Friday, September 23, 2011

Chris Doyon faces Federal Charges for Cyber-attack in Santa Cruz County

At Peace Camp 201o on July 10th, exhausted houseless people arrive and bed down for a welcome night's sleep as part of the protest against laws which outlaw sleeping at night. Photo by Becky Johnson

NOTE TO READER: Neither the SENTINEL nor the FEDERAL INDICTMENT against Chris Doyon states our issue properly. Peace Camp 2010 was NOT calling for an end to the CAMPING BAN. In 20 some articles they've NEVER gotten it right. We assembled to protest the INJUSTICE of laws which ban SLEEPING AT NIGHT and the ban which forbids using a BLANKET AT NIGHT. We also called for amnesty for past citations. We understand that cities have the right to regulate camping. However, the City of Santa Cruz does not REGULATE camping. It forbids it completely. And this in a City with over 1,000 houseless people and shelter for less than 10% on our best days. Peace Camp 2010 had NOTHING to do with the cyber-attack. We did not plan it. We did not approve it. We had no knowlege of it until it happened. And ED FREY and I both condemned it at the time. We have always been out to win over the hearts and minds of the citizenry that it is WRONG to forbid houseless people the right to sleep at night in a situation in which inadequate shelter exists. Finally, the County camping ban does not apply to the grounds at the County Building, so we were violating no county code by sleeping there. ---- Becky Johnson , ed.

Homeless activist indicted for county cyber attack: Voice of 2010 protests swept up in nationwide crackdown

Posted: 09/23/2011 01:30:47 AM PDT


SANTA CRUZ -- A homeless activist who appears to have been instrumental in last year's Santa Cruz camping ban protests was arrested Thursday for allegedly hacking Santa Cruz County computers in December, federal authorities allege.
A federal grand jury's indictment of Mountain View resident Christopher Doyon, 47, appears to be part of a nationwide crackdown on the hacker community. A second man also has been charged in the attack, which authorities say was planned as retribution for the breakup of a lengthy protest over the city's controversial outdoor sleeping ban.
According to the indictment, Doyon and Joshua John Covelli, a 26-year-old Fairborn, Ohio, resident, hatched "Operation Peace Camp 2010" on behalf of the Massachusetts-based group Peoples Liberation Front, which claimed credit for the attack and has been linked to the hacker group Anonymous.

Anonymous has been linked to a number of online hacking attacks worldwide, and played an instrumental role in a recent series of BART protests. Their members often appear in public wearing masks, particularly of the British 17th century revolutionary Guy Fawkes.
The county government computer attacks resulted in users not being able to access the county's website. No information was compromised or disseminated, county officials said.
The two-month protest over the camping ban began on the steps of the county courthouse and ended in front of Santa Cruz City Hall. Ultimately, the sheriff's deputies moved in early in the morning to break up the protest.

In letters posted on Peace Camp's blog, Doyon also described himself as homeless and some news reports on Thursday also described him as such, though federal authorities could not confirm it. Authorities provided no details on his arrest.

"All I know is that it went without incident," FBI spokeswoman Julie Sohn said.

A Chris Doyon of the same age was quoted in a Sentinel article last year about the camping ban protest, saying he believed people had the right to sleep wherever they choose.
Doyon was also one of five people ultimately charged with illegal camping, though he never showed up for trial. Prosecutor Sara Dabkowski said in May that a bench warrant had been issued for his arrest, but no further information was available Thursday.
Doyon once described himself as a spokesman for the group. At the time, he said he grew up in Maine and moved west to follow the Grateful Dead. He also vowed not to give up protesting the camping ban.
"This is a fight about aesthetics," he was quoted as saying. "One man's garbage is another man's belongings. I think millionaires are unaesthetic; I think Hummers are disgusting. You see the ridiculousness. This is class warfare."
The FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office offered scant information, but the indictments appear to part of a broader net cast by federal authorities.

Also Thursday, the FBI's Los Angeles office announced it had arrested a Phoenix man on charges he hacked Sony Pictures Entertainment's website.
Cody Kretsinger, 23, was arrested without incident, based on a Sept. 2 federal grand jury indictment unsealed Thursday. The indictment alleges Kretsinger carried out the attack as part of the group LulzSec, which has also been linked to Anonymous.
An FBI official told that search warrants were being executed in Minnesota, New Jersey and Montana.

Covelli was previously indicted in July for allegedly hacking into PayPal. He was not arrested Thursday, and his next scheduled court appearance in the earlier case is set for November.
Both Doyon and Covelli were charged with conspiracy to cause intentional damage to a protected computer, which carries a maximum of five years in prison and a fine of $250,000, and aiding and abetting, which can carry a sentence of 10 years and a fine of $250,000.
Any sentence is subject to federal sentencing guidelines.

Doyon made a brief court appearance Thursday. His next scheduled appearance is Sept. 29.

Saturday, June 11, 2011

Six Months Jail for Sleeping -- $50,000 Bail Judge Jails Two Homeless Activists who refused 400 hours of Community "service"

NOTE TO READER: As always, a careful reading is required of any SENTINEL article about the Sleeping Ban. A good reading between the lines is in order, as always. Not that I fault writer, Cathy Kelly. She is more thorough than most, but conforms, as they all do to a certain...shall I say bias? At issue:

Missing from Kelly's article is that the DA asked for 400 hours of community service from Frey and Johnson, which is excessive. They were convicted of sleeping which is non-violent and has no victim. Also missing from Kelly's article was that Gallagher issued a $50,000 bail should Frey want to be at liberty to file his appeal. Also, the "registered sex offender" was originally luridly called a "child molester" in a previous SENTINEL headline. That charge was later retracted. The man arrested, ha, at age 14 impregnated his 12 year old girlfriend. He is now 27. He does not belong on any sex offender's registry and poses no threat to anyone. While Kelly accurately reported that Gallagher did deny the juror misconduct, he did so by labeling our recordings of jurors saying that one juror did commit misconduct in a recorded interview after the verdict with DA Dabkowski participating. Gallagher ruled the tape "hearsay" and quashed any further investigation involving the juror misconduct. Refused to allow Frey access to juror names or contact information so he could depose the jurors and bring back those charges in a "non-hearsay" form for the Judge. Gary Johnson said he'd be unable to comply with the probation restriction to "obey all laws" since he is homeless and has to sleep at night. "I can't go three years without sleeping."When pressed as to where Johnson could sleep, Gallagher said "You can sleep in jail" and ordered him immediately jailed. The law says nothing about "sleeping in public" and only prohibits "illegal lodging". Lodging is not defined by the law. So Kelly got most things right. Of course, she wasn't there. She must have interviewed Dabkowski later on because she didn't return my phone call. ---Becky Johnson

(my apologies for the formatting. For better reading quality, go to the SENTINEL website and read it there.)

FROM THE SANTA CRUZ SENTINEL --- JUNE 10 2011 "Two 'Peace Camp 2010' Protestors
(sic) Jailed for 6 Months"

SANTA CRUZ - Two men arrested during a lengthy homeless protest last year on the steps of Santa Cruz County Superior Court and City Hall were sentenced Friday to six months in County Jail.

Homeless activist and attorney Ed Frey, 69, and Gary Johnson, 47, were "remanded into custody" directly from the courtroom of Judge John Gallagher.

The case began July 4, 2010, in what activists called Peace Camp 2010. Initially, it comprised a group of more than 50 who began sleeping and holding signs and more on the courthouse steps. It lasted roughly three months, before sheriff's deputies began warning, ticketing and arresting protestors under a criminal misdemeanor law for unlawful lodging and the protest died.

Protestors included one elderly woman with serious health problems who seemed committed to a cause she ardently believed in, and others who included, one day, a registered sex offender arrested near City Hall.

Without doubt, it was political. Sheriff's deputies waded in cautiously after protestors and others realized that though they were protesting the city's so-called "camping ban," they were actually on county property.

Frey faced three misdemeanor counts and Johnson faced four, prosecutors said.

In April, Frey represented himself and others in a legal challenge and jurors upheld the charges against most of the five people Frey was then representing. Friday, he was representing three people, one who didn't come to court, prosecutors said.

And though Frey alleged juror misconduct, Gallagher denied his request for a new trial.

The judge offered the two men a sentence of community service and probation with minimal supervision plus an agreement they don't camp at the courthouse, prosecutor Sara Dabkowski said. But the men declined. Johnson said, given his life situation, he could not abide by the probation directive to "abide by all laws," she said.

So Gallagher ordered the men to jail on the maximum six-month sentence for a misdemeanor criminal violation, Dabkowski said. They will be released after serving two-thirds of the sentence, or 108 days.

Dabkowski said Frey can appeal and has at least 30 days to file a notice of intent to appeal.

She said the three others who Frey represented at trial either did not come to court or have not been sentenced and that warrants have been issued for at least two of them. One, Eliot "Bob" Anderson, was not convicted, as the jury "hung" on his one count of violating the anti-lodging law, she said. The other two are Arthur Bishoff and Collette Connolly. Bishoff was due in court Friday, and was still being represented by Frey, Dabkowski said.

Because the law targets sleeping in public for those who don't have a home, Frey had challenged its essence on constitutional, human rights and other grounds.

After the protest, the city said tickets for violating the city's law against sleeping outside at night can be invalidated if a person gets a statement from the Homeless Services Center stating there were no beds for them that night.

In a July 11, 2010 guest editorial published in the Sentinel about that change, Frey stated that still amounts to "pre-judgment punishing" on top of the punishment of being awakened by police in the middle of the night when one has nowhere to lawfully sleep. The new policy requires "the accused to run three separate errands" to obtain a dismissal, he stated.

"We set our protest at the courthouse for one simple reason," Frey wrote. "That is the only place left where freedom, justice and peace in the world can start."

Friday, asked to comment, Santa Cruz Vice Mayor Don Lane said, "The risk you take when you do civil disobedience is you are expecting some consequences for that. That is part of what he took on here. They were really trying to make a political statement in this action."

Lane, a longtime advocate for the homeless, looks to the day when there is enough shelter to serve that population. But Lane said, "There are other folks who are advocates for civil rights, and that's fine. But that is not my focus. Their goal is to change that law (the city law), and my goal is to get people into shelter."

Dabkowski simply said it's her job to enforce the law.

A public defender, after court, volunteered the information that jail time costs the county $77 per day per person.

Sunday, April 10, 2011

Free Food, Free Music, Free Homeless People

by Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- The Winter Shelter offered at the National Guard Armory has ended, but those once sheltered now face PC 647 (e) misdemeanor anti-lodging charges, and MC 6.36.010 section a infraction charges for sleeping or for sheltering themselves. Seven individuals face charges and trials in April and May from Peace Camp 2010 where they were charged with illegal "lodging" which is not defined in the law, but left up to the individual officer's interpretation of what "lodging" is. Between 1000 and 2000 individuals in the City of Santa Cruz alone now face criminalization in direct violation of the 8th amendment's prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment. We DEMAND that these prosecutions stop and that those homeless people who sign the waiting list be left unmolested by the SCPD.

SPEAKERS: Linda Lemaster, Steven Pleich, Diana Eagle, Ed Frey, Robert Norse
MUSIC: Butterfly Revolution, Tony Kuspa, TR and Blu ( tribute to Cosmic Chris), Richard Lopez and more!
FOOD: Coffee and coffee-cake for the masses at 10:00AM

Monday, March 14, 2011

Peace Camp Six Jan 21 2011 Hearing Transcript

Transcription by Becky Johnson


Jan 21, 2011

Santa Cruz County Superior Court
701 Ocean St.
Santa Cruz, Ca. 95060
Department 2

, defendant and attorney for the defense,
Assistant District Attorney, SARAH DABKOWSKI, for the prosecution
CHRIS DOYON, also a defendant was not present

misdemeanor 647 (e) California State anti-lodging law

PC 647 (e) Who lodges in any building,
structure, vehicle, or place, whether
public or private, without the permission
of the owner or person entitled to the
possession or in control of it.

ED FREY, and four of the Peace Camp Six defendants, including COLLETTE CONNOLLY, ARTHUR BISHOFF, ELIOT ANDERSON, and GARY JOHNSON appeared in court at 1:30 PM as required. However, Judge JOHN GALLAGHER was still going through his arraignment calendar and several people had been there all day and still were not done.

Included in this group was DAN COYRO, a photographer for the SENTINEL. He asked Judge Gallagher about his motion for permission to make recordings for broadcast. Judge Gallagher said that he "won't deal with that matter until about 4:30 or so. No. More like 4PM. " Coyro asked if he would be allowed to make a recording then. Judge Gallagher told him, "I'll deal with that matter when I call the case." Coyro left and never returned.

"Shall we return at 4PM then?" asked ED FREY.
"You're welcome to leave and come back," Gallagher stated, "but you have to be here when I call the case."


JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Mr. Frey. I believe you are representing everyone on the motion to dismiss. Is that true?
ED FREY: Yes it is.

JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Is there anyone else here in the courtroom waiting for a matter to appear other than people represented by Mr. Frey? (silence)
Okay. I think we can take your matters now. I'll call them for the record.
So the matters that are remaining are the People v Eliot Mathew Anderson et al. Is Eliot Mathew Anderson present?

Yes, sir.
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Perhaps all of Mr. Frey's clients could sit in the first row near the bailiff station. If others sitting there would kindly vacate that area. Gary Allen Johnson is present. Eliot Mathew Anderson is present. Mr. Frey is present. Christopher Mark Doyon?

Is not here, your Honor
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Collette Marie Connolly is present. Good afternoon. Arthur William Bishoff is present.

JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Mr. Frey, Can you tell me anything about Christopher Mark Doyon's status?

ED FREY: No. Mr. Doyon lives in a place that is very inaccessible, he lives about 20 miles out of town, and has no telephone. I don't know why my client is not in court.

JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: All right. Given that you are his counsel and you're here, I am going to excuse his absence for the purposes of this hearing. And who is handling this for the people?
DA SARA DABKOWSKI: Sara Dabkowski, representing the people

JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Good afternoon to all the people represented by Mr. Frey. I'm sorry you had to wait all day to have this happen. Or perhaps all afternoon. I have read the moving papers, the opposition, and the reply. And I will hear your arguments at this time. Mr. Frey it's your motion.

ED FREY: Thank-you, your Honor.
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER:How much time do you think you need?

ED FREY: I'd say 15 minutes.
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Excuse me . I need to deal with the media request. I have a media request to record, photograph for broadcast submitted by the Santa Cruz Sentinel, a Mr. Dan Coyro of the SENTINEL. Is Mr. Coyro present?

(voices: he's not present)
All right. Then if he's not present then I don't need to deal with that request. Mr. Frey, your other request?

ED FREY : That it be recorded aurally.
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER:: "It IS being recorded by the court's recording system. And that will be the only audio recording. If you want a copy that will be the official copy.
ED FREY: Very good.
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Ms. Dabkowski, how much time do you need?
DA SARA DABKOWSKI: I guess it will depend on if the court would like me to address the specific issues: I'd say 10 minutes.
JOHN GALLAGHER: Perhaps, since to some extent this is an evidentiary hearing because Mr. Frey has asked me to address a number of items for judicial notice. Why don't we first address the issues of judicial notice. Mr. Frey, why don't you go forward.
FREY: Okay. The first is request for judicial notice is that the fact that this courthouse is a place...that's traditionally been a location for public protest.

JOHN GALLAGHER: Do the people have a position on this?
DA SARA DABKOWSKI: Your Honor, I thought the type of fact... it's not the type of facts that would be taken under judicial notice in the evidence subsection 452, facts that one would take judicial notice of, items of common knowledge, like what kind of (unintelligible) there would be on a particular day. Such as what day of the week is Feb. 14th is on. I don't think it's the type of fact that the court can take judicial notice of.

ED FREY: Your Honor, I believe that we cited not section 452 for that, but we cited section 452 for that fact, but section 451 subdivision F

JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: "Facts and propositions of generalized knowledge that are so universally known that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute."


DA SARA DABKOWSKI: I'd have the same argument, that that is not something that is generally universally known. It is a proposition or opinion. It could be disputed.
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Mr. Frey, your response?

ED FREY: Yes. Actually 452 (g) is probably the most appropriate : "Facts and propositions that are such common knowledge within the territorial jurisdiction of the court they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute."
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: All right. Is your response any different to that sub- section Ms. DabKowski?
DA SARA DABKOWSKI: No, your Honor.
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: "Mr. Frey, I've lived in this community for roughly 31 years, and if I had been asked to say whether I think that is a fact, that that is undisputable under any of these sections, even though I've been coming to this courthouse for 32 years, my personal opinion is "no". I know it's not my personal view that supports whether or not judicial notice should be given. But I did want to tell you that even as from someone who's been coming to this building for nearly 32 years, I would not have found that that is true.
ED FREY : Can we think about all the times, for example, that the SEIU would hold demonstrations here? And in front of the stairway over in front of the high rise building. Then there's all the public groups that hold meetings and public demonstrations here. SAM FARR came here and spoke . It's a place where the public has gathered. I've been to about thirty or so myself at this location. "
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Your specific request is that the County courthouse and civic center of the City of Santa Cruz, City Hall.... you mean city hall, that complex?
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Have been used as sites for public gatherings, public demonstrations , for many decades and are still so used.
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: You're not asking me to say that this is a frequent occurrence, just that these occurrences have happened in these two locations for many decades continuing till today. Is that a fair statement?

Now Ms. Dabkowski, now that I'm focusing on that particular language, do you have anything to add?
DA SARA DABKOWSKI : I guess I would add that Judicial notices are irrelevant, since what we are arguing today is whether or not 647 (e) is valid or invalid on its face and this particular judicial notice does not go to the argument and is irrelevant.
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Mr. Frey, what is your response to that?

ED FREY: Well, as I understand the demurrer process, and that is essentially what this is as counsel has pointed out. Evidentiary facts...any facts are not permissible. However, the exception is if facts are taken by judicial notice.

JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: That is the rule of law and that I accept that it is accurate.
ED FREY: It's relevant especially to our first amendment argument of course.
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: I'm going to grant the request for judicial notice as stated on number one. I'm not ruling whether that evidence is admissible on the motion to dismiss.

ED FREY: "The second request for judicial notice is "the defendants purpose and what they did was, well one of their purposes was, to protest the Sleeping Ban. And that again was under section 452 (g).
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: "I'm denying that request for judicial notice. I'm guessing that Ms. Dabkowski, you won't want to talk me out of that decision?

DA SARA DABKOWSKI: No, thank you.

ED FREY: "The last request I have is one of those general propositions. That it is safer to sleep in group when you are sleeping outside than it is to sleep by yourself."
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: "I will deny that request for judicial notice. I assume the people have no objection. Are there any other evidentiary matters before we go to arguments?
DA SARA DABKOWSKI: Your Honor, I also would object to Mr. Frey's declaration.
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Is Mr. Frey's declaration attached to something?
DA SARA DABKOWSKI: I believe it was attached to the motion that he filed.
ED FREY: It is filed as separate document, I believe. It was filed contemporaneously with our opening brief.
(long silence)

JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: I'm looking over all the files and I can't find it.
ED FREY: It may be in Mr. ANDERSON's file as that is the case that it was filed under.
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: do you have a copy?

ED FREY: I do. (gives Judge his copy)

JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Let me refresh my recollection here. Mr. Frey, this would not be something I could take judicial notice of in the demurrer process. This kind of submittal is not acceptable, traditionally at least. So do you have any response to that?

ED FREY: No, I think in general counsel is right. We are challenging the statute on its face and therefore to bring in new facts would not be appropriate. We have to just take just the statute itself.
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: I will treat this as an evidentiary objection by Ms. Dabkowski. And I will sustain that objection and not consider the contents of the declaration or the attachment or any other references to the attachment. Any other evidentiary issues?

DA SARA DABKOWSKI: No, your honor.

JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Let's go for it.

ED FREY: May I request of the court whether you have a tentative decision? Or if the court wants to hear arguments on a particular issue vs a request for others?
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: I don't have an opinion and I don't have a request for issues.

ED FREY: The point I would make first, your Honor, is that even though The Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution has hardly ever been cited by the Supreme Court of the United States. The same can be said with regard to that portion of article 1 section 24 in the California State Constitution that says basically the same thing the 9th Amendment says, and that too has not been a subject of appellate review or application.

But we are faced with is applying the law set out in the Constitution directly in this case without having to examine how other appellate judges have treated it. Obviously, there is almost no history there. I don't know if the court had a chance to review the book I mentioned about the 9th amendment in my briefs?

JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: If you did not submit it for me to review, I did not review it.

ED FREY: But I do cite several points made in that book about the 9th amendment that the purpose of the 9th Amendment, was that the authors of the Bill of Rights were concerned that if we list certain rights then are judges going to assume that those are the ONLY rights available? And that was precisely what the drafters and the authors of the Bill of Rights did not want to happen. So that was the purpose of putting it in --the 9th amendment in. To say clearly to everyone, especially the judges, that the enumeration of these rights above --such as freedom of expression, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, etc.--- are not, that list was not meant to exclude other rights that are retained by the People. Rights which obviously are too numerous to mention, and too obvious to mention. As I said, the right to breathe was not put into the Constitution. Because it's pretty obvious to everyone, if you can't breathe, you can't live. I think the same thing can be said about the right to sleep. If one cannot sleep one will not live very long. One cannot survive without sleeping. And that the right to sleep has to be one of those unenumerated rights.

JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: "Did the founding fathers side to protect any rights associated with the physical process of living?

ED FREY: Not to my knowledge. I don't believe so. Of course the right to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, unreasonable search and seizure, the right to counsel, the right to jury trial. It seems that none of these have anything to do with bodily functions.

JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Does that tell us something?

ED FREY: Yes, it tells me that those bodily functions are so ingrained in human life, so necessary to human life that if one were to apply a modicum of common sense, one would say we need not list these things.
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Isn't it also a reasonable assumption that they were protecting political rights but not physical rights?"

ED FREY: Well I think they were reserving all sorts of rights that were not listed, not specifically listed. But I certainly couldn't give a catalog of what I would surmise to be what those rights might be. But the right to sleep, I certainly would say is included in there, because, as I said, if you can't sleep you can't live.
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Is the right to pursuit of happiness anywhere found expressly in the Constitution?

ED FREY: Not in the United States Constitution, but in the California Constitution, it's right there: the right to pursue and obtain happiness. That's another broad set of rights, article 1, section 1 of the California Constitution that is extremely broad, and yet it has to mean something. It means, really, that the people retain the right to do whatever they want to do so long as they don't interfere in someone else' rights.
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: the "Right to pursue happiness" was found in other documents around the Revolutionary period. Were they not?

ED FREY: In the Declaration of Independence but not in the United States Constitution. But in the California State Constitution.
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Don't you see the dichotomy there? By the time the Declaration of Independence they were expressing that right, but by the time they got around to writing the Constitution, they were focusing on political rights, and not more personal or physical rights.

ED FREY: Yes. I believe that's an accurate statement. The California Constitution, the drafters of that...actually it was adopted by the voters, I believe, in the State of California in 1874. They decided they wanted to put it in. So we have that right as Californians. We have much greater rights as Californians under the California Constitution than Americans generally do under the United States Constitution.
JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: But even in that much broader document, voters did not choose to enumerate the rights you're seeking here. Is that correct?

ED FREY: Yes, it's correct. But again, for the same common sense reason. They wouldn't put in "the right to breathe" because it would seem silly. Everyone has the right to breathe. It's kind of absurd to put that in a legal document.

JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: I didn't mean to steer you off course. I just had some questions. Please continue.

ED FREY: So I believe what we are talking about here is precisely what the drafters of the Bill of Rights had in mind. And that is the right to do something that they weren't prepared to list in their very basic list of political and civil rights listed in the Bill of Rights.

Then with regard to our second basic set of rights under due process of law. The 5th and 14th amendments to the United States Constitution, generally that the law that we're dealing which here which outlaws "lodging" whether it be on public or private property, at any time or at any place. There's no limitations on it, there's no definitions on it. A citizen reading that law would have no clear idea whatsoever what is permitted and what is prohibited. "Lodging" in general, means, as I have always understood the word, living in a particular place. You are lodged in a house, you're lodged in a trailer. You're lodged at a big... Yosemite Lodge. To me it's always implied a structure. Unless you're using it in the other term as when an object gets "lodged" between two rocks, but that's not the sense in which the statute speaks, I don't think. Unlawful lodging means a person is in a place where they are not supposed to be. How can a person know what they can or can't do just by reading it? Your Honor, as I pointed out in my opening brief, "lodge" has been used very specifically for various statutory purposes in California and it is always surrounded with the rights that go along with real property occupants; tenants rights; lodger's rights. That sort of thing. Even, as I point out, if you are considered a "lodger" because you rent one room in a home, in a single family residence that is occupied by the owner, you are then considered to be a "lodger." You can be ousted by the police from that, but you have to have 7 days written notice before that can happen. It's one of the only cases where under landlord/tenant law, an unlawful detainer is not necessary to dislodge someone from real property. You can just call the police and have them come. In fact, if the policemen come to oust you, one of the questions they will ask the owner is, "Have you given this person 7-days notice in writing?" If not, if the answer is "no," the policeman will go away. There is no right of the owner to dislodge the person without having first given that 7 days written notice.

So reading this entire body of California law, a citizen could say, if I'm just sleeping in front of the courthouse, I'm not lodging. Because "Lodging" has always implied that you had permission. That you have some sort of written contract with the owner or the person who is in control of the property. Here we had no contract. We just came and we slept. We didn't ask anybody first.

So we're not lodgers. Or we don't think we are lodgers and the statute doesn't make it clear. And because that's so, that's one reason the law should be held void. Another basic reason it should be held void for vagueness is, of course, that Sheriff's and the police have no guidelines for them to know what to do and what not to do, and who is breaking the law and who isn't breaking the law. It opens up the situation to the possibility of arbitrary and capricious enforcement and that is precisely the most important factor that the United States Supreme Court has held, when present, to find the statute void for vagueness.

JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: You don't think the statutes acknowledges the permission element in the standard for "lodging?"

ED FREY: It says "without permission" but what does "lodging" mean? Lodging implies a structure--it implys a lodge or it implies.... If you are walking down the sidewalk and you're really tired and want to sit down and rest, that doesn't require permission, generally.

JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: But doesn't the statute provide definition to that when it says "building, structure, vehicle, or place?"
ED FREY: No. That is so broad in includes every square inch in the State of California. "Every place" in California. Every place. It could be on a sidewalk. It could be in a park. It could be in front of the Courthouse.

JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Why should any place be unprotected?

ED FREY: It's not that any place should be unprotected. What we need here are reasonable guidelines. For example, if the County authorities felt it was not a good thing to have people sleeping here at night, they could write a regulation or an ordinance that says "not here" "not permitted here" but they can't prohibit it everywhere in the county. Because the people have a right to be here, and they have the right to remain here as I pointed out in the reply brief, there is a statute in California which tries to answer the dilemma that public welfare authorities would have, "If a person is homeless, how do we know where he resides?" Well, that statute says he resides where ever he remains unless he's called away. So anyone who remains in the County of Santa Cruz, has a right to remain here....but this statewide statute takes away his right to sleep while he remains here."

JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Your time has been exceeded. But please take a minute to wrap up if you like.

ED FREY: I know I'm asking the court to do something that is unprecedented. But that's just in the nature of things. We have these very broad Constitutional provisions. The fact that they've not been applied or referred to by other judges, especially other appellate judges doesn't mean we can ignore them. Those are the basic rules that the court goes by, as the court well knows. The Constitution must be applied. You can't just say those are just pretty sounding words. Those words mean something. The right to pursue safety. The right to pursue privacy. The right obtain privacy. The right to obtain safety. These words have to mean something and given meaning. And in this context, the right to pursue happiness, the right to pursue privacy has got to include the right to sleep. Because otherwise, your life is ruined if you can't sleep.


DA SARA DABKOWSKI: Your honor, Mr. Frey is correct that this is an unprecedented request he is making. And that there is no law which supports granting his untimely request. Let me point out that this is an untimely motion that is being treated like a demurrer. A demurrer is something that must be filed before a plea is entered. All defendants have entered pleas. And if a demurrer has not been filed prior to a plea, then all rights to a demurrer are waived. And that's something that's found in the penal code. And it is untimely to proceed as a demurrer. And that would be the proper motion or format to address these particular issues. Particularly the question of whether 647 (e) is void on its face. Because that is something that a demurrer definitely asks, whether the charge or code section is valid and addressing the code section on its merits and asking if 647 (e) is unconstitutionally vague.

Case law supports that it is not unconstitutionally vague. It does put people on notice. As case law says, it does have to "provide sufficient definite guidelines for a potential violator and to the public and sufficient definite guidelines to law enforcement" so there is not arbitrary enforcement of the particular section. In this case, there is sufficient information to give notice that it is illegal To 'lodge' somewhere you don't have permission. To "lodge" somewhere, it's a common word. It does put people on notice. It's a word that can mean that you are a lodger at a motel, spending the night, staying the night. Or as Mr. Frey pointed out, it can have a more permanent meaning. That you are a "lodger" in someone's home. But it is a common word that puts people on notice that they can't lodge, can't live, can't stay the night, can't sleep somewhere, can't set up roots somewhere if they don't have permission. So it's not unconstitutionally vague on its face as written. To lodge at a hotel, to live, stay the night, sleep somewhere, set up roots where they don't have permission.

So it is not unconstitutionally vague. Particularly because in this case a person can ask themselves, "What do I have permission to do here?" A person coming up the courthouse grounds at night should ask, what is it I can do here? I can't file a court case right now since the courthouse is closed. And I should know that no person gave me permission to sleep here.

And so there are guidelines to put the public on notice, to put law enforcement on notice, and put juries how have to decide on such things on notice. It's not unconstitutionally vague. It uses common words which have common meanings. No law is going to be absolutely perfect where every single time everyone has the exact same idea but the point it, it has to provide sufficient and definite guidelines, which this particular statute does.

Turning to the 9th amendment. There is no ninth amendment violation right here. There is no constitutionally protected "right to sleep." It's not a recognized right under the US Constitution nor under the California State Constitution. while sleep may be a need and a very important need, and in no way are we down-playing the importance of the need, and we're not unsympathetic to the plight of a lot of people, but here in Santa Cruz, homelessness is a pervasive and common issue here that we are all as a community dealing with. it's not a right at this time. It is not recognized as a right. There is no authority to support it. But there is no Ninth Amendment violation in this case. Nor is there any particular section of the California State Constitution either cited by counsel or otherwise that shows that there is any California violation in this case.

Finally, in Counsel's case, Counsel raised the issue that defendants' first amendment rights may have been violated. But the defendants were not cited for their speech. They were not being punished for any speech. They were cited for conduct after they were warned to leave. This is not a punishment on speech. 647 (e) on its face is content neutral. It doesn't in any way target particular types of speech or types of expressive conduct. It does have reasonable time, place, and manner regulations because 647 (e) just applies to areas where you don't have permission. As the cases we cited, it's reasonable for the government to maintain the safety, maintain the cleanliness of common places. That is a government interest that they can protect. The cleanliness of public spaces. They have a right to have reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions put on even expressive behavior and expressive speech. So I think it is reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions that you can't lodge in places where you don't have permission.

Is there anything else which the court specifically would like me to address?

JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: I don't think so. Mr. Frey, would you like to reply?


ED FREY: Just briefly, your Honor. When the People say there is no law that supports our motion, I'm sorry, but I have to basically disagree in a very arduous manner. The law that supports our motion is very strong. It's right, directly in the Constitution. It's not law that appellate judges have established, but it is law that is right in the Constitution. To say that "there is no law.." is simply inaccurate. With regard to providing guidelines, the only guideline is that counsel mentioned is the one that says you have to have permission. that means in effect that the requirement of getting consent from someone, then if you are so poor you can't afford a motel room, you have no where in the State of California where you can go and legally sleep. That is simply and morally unacceptable.

JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Thank-you Mr. Frey and Ms. Dabkowski. You both made well-prepared written and oral presentations.


JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER:"It's my intention to deny the motion to dismiss. I think the People make a good point when they say that "Sleeping is not a Constitutionally protected activity." And that this statute provides a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction. I am not unmindful of the difficult situations of people who don't have the assets or means to purchase lodging, don't have the means to purchase a campsite. And what it means to buy accommodations in a given area. But I don't think it was the intention of the people of California amending the Constitution to say that someone could sleep on any piece of public property or private property without permission as part of the pursuit of happiness under the State Constitution. I'm even more comfortable that the founders of the did not envision a "right to sleep" anywhere when they were drafting the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights and I think I followed that with my argument that that is a document that protects political rights and not physical rights and those who drafted the Bill of Rights did not envision to allow anyone to sleep on ANY public or private property without permission.

They did not envision an ingrained "right" to sleep anywhere when they were drafting the Constitution. As I suggested in my discussion that that is a document that highlights political rights and not physical rights.

I appreciate that as a society we have not found a good solution to the terrible economy we have in this State and we haven't for quite some time. But the People of the State of California did not

"The Constitution elucidates political rights, not activities meant to support human functions. The people who wrote the Constitution did not intend it to allow the right of the people to sleep anywhere they wanted without permission from the landowners. I have to deny this motion to dismiss. So I'd be happy to set consistent dates as counsel wishes. Do the people move to intend to join these cases?

DA SARA DABKOWSKI: I guess I'll file a motion to join these trials unless Mr. Frey objects.

ED FREY: No. We don't object. We don't want separate trials. That would be wasteful to everyone.

JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: So you'll stipulate to the rejoinder?

ED FREY: Yes your Honor.

JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER: Can you contact CHRIS DOYON and inform him his presence will be required at these trials?

ED FREY: Yes I will do that. Your Honor, may I make one additional one-sentence comment about your ruling?

JUDGE JOHN GALLAGHER:I request that you do not do that.

Saturday, February 12, 2011

Cops and Courts Jan 21 2011 -- SENTINEL

Found online here.


Homeless protest defendants in court

Several demonstrators arrested at the county courthouse this summer who were accused of violating California's unlawful lodging law are expected to challenge the charges today, citing a combination of state and federal protections.

Attorney Ed Frey, an advocate for the homeless who was among those arrested, will represent the defendants, who participated in a demonstration deemed Peace Camp 2010. The protest was designed to criticize the city of Santa Cruz's overnight camping ban, but got muddied when city police declined to cite or arrest the demonstrators because the courthouse is county property.

Sheriff's deputies eventually began making arrests and issuing citations before the demonstration moved to City Hall, where police also issued a number of tickets. Today's case relates to the sheriff's cases, which are based on the state's lodging law.

In a statement issued Thursday, Frey said he intends to argue the charges should be thrown out because they violate the First and Ninth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well as parts of the California Constitution and the principle of due process. The defendants are slated to appear at 1:30 p.m. before Judge John Gallagher in Department 2.

Saturday, January 22, 2011

Judge denies dismissal of camping tickets from Peace Camp 2010

Civil Rights worker, Collette Connally, trying to sleep in front of Santa Cruz City Hall to protest the Sleeping Ban, dons sunglasses in the face of bright Kleig lights brought in to harass protesters at an expense of $100 a day. Photo by Becky Johnson

Judge denies dismissal of camping tickets from Peace Camp 2010

SANTA CRUZ - A judge refused Friday to dismiss misdemeanor unlawful lodging charges against six people involved in the Peace Camp 2010 demonstration, despite their attorney's claim that the state law banning sleeping outdoors is unconstitutional.

Peace Camp 2010 began July Fourth as a protest against a Santa Cruz law, which makes it an infraction to sleep outside from 11 p.m. to 8:30 a.m. It began on the county courthouse steps, moved to Santa Cruz City Hall and fizzled out on Oct. 2. Participants wracked up several citations for sleeping outside.

At the courthouse, after issuing warnings, deputies cited sleeping people using a state law that makes lodging outside a misdemeanor offense.

Attorney Ed Frey was arrested during the protest and is representing himself and five others - Gary Allen Johnson, Colette Marie Connolly, Elliott Matthew Anderson, Christopher Doyon and Arthur William Bischoff. A jury trial is set for Jan. 31.

Frey vowed to fight on after Friday's setback, and to appeal if defeated at trial.

About 20 supporters came to the hearing.

Frey argued that the U.S. and California constitutions give people the right to the basics of life, including the right to sleep and the right to be left alone as long as no one else's rights are being infringed upon. He further argued the language in the statute is too vague and that the campers had the right to sleep as a form of protest and that it should be protected as freedom of expression.

"We are not claiming we can sleep anywhere we want; just that we can sleep somewhere," he said outside court.

But prosecutor Sara Dabkowski filed a document opposing the motion to dismiss, stating the right to sleep was not a Constitutional right. And she stated that simply because a person performs an act as an expression or for a symbolic purpose, that does not make that act constitutionally protected.

After court, she said she had no personal opinion about the argument that sleeping is a basic right, but looked forward to presenting evidence at trial.

She said several other anti-lodging cases are working their way through the system.

Homeless advocates say there are about 2,000 homeless in the county and about 200 shelter beds, and that of the 30 homeless people who died in the county last year, four died as a result of exposure coupled with acute substance abuse.

"That is part of why we're doing this. It's very real," advocate Becky Johnson said.

Gary Johnson, 46, said he wracked up 21 lodging violations. Each carries a possible six months in jail and $1,000 fine.

Johnson said he has been in Santa Cruz about 20 years and homeless for about a year. He said he has worked in the computer software field, but has not been able to find work recently.

"How are they going to reform me? Put me in jail and tell me to quit sleeping?" he said.

After Peace Camp 2010, the Santa Cruz City Council voted to dismiss citations for camping if a homeless person was on a shelter wait list when the ticket was issued.

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Peace Camp 2010 goes to court

by Becky Johnson
Jan 20 2011

Santa Cruz, Ca. --- While dozens of campers from Peace Camp 2010 still have not seen their charges see light of day on any court calendar, there have been a few exceptions. Peace Camp 2010 founder and lead counsel, Ed Frey, will be challenging the state anti-lodging charges used to arrest and harass protesters on the steps of the Santa Cruz County Courthouse and later, at Santa Cruz City Hall.

Protesters suffered arrests for illegal 'lodging', had Klieg lights shined on them all night long, were spied on by hired First Alarm security guards, locked off the property of the Public Library, and arrested for real and imagined 'crimes' such as using a blanket, smoking a cigarette, or for lying on a sidewalk. The HUFF table was seized by police along with signs and literature as 'unclaimed' property, even though protesters were right there, willing to take charge of the table and signs. When HUFF member, Robert Norse finally retrieved the HUFF table, he found that all property had been stored outside in the rain and weather, rather than locked safely in storage.

This Friday, following a flurry of briefs filed back and forth between the City and the District Attorney's office, the first major court hearing will be held this Friday, January 21st, 2011 at 1:30 PM in Department 2. The State anti-lodging law makes it illegal to "lodge" anywhere within the state boundaries absent a deed, a mortgage, a lease, a rental agreement, or a receipt for a local motel room. This is a misdemeanor which allows for immediate arrest and jailing.

Peace Camp 2o1o had been protesting the City of Santa Cruz' MC 6.36.010 section a also known as the Sleeping Ban, which is an infraction, when sheriff's surprised them by making arrests under the more serious, anti-lodging law.

Frey, representing himself, along with six other defendants including Gary Johnson and Collette Connally, two of Peace Camp 2010's most courageous protesters. Both are protesting the law which makes it a crime to sleep out of doors anywhere within the city limits outside of a home or motel room, outdoors or in a legally parked vehicle. A separate provision outlaws the use of a blanket at night even if the person remains wide awake.

Friday is also the day when PeaceCamp2010 goes to court with Ed Frey challenging they "lodging" charges with constitutional arguments. 1:30 PM in Dept. 2.