, militarized policing and industrial poisoning of poor neighborhoods… PEOPLE PROJECT wishes to join in struggle with all poor communities. Please join us to end all wars.

Millions of people are struggling to survive, to live in dignity, and provide for basic necessities. Millions more are a step away. To make it even more difficult, local ordinances and historic prejudice allow sheriffs, police and the criminal (in)justice system to harass, intimidate, jail, abuse, and fine some of the most vulnerable people in our community.

We Must Decriminalize Houselessness in Humboldt County!

Types of Criminalization Measures

Legislation that makes it illegal to sleep, sit, or store personal belongings in
public spaces, though many people, out of necessity, are forced to live in these areas.

Selective enforcement of public property laws so as to only target
people profiled as poor or houseless.

Selective enforcement of seemingly more neutral laws, such as loitering or
open container laws, against houseless persons.

Sweeps of areas where homeless persons are living,
frequently resulting in the destruction of those persons’ personal property,
including important documents, medication, and survival gear.

Media and sick societal attitudes that deem houseless people to be disposable
and deserving of abuse.

Laws and police harassment which intimidate and punish people for first amendment
activities of begging, panhandling, and holding signs asking for work.

In addition to direct action and litigation to decriminalize houselessness,
with your support, we will petition the Board of Supervisors and City Councils to:

1. Eliminate all ordinances that violate constitutional laws and basic human
rights.
2. Stop the deliberate campaign of cruelty, disappearance and deprivation by
local government against houseless people
3. Relinquish a sizable piece of city or county property to us so that we can
cultivate a safe sleep and community space.

Demand Social and Economic Justice

Trillions! of dollars and lives have been stolen from us by the Financial Industry’s Fraud, Corporate Greed, Prison Industrial Complex, the overkill Military Budget, the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is time for new priorities. We demand health care, child care, housing, education and good jobs.
Protest! Rally! March! Stand Up! Speak Out! Organize! Unite!
__________________________________________________________________________
PEOPLE PROJECT

GROCERY NEEDS

–Beans (canned or dried)
pinto, garbanzo, adzuki, black, kidney, mung, etc.

–Olive Oil !! –Nuts

–Soy, Rice, Almond MILKS –Organic Sugar

–Produce: onions, squash, garlic, mushrooms, fruit, potatoes, yams, greens,
peas, etc.

–Organic Coffee

–Tortilla Chips

–Green Peas

–Tamari/Soy Sauce

–Brown Rice

–other Grains (quinoa, wild rice, steel cut oats, etc.)

–Flour Tortillas

–Bread

–Herbal Teas

–Juice

–Vegenaise (mayonnaise with no dairy or eggs)

–Organic Corn Meal or Polenta
To print the PEOPLE PROJECT grocery needs list (for good meals at the protests, Good Morning Neighbors! Breakfast, and meetings) click HERE

Please see our ‘Donation Requests’ page in this website.

Read Full Post »

Serving food, 6pm @ City hall tonight

We’re serving food at 6pm @ City hall tonight (Wednesday).
We’re setting up a temporary shelter tonight as well
Donations of sleeping bags, tarps, tents, blankets, warm clothes. etc still needed

It’s constitutionally protected to demonstrate on city hall against any law or city ordinance and the city has to provide accommodations for those activities to occur. Closing the parking lot without providing accommodations to exercise our first amendment rights violates these laws. The DA or California Attorney General is mandated to prosecute the city if they violate our rights.

If you have not been following the news here are some resources below.
Letter To The Mayor Of Eureka and the City Council
http://tomsebourn.blogspot.com/2009/12/my-letter-to-mayor-of-eureka-and-city.html

Channel 3 news peices
Last Wednesday
http://kiem-tv.com/node/211
Monday
http://kiem-tv.com/node/222

Read Full Post »