(Photo by Bradley Stuart Allen)

On November 30, during the height of the Occupy movement, more than 100 activists marched down the street in Santa Cruz, one of hundreds of demonstrations taking place throughout the country at the time.

At one point, the activists entered an abandoned Wells Fargo – directly across the street from an active Wells Fargo branch – and began a three-day occupation, hoping to turn it into a community center in this Northern California city.

Covering the demonstration were photojournalists Bradley Stuart Allen and Alex Darocy of the Indybay Collective, a coalition of independent journalists in the Bay Area.

Also covering the demonstration was Shmuel Thaler, a photojournalist from the Santa Cruz Sentinel, the city’s mainstream newspaper.

The three photojournalists entered the building with the activists, snapped their photos and videos and left by nightfall.

Meanwhile, Santa Cruz police attempted to disperse the activists from the abandoned building, but were outnumbered. After three days of negotiations with police, the activists left the building peacefully.

Naturally, police were not going to just leave it at that. They spent more than two months accumulating evidence — using the photos that were taken by the journalists and asking the public for help in identifying them – eventually naming 11 suspects.

Two of those suspects were Allen and Darocy, charged with two felonies and two misdemeanors. And it was obvious that the only reason they were named is because they published stories, photos and videos with their bylines.

Activists converging inside abandoned Wells Fargo bank (Photo by Bradley Stuart Allen)

But the Santa Cruz County District Attorney’s Office tried to paint them as activists while ensuring Thaler, the Santa Cruz Sentinel photographer, was there as a bona fide journalist.

Fortunately, Santa Cruz County Superior Court Judge Paul Burdick saw through that flimsy argument and dismissed all charges against Allen and Darocy on Monday, May 14th.

Burdick also dismissed charges against four activists who were charged, leaving five more people facing charges, including two who are regular contributors to Indymedia.

“It will be interesting to see how their cases are treated,” Allen said in a phone interview with Photography is Not a Crime Monday night.

“They are more described as activists and advocacy journalists. They write very supportive of the demonstration while Alex and I are both more objective.”

Santa Cruz cops video recording activists (Photo by Bradley Stuart Allen)

The decision to dismiss the charges against Allen and Darocy is not only a victory for Indymedia, but a victory for independent journalists throughout the country who have been struggling for recognition and respect for more than a decade.

In an age of corporate media downsizing with an upswing in independent websites, blogs and YouTube accounts, it’s clear that the definition of a journalist has forever been changed.

In my latest arrest, Miami-Dade Police Major Nancy Perez — who heads the department’s media relations bureau — told my attorney that she didn’t consider me to be a real journalist, which is why she singled me out from the rest of the corporate journalists covering the Occupy Miami eviction.

But I have a degree in journalism. I’ve spent years working for the mainstream media before becoming an independent journalist. And I covered the Occupy Miami movement for Miami Beach 411 better than most of the local corporate journalists.

Maybe she was upset that I didn’t call her for a quote in the article I wrote about how little static the activists had been receiving from police; an article that was followed by the Miami New Times three days later in which they did call her for a quote.

But I didn’t need to call her for a quote when I was witnessing for myself what was taking place, while she was holed up in her office across the county.

Regardless, the First Amendment makes no distinction about journalism degrees or mainstream media experience or even press credentials when it ensures citizens Freedom of the Press.

And while that may cause confusion for authorities when arresting activists, considering almost everybody is carrying a camera these days, it shouldn’t have been that murky in this case, considering Allen and Darocy had published photos and articles before the activists had even been dispersed from the former bank.

(Photo by Bradley Stuart Allen)

That is one reason why the National Press Photographers Association, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the Society of Professional Journalists and the ACLU all joined in their defense, writing letters and legal briefs to Judge Burdick in Allen’s defense.

But Santa Cruz police attempted to cast them as non-journalists from the very beginning on its own blog.

On December 6th, they posted Allen’s pictures in asking the public for help in identifying the activists, identifying him by name only, never declaring that he was a journalist.

That same day, they also posted photos taken by Thaler and a photojournalist from the Santa Cruz Patch, part of a community news organization owned by AOL, stating the following: “These photos were taken by local media outlets (Patch and Sentinel).”

At one point in the trial, according to Allen, Judge Burdick help up a photo that police took showing Allen on the roof of the building holding a camera, and told the prosecutor: “One can reasonably assume he was working as a photojournalist” as Thaler had been doing.

But assistant district attorney Rebekah Young responded by saying, “(Thaler) only took a single photograph. He was there only a short amount of time.”

So now the definition of a journalist is one who takes only one photo?

The corporate media cutbacks have been harsh, but not that harsh.

Perhaps the real issue is that in 2005 and 2006, Santa Cruz Indymedia exposed the Santa Cruz Police Department after it had sent undercover officers to infiltrate a community meeting about an upcoming New Year’s Eve parade in which they were trying to organize sans permit.

The outcry sparked an investigation in which police eventually cleared themselves of any wrongdoing.

But a month later, an independent auditor hired by the city determined police had violated the rights of citizens by infiltrating the meeting.

“In my opinion, the Santa Cruz Police Department violated the Last Night DIY Parade organizers’ rights to privacy, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly in the manner in which they went about obtaining information about the organizers’ activities.” Bob Aaronson, Police Department Auditor.

The issue pretty much died there, but a public records requests revealed that police had built up an extensive file on the citizens, including using a photo that Allen had taken during the parade, identifying that it came from “Indymedia“.

So why didn’t they identify his photos as coming from Indymedia, while using them in trying to get the public to identify activists last December?

Please send stories, tips and videos to: carlosmiller@magiccitymedia.com.

CARLOS MILLER’S LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

I am immersed in a legal case where I not only want to clear my criminal charges stemming from my arrest in January, but I want to sue the Miami-Dade Police Department for deleting my footage, which I was able to recover.

My goal is to set some type of precedent to ensure this does not happen as often as it does today where cops simply get away with it.

So if you would like to contribute, please click on the “donate” button and contribute whatever you can afford.

You can also contribute to my [Carlos Miller] Legal Defense Fund by purchasing a photographer rights lens cloth and/or laminated card to wear around your neck like a press badge through Zap Rag. Please write “carlos3″ in the comments section of the Paypal transaction to ensure I receive a portion of the sale.

The 995 motion to dismiss, and a motion to dismiss for selective prosecution, were filed by Allen’s attorney, Benjamin Rice, and Darocy’s attorney, George Gigarjian.

The ACLU of Northern California writes, “Even if they are never convicted, forcing reporters to defend themselves at trial against unjustified felony charges can have a serious chilling effect on their willingness to cover controversial events and to express opinions about those events that the government may disagree with.”

The ACLU of Northern California concludes, “The prosecution’s theories of liability for conspiracy to trespass and aiding and abetting trespass seek to punish Allen and Darocy for activity they engaged in that is protected by the First Amendment and the liberty of speech clause of the California Constitution. This type of prosecution endangers the freedom of the press by punishing journalists based on the content and viewpoint of the material they publish, by impermissibly burdening newsgathering, and by ultimately restricting the public’s access to newsworthy events. The Court should dismiss the conspiracy charges, as well as any other charges that rest upon an aiding-and-abetting theory of liability.”

The following documents are available for download (PDF):

1) Motion for Leave for Amicus Brief
2) ACLU Amicus Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss
3) Proposed Order re ACLU application to file amicus brief
4) Proof of Service – Signed

5) Allen and Darocy’s 995 Motion to Dismiss
6) Allen and Darocy’s Motion to Dismiss for Selective Prosecution

Allen and Darocy were engaged in conduct that is protected under the First Amendment and article I, § 2 of the California Constitution.

The prosecution’s theory that these reporters are vicariously guilty of the crimes that they photographed endangers the First Amendment.

— American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

The liberty of speech clause of the California Constitution is broader and more protective than the free speech clause of the First Amendment.

Four of the defendants are journalists, who were present to report to the community on the protests. The First Amendment is clear on the rights of journalists to observe and print their findings; the charges against them should be dropped immediately.

It is also apparent that some of the defendants have been targeted for arrest (out of the hundreds who went in and out of the building over the several days of the occupation) because of previous brushes with law enforcement officials. The Constitution forbids charging people with crimes on the basis of their identity or past actions.

Santa Cruz Occupy, a grass-roots movement to attempt to change our extremely unfair economy and end the corporatocracy that now has de facto control of our country, has injured no one, and like all citizens, has a right to be treated with fairness and respect.

Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom

P.O. Box 61 Santa Cruz, CA 95063
E-mail: wilpf@wilpf.got.net
Website: http://wilpf.got.net

One-page PDF

Cannabis is recognized as medicine by the state of California, 17 other states in the USA, Washington DC, and a growing number of people and governments all over the world. Cannabis is typically ingested through smoke or foods made with cannabis-infused cooking oil or butter.

Four Twenty in Porter Meadow at UCSC is an unorganized annual tradition. Last year, rain caused people to seek shelter under the forest canopy. This year, it was the hot sun which drove people to the shade provided by the trees.

Slacklining, a practice in balance where people walk along a thin flat cord tensioned between two trees, was a popular activity.

Petitioners were out collecting signatures for various ballot initiatives, including the California Cannabis Hemp & Health Initiative, which would legalize “cannabis hemp” for industrial, medicinal, nutritional and “euphoric” use.

At about 5:00pm, approximately 10 University of California police officers walked into the meadow to surveil the celebration. The officers spoke briefly with some people, and left 15 minutes later, without incident.

Although it is illegal under U.S. federal law, cannabis is legal, and recommended by doctors, in California.

Health educator Ron Marczyk explains, “The government’s public mantra has always been that marijuana is not a medicine in any form, as in Schedule I, which means (a) the drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse; (b) it has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States (Remember U.S. Patent 6,630,507 B1?); and (c) there is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.”

In the 1990s, activists and doctors were energized by seeing marijuana help dying AIDS patients. A study of smoked marijuana at the University of California, San Francisco, under Dr. Donald Abrams was eventually approved by the federal government after five years. Dr. Abrams is excited about cannabis medicines and the potential effect that components of the marijuana plant may have against cancer cells.

Ron Marczyk points out contradictions in the U.S. government’s classification of cannabis. “While spending billions of dollars to promote its anti-drug meme, behind the scenes it was simultaneously trying to prove to the Patent Office that cannabinoids are powerful anti-oxidative medicines that fight oxidative stress diseases in everyone. One of the main causes of cancer is oxidative stress disease.

“So the crazy Catch 22 is that the U.S. government is now claiming cannabis is medicine, but is also saying it isn’t medicine and that it needs to be against the law.”

Photos from 420 in Previous Years at UC Santa Cruz

2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, & 2011

Since 2004, Project Homeless Connect “has spread to more than 220 cities in 3 different countries to become a national best practice model with great success in getting homeless families off the streets and breaking the cycle of poverty. Rather than being a band-aid event, it is a transformational experience not only for the guests, but also for the volunteers, agencies, and businesses that participate.”

On April 17th, the third annual Project Homeless Connect Santa Cruz was held inside and outside the Civic Auditorium on Church Street in Santa Cruz. Hundreds of people, most of whom are experiencing homelessness, and therefore typically marginalized and criminalized in our community, were provided with a wide range of services and some goods.

Many people were greatly appreciative of the efforts that went into the event, and thankful for all the charity they received. Other people were skeptical about the nature of the event, though they too appreciated what they received, even if they saw the charity as more of a token gesture.

Project Homeless Connect Santa Cruz aims to provide “an integrated system of care” which “focuses on each aspect of homelessness, providing everything from California identification cards and disability benefits to clean socks and a warm meal.” Other services provided for the day include “dental care, eyeglasses, family support, food, HIV testing, housing, hygiene products, medical care, mental health services, substance abuse treatment, SSI benefits, legal advice, voice mail, employment counseling, job placement, wheelchair repair, veterinary services, and more.”

Reflecting on the event, Project Homeless Connect Santa Cruz wrote on their Facebook page, “24 hours later and we are still in AWE. What an incredible and successful day yesterday. We are so grateful for all of the support from agencies, groups, individuals -too numerous and overwhelming to name. There were so many beautiful moments throughout the day…”

The following information about Project Homeless Connect Santa Cruz was published on their Facebook page:

“It is estimated that Santa Cruz County is home to at least 9,041 homeless individuals. Many of these individuals are homeless for the first time in their life. They are unfamiliar with the services this community has to offer and they are ashamed of their need. We hope to provide a comforting environment at least for one day to ensure that the basic needs of these citizens are still met.

“Project Homeless Connect was held in Santa Cruz County for the first time on March 30th, 2010. More than 300 volunteers and 80 service providers connected with more than 1,000 clients, providing everything from medical screenings and dental care to clothing vouchers and a warm meal.

“In less than eight hours, 105 individuals received California Identification that will allow them to access services and employment. Two hundred and fifty-one individuals connected with benefits agencies, filing applications for SNAP, TANF and SSI. Seventy-eight individuals received medical screenings, 35 received dental screenings and every single person received a warm meal.

“Project Homeless Connect is a one-day community wide event, our second annual event was held on Tuesday, March 22nd, 2011 at the Santa Cruz Civic Auditorium, providing housing support and quality of life services to our homeless community.”

Second, it appears that some of the defendants may have been charged due to their past adversarial relationship with law enforcement officials. The Constitution requires that the enormous power of government be exercised fairly and even handedly, and not be based on the identity or past actions of the defendants. The District Attorney should re-examine the basis for the charges, and the Court must ensure that these activists are not being selectively prosecuted.

Very truly yours,

Peter Gelblum
Chair, Board of Directors
ACLU–Santa Cruz Chapter

Sign the ACLU’s Statement of Support

Petition: 11 people are facing 2 felonies each.

Sign the ACLU’s Statement of Support!

Target: Santa Cruz District Attorney Bob Lee and Honorable Paul P. Burdick, Judge of the Superior Court, County of Santa Cruz
Sponsored by: Brent Adams

Eleven people are being charged with a total of 23 felonies for the take-over of a long vacant bank building in early December. It is known that 200 – 300 people entered the building over the 3 days of the occupation, but the District Attorney has singled out journalists and well known outspoken critics of the police department.

The ACLU has drafted a STATEMENT OF SUPPORT of these defendants and I (Brent Adams) ask you to sign on and endorse this letter. The more community support we get in this manner, the more likely it is that the DA will drop these extreme charges.
PLEASE INCLUDE YOUR NAME.

Statement of Support

Eleven local activists have been charged with a variety of offenses arising from the occupation of a vacant bank building last fall. We have two primary concerns regarding this prosecution. First, at least some of the defendants are journalists who were present to report on the protest. We condemn any attempt to criminalize their exercise of the crucial First Amendment right to gather and disseminate information about this newsworthy event. All charges based on this constitutionally protected activity should be dropped immediately.

Second, it appears that some of the defendants may have been charged due to their past adversarial relationship with law enforcement officials. The Constitution requires that the enormous power of government be exercised fairly and even handedly, and not be based on the identity or past actions of the defendants. The District Attorney should re-examine the basis for the charges, and the Court must ensure that these activists are not being selectively prosecuted.

Very truly yours,

Peter Gelblum
Chair, Board of Directors
ACLU–Santa Cruz Chapter

Letter from ACLU of Santa Cruz County
to ACLU of Northern California

Ashley Morris
ACLU of Northern California
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, California 94111

Dear Ashley:

The following case summary and request for support is being submitted on behalf of the entire Board of Directors of the Santa Cruz County Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and its more than 2,000 members:

As you may know, several of our local activists have been charged with a variety of offenses arising from their alleged involvement with the occupation of a vacant bank building late last fall. That matter is referenced as Santa Cruz County Superior Court Case Number F22196. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press submitted an amicus Letter Brief on behalf of one of the defendants in early March. I have attached a copy of that brief for your review, and the pdf may also be found online at Santa Cruz Indymedia on the Indybay.org website.

There are several reasons why we believe that Northern California should rise to the defense of these members of our community individually and as a group:

First, all of these defendants are either journalists, members of our local press, and/or activists committed to the Occupy Movement––and particularly Occupy Santa Cruz. Therefore, we believe that civil liberties are being broadly threatened by the continuing prosecution of these cases.

Secondly, none of these defendants “occupied” the premises in the same sense that those who remained on the property for several days did. (See Reporters Committee Letter Brief, page three, paragraph 4.) Indeed, these defendants were participating in constitutionally protected activities either as news gatherers or as supporters of the activists inside the occupied building.

Thirdly, in our opinion, the charges being pursued by our local District Attorney are over broad and overreaching in consideration of the facts. Each of these defendants has been charged with (1) felony conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor (Penal Code Section 182(a)(1); felony vandalism (PC Section 594(b)(1); misdemeanor trespass by entering and occupying (PC Section 602(M); and misdemeanor trespass and refusing to leave private property (PC Section 602(O). The facts in support of these charges as adduced through discovery provided by the District Attorney are both scant and unpersuasive even in the absence of any civil liberty considerations.

Fourthly, it is also our opinion that these defendants are being selectively prosecuted in a manner directly related to the existing adversarial relationship several of these defendants have with both our local police department and the District Attorney’s office. According to reports published and/or broadcast by local news media, anywhere from 150 to 300 individuals entered and exited the bank building during the 75-hour occupation, including local elected officials. And, yet, only these eleven defendants have been charged.

Fifthly, we believe that significant civil liberty issues arise on the facts of this case. Although we are mindful that the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and free assembly do not confer immunity from prosecution on those who choose to participate in arguably unlawful activities, it is of critical importance that clear distinctions be made between the exercise of the aforementioned rights in the context of direct political action. In our view, these defendants posed no threat to public order or private property by their actions either as chroniclers of the events or as ardent supporters of the occupiers and the occupation.

It is therefore our considered opinion, duly ratified by a unanimous vote of our Board, that an amicus Letter Brief appropriate to these facts and circumstances be submitted to our Superior Court on behalf and in support of the named defendants. Although the submission of an amici curiae brief is procedurally unusual at the non-appellate level, it is not barred by existing case law and may serve to provide the presiding Court with relevant information.

Should Northern California agree to draft and submit such a brief, it may be addressed to:

Honorable Paul P. Burdick
Judge of the Superior Court
County of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz Courthouse
701 Ocean Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

Of course, you and your staff will need to independently review and assess the merits of this case in light of our shared mission to defend civil liberties. Please feel free contact to me directly via e-mail or by phone should you have any additional questions.

On behalf of the Board of Directors, Santa Cruz Chapter ACLU, I thank you for your consideration of this matter of local importance and concern.

Very truly yours,

Peter Gelblum
Chair, Board of Directors
ACLU–Santa Cruz Chapter

Two-page PDF

Sign the ACLU’s Statement of Support

we signed “11 people are facing 2 felonies each. Sign the ACLU’s Statement of Support!”

Sign the ACLU’s Statement of Support

By John Malkin, Santa Cruz Good Times

Seventy-four days after the birth of the Occupy Movement in September 2011, a self-described “anonymous, autonomous group standing in solidarity with Occupy Santa Cruz,” entered a building in Downtown Santa Cruz that had been vacant for three years. A press release from occupiers explained that the building, formerly owned by Wells Fargo and now leased to the bank, would be “transformed into a community center.”

With a blend of political idealism and practical naiveté, the occupation of a 13,447- square-foot vacant building, located at 75 River St., became a complicated and illegal experiment in social change. Of the reported 200-300 people to venture inside the building between Wednesday, Nov. 30 and Saturday, Dec. 3, 11 have been singled out by the Santa Cruz Police Department and charged with misdemeanor trespassing, vandalism and felony conspiracy to commit trespass. The group of 11 suspects includes two Indymedia journalists, three alternative media journalists and some of Santa Cruz’s most visible activists, one of whom says she never went inside the building. Charges were filed by the district attorney on Feb. 8, more than two months after the takeover.

The 11 are: Brent Adams, Franklin Alacantara, Bradley Stuart Allen, Alex Darocy, Desiree Foster, Becky Johnson, Cameron Laurendau, Robert Norse, Edward Rector, Gabriella Ripleyphipps, and Grant Wilson.

“It’s a curious list,” comments Mike Rotkin, five-time mayor of Santa Cruz. “They were obviously trespassing,” he acknowledges, “but charging them with felony conspiracy to do misdemeanor things? It seems overblown.”

Current Mayor Don Lane agrees. “I was surprised by the conspiracy charges,” he says.

Felony conspiracy has a maximum three-year prison sentence and is perhaps one of the most severe charges against national Occupy-related events since the movement began six months ago. Rebekah Young, assistant district attorney prosecuting the 11, advises, “I don’t think anyone from the prosecution or defense expects that [three years] to be imposed. It’s up to the judge.”

On Nov. 30, 2011, Occupiers inside an empty former bank prevent Santa Cruz Police from entering the building.

The “re-purposing” of the vacant building came at a time when Occupy encampments were established in dozens of U.S. cities and just two days after activists had occupied a building at UC Santa Cruz on Nov. 28. Also fresh in many minds were images of activists being shot at with rubber bullets in Oakland and pepper-sprayed at the University of California at Davis.

A varied mix of people with a diversity of intentions visited the River Street occupation. Many didn’t know each other. Dozens attended meetings, attempting to create a community center. Others appreciated a warm place to sleep. Some came to party or just check out perhaps the strangest episode in recent local history. What follows is a view of the occupation from first-hand accounts of some people who ventured inside, including city officials, activists, journalists, concerned community members and passersby, as well as insight into the arrests and current trials of 11 people.

You’re looking at a barricade right now!’

On Nov. 30, 2011, about 75 people walked across the Water Street bridge in Santa Cruz in a march that was publicized to “picket corporate banks … and march to a foreclosed property.” After protesting at Chase Bank on Ocean Street, the group went to 75 River St., located directly across the San Lorenzo River from the local Occupy Santa Cruz tent village.

What happened next took many by surprise. According to those interviewed for this story, someone approached the front doors of the vacant building and walked in, without permission or payment (monthly rent is about $28,000, according to a representative from Barry Swenson Builder, co-owner of the building). Police speculate that a key had been taken earlier from a lock box.

At 6 p.m., 24 Santa Cruz policemen in riot gear confronted about 30 occupiers barricading themselves inside the building, where they were busy crafting banners and re-arranging furniture. About 100 protestors rallied outside the building, interlocking arms and blocking police access at times. Police struggled to enter the building and during scuffles police hit at least two people with batons, according to police reports obtained and eyewitnesses. One policeman wrote in his report of the incident that coffee was thrown onto him. “I could not see out of the left side of my face shield,” he wrote. “I suspected it was coffee with a lot of cream or more likely a latte.”

Though police were absent during most of the three-day occupation, the first hours were tense. “They [SCPD] tried for 30 minutes to get into the building,” explains Simon, one of the occupiers and a self-described pacifist. “We held large pieces of furniture. They couldn’t get enough manpower on the outside because we were able to double that many on the inside. We had the advantage because we didn’t have shields and batons to hold.”

In a video posted to YouTube SCPD officers with helmets, shields and batons are seen backing away from protestors. One officer is heard saying, “We’ll leave if you don’t follow us,” which is what happened. Police did not return for three days, according to to several people interviewed who were coming and going from the building. Police reports obtained for this article reveal that police surveilled the occupation from an undisclosed vantage point.

Tent in a Vault

Back at the barricade the scene continued to unfold. As the day went on, several people at the former bank were interviewed for this article, including a concerned woman who spoke in urgent tones to a teenager inside the occupied bank, saying, “Please be careful!”

The teenager responded: “That’s my mom. We’re holding the building and not planning on going anywhere.”

On top of the barricade there was a man wearing a black mask and cap. He pointed to the pile of furniture and said: “You’re looking at a barricade right now.” From inside of the bank, he asked if I’d like to come in. I declined. A man sporting a backpack climbed over the couches and metal desks, followed by another man holding a gas mask.

Some occupiers set up camp, erecting a “tent in a vault” within the empty bank.

“When are the cops coming back?” asked the gas-mask guy.

“We’ve already faced them off once tonight,” he said. “We’ll be locking down and we’re asking people to make the decision to stay either in or out. There’s running water, electricity, bathrooms, food and a smoking area. We also have roof access. Are you coming in?”

Observers would view the barricade as a symbol of the failure of some occupiers to meet their goal of creating a community center.

“People don’t want to come in if it’s barricaded!” reflected one of the occupiers who goes by the name of Jean. “If I was some lay person I’d be afraid to come in.”

The longevity of the “bank action” was perhaps stunted because occupiers hadn’t decided if it was more a statement against capitalism or an effort to create a community center. Additionally, anticipated support for the occupation was apparently overestimated.

“It’s a terrible dichotomy where you have some intention of working on this community center or a place where homeless can get out of the weather … and during the same discussion we’d have proposals about how to defend ourselves from a SWAT team,” Simon* explains. “Those two activities counteract each other.”

On the second day of the occupation, many came and went through a side door, though mainstream journalists were not greeted warmly.

One reporter was given a short tour with her camera and Occupiers described a variety of things taking place inside of the building: down one hallway, an office door was opened and a couple was making love on a sleeping bag on the floor; in the next room a young woman was curled up sleeping; the thick bank vault door lay wide open, revealing a camping tent where piles of cash were once stashed.

Meanwhile an “empathy cafe” was under way upstairs.

“There were people walking in and out of the bank. It was a very casual atmosphere,” Jane* adds. “I was invited to facilitate a compassion circle there. Maybe I’m naive, but it [the occupation] didn’t have an air of unlawfulness about it.”

Several people commented on how it had seemed legal to enter the building after seeing city officials and others go inside without any police action. In an interview for this article, one person, who requested to remain anonymous, said, “There was no ‘no trespassing’ signage and no police saying, ‘It’s against the law to enter this space.’”

Another noted: “I understand the police put up no trespassing signs. The signs got torn down pretty fast. I never saw those signs.”

The occupied building was visited by city council- member Katherine Beiers, the city manager Martin Bernal and half a dozen mainstream and independent journalists, according to witnesses. SCPD reports reveal that councilmember Beiers was recommended for prosecution, though the DA has so far declined. City Manager Martin Bernal adds, “The mayor (Don Lane) asked me go inside … I spoke with police first.”

The following are descriptions from two people who entered the occupied building; one is facing trespassing, vandalism and conspiracy charges and the other is not. (Can you tell which one goes before a judge this month? Note the answer at the end of this article.)

X: “I stepped in as a concerned community member … In the evening they were in a circle talking about respecting the property, the space, and strategies. After about an hour I left the meeting. I was still not clear as to what their long-term vision was.”

Z: “I arrived at the bank less than an hour after it was occupied. I saw people on the roof. I was there shortly after the first people went in. I went in and sat down … They were having a meeting.”

On Saturday, Dec. 3, police arrived at around midnight to discover that the bank was once again empty. According to those interviewed, police had made it clear that they were preparing to return and arrest anyone inside. They secured the building and it was soon boarded up and fenced. A sign in front with “occupied” painted over the word “available” had been removed.

“We’re thankful authorities secured the building and there was a peaceful resolution,” says Ruben Pulido, a spokesperson for Wells Fargo.

Pulido declined to comment on the charges against the 11 people.

Forgive Us Our Trespasses’—Occupy’s Phase Two

On the first night of the occupation (Nov. 30), a lively general assembly unfolded in front of the building, according to those interviewed. A young woman summed up one vision through a crackling bullhorn: “We’re challenging capitalism, accumulation of property and the expropriation of our wealth through our labor.”

The March on Water Street moved beyond the Occupy camp.

“Wells Fargo is a fit target,” one occupier said. “They’re responsible for predatory lending, foreclosing on taxpayers’ homes and then getting billions in bailout money.”

Another solemnly added, “This is part of an ongoing resistance that started more than 500 years ago. This is phase two of Occupy.”

The Occupy Movement was greatly inspired by the Arab Spring and actions in Spain and Greece where public and private property were occupied in 2011. This strategy connects to myriad political occupations of land and buildings by Native Americans (Wounded Knee: 1973), Zapatistas (Mexico: 1983 to present), Landless Workers Movement (Brazil: 1984 to present), and Homes Not Jails (San Francisco: 1992 to present), to cite a few examples.

“This next phase of the movement will be made of surprise, short, sometimes one-day occupations,” says Kalle Lasn, editor of adbusters magazine, and one of the people responsible for sparking the Occupy Movement. “We can occupy banks for a few hours. We can occupy buildings … for four days or maybe four weeks.”

Provocative “phase two” occupations have continued; In January, Occupy London activists occupied a vacant bank. On April 1, a vacant building in San Francisco was taken over for 24 hours by Occupy activists who established a “community center, shelter and food bank.” Seventy-five people were arrested for trespassing—none for conspiracy— according to news reports. One unfurled banner read: “Give us this day our daily bread, Forgive us our Trespasses.”

Was the occupation of a vacant bank off-track from goals of freedom and justice? Or will history include it as a direct action that contributed to positive social transformation? Either way, the necessary conditions for long-term support for the action—community support and a breakdown of authority—were simply not present.

Not Enough Indians’— Private Property

During the Santa Cruz occupation, not far from the tent in the vault, three words in purple paint graffiti read: “Not Enough Indians.”

While the Occupy Movement gained momentum by identifying with the “99 percent”— a growing majority of Americans who feel they’re being adversely affected by political and economic systems—this local building occupation revealed an underlying concept to contend with: private property.

If the message of Occupy were synthesized into one question it might be this: “Where can we go without permission or payment?” Local occupiers perhaps tried one answer to this question by taking over a vacant bank (one of at least three downtown) and discovered that the broader community was not on the same page because, as one of the 11 now charged explained, “Private property is thought of as this holy thing.”

Occupiers resorted to barricading the entrance of the empty bank.

In fact, this attitude is fairly young. Local historian Sandy Lydon offers, “The concept of individual private property was not a well-developed one with the local and regional Indian groups. Each group had a particular territory which they would defend against encroachment by neighboring groups, but it was generally understood to be an “us” and “them” defense, not a “me” and “mine.”

Private property is now a firmly embedded concept in our culture. Some local observers of the River Street occupation commented: “What if occupiers came into my house?”

They are, perhaps, pointing to a human need for safety. And to a fear that private homes and vacant buildings may be equal targets for the Occupy Movement. Local occupy activists addressed the issue, saying that the takeover of vacant buildings is rooted in unjust economics; as wealthy corporate banks lie empty and receive government assistance, they’re foreclosing many into homelessness.

Simultaneously, public space has dwindled as city government has decreased common areas by posting closing hours at places like the river levee and town clock. City Councilmember Katherine Beiers explains, “It’s a way to give power to police to move people. City hall is now posted, and the side of the public library. There is a kind of closing in.”

One occupier interviewed said: “That building was chosen because it had ties to Wells Fargo … There’s so many empty private spaces and so few public spaces.”

“Ultimately, bank property that’s not being used should belong to the people,” says Mike Rotkin, a self-described socialist. “It should be re-purposed in a public way. But I don’t think you can do that by physical force.”

Party All The Time

On Friday night, Dec. 2, the community was invited to the occupation for a pot luck meeting to discuss next steps. Things didn’t go as planned, according to those interviewed. Though ground rules were posted (including no alcohol or drugs) dozens of people came to party in the vacant bank.

“I was surprised when I went in on the second night and saw how different it was,” one occupier, who was inside multiple times, reveals. “People were on their phones. They’d say, ‘I texted [UCSC’s] College Nine and told them to come down.’”

Multiple occupiers interviewed said that they attempted to stop graffiti and vandalism, but the size of the building and number of visitors made it difficult.

“I was in and out of the bank on a fairly regular basis,” Simon* notes. “The last two nights I had a departure with some of the characters in there. Some activists were replaced by people who didn’t have an activist grounding and had a confrontational mode. It was time to leave. I wasn’t willing to get arrested for somebody else’s vandalism.”

Though occupiers experimented with bag-checks at the door, damage was done. “Some people wanted to come in and vandalize things,” says Jean*. “A lot of people didn’t understand the community center idea.”

At least two occupiers phoned and met with police in an attempt to negotiate for time to clean up. “We wanted the power back on so we could vacuum,” Jean explains. “We wanted to mop and get the graffiti off the walls.”

Guilty Until Proven Innocent?

In addition to the 11 already charged, DA Bob Lee told media in a February press release that, “More people may be charged and more charges may be filed.” Though common as investigations unfold, the statement has had an early effect.

“It creates a chilling effect in the community for people to lend support,” says Morgan*, one of the 11 being charged with trespassing, vandalism and conspiracy. “They don’t know if they might be drawn into this situation somehow.”

“That idea of ‘innocent until proven guilty,’ it doesn’t feel that way,” Morgan adds. “People had officers come to their homes and arrest them. That seems unnecessary in this situation.”

Chris*, another of the 11 charged, says he was shocked to learn he was on the wanted list. “I was told how not to get arrested by ‘running the gauntlet,’” he says. “I would have to get into the courthouse without getting arrested. I was very nervous because there’s police all over. It feels like we’ve been punished already.”

For some, the prosecutions are having a counter-effect. “The way the police and DA have treated me and other activists is radicalizing us,” explains Chris*. “I was only peripherally involved in the Occupy Movement—now I’m going to lots more meetings.”

The labeling of occupiers as “anarchists” has also played out in media and legal framing of the case. On page 126 of police reports regarding the River Street occupation is a request for “priority processing” of fingerprints taken from the occupied building, with this reason given: “Anarchist protestors still in the city.”

“They use ‘anarchist’ as a label that allows them to take aggressive steps,” says Chris. “It would be harder for them to say, ‘concerned community members took over an empty space.’”

A Knock On The Door’

Terri* camped at Occupy Santa Cruz for two months after becoming homeless. “I was sleeping in the cold,” she remembers, “and here’s this warm building that’s been empty for three years and has electricity and water. There was a kitchen upstairs with a stove, microwave, fridge—everything.”

Terri was arrested on Feb. 8. “There was a knock on the door,” she says. “I opened it and there’s three sheriffs. I said, ‘My mom and I are going to the courthouse now. Please let me turn myself in.’ They said, ‘Nope.’ She was in jail for seven hours. “They wouldn’t feed me or give me water.”

“I already have money troubles and my mom got diagnosed with cancer. Now I’m facing felony charges,” Terri explains. “Bottom line: I tried to commit suicide … The emotional stress is way more than you could expect.”

Another activist, who was arrested while making breakfast, says: “I never entered the building. The people charging me are misusing authority.” She spent one night in jail. “I appeared before the judge in shackles. I was treated like a dangerous criminal. This is punishment prior to trial.”

The Morning After

Seven hours after city police took over the vacant bank, ending the three-day occupation, the tent camp at San Lorenzo Park was raided by sheriff’s deputies. Later that day the OSC general assembly included a discussion of the bank take-over, with anger, empathy, solidarity and other feelings expressed. Probably the understatement of the day regarding the vacant bank occupation was, “Perhaps it was not fully thought out.”

“Occupy Santa Cruz didn’t approve of that action … When it ended yesterday evening peacefully, we were delighted,” one longtime OSC says.

Others blamed the occupation for that morning’s raid of the encampment. Through various interviews with those there at the time, one woman reportedly scorned: “Your impatience has had drastic results.”

Another longtime Occupy activist said, “There’s a whole raft of reasons why what was done at 75 River St. is a great idea. Sure, it was illegal, but what’s more important is the illegitimacy of the political economy.”

And another Occupy activist commented, “Occupy Santa Cruz is a protest of the 99 percent versus the 1 percent. Taking a bank is a good way to highlight the principles of this movement.”

According to first-hand accounts, that morning a man in a wheelchair rolled by the once-again empty bank and commented on the building occupation: “They had an interesting theory behind their trespass. As wacky as it was, I kind of liked it … It’s the empty bank on the corner. It’s of no use, so why not occupy it?”

After the occupation, the masked man from the barricade is looking to the future. “We learned we could occupy something,” he says. “We’re going to take that same zeal and energy that we showed taking that bank and we’re going to help defend people’s houses. That’s one of the things we’re about—it’s in our name: Occupy.”

Pre-trial hearings for some of the Santa Cruz Eleven are scheduled for April 16 and 23, 8:15 a.m. at the County Courthouse. (Answer: Z faces charges. X does not) *Some names were changed. John Malkin is a local journalist and musician.

All photos: BRADLEY STUART / INDYBAY.ORG

The event was held to “encourage those victimized by the bank to learn they have allies”, according to an announcement published on Santa Cruz Indymedia that morning.

The demonstration was also called to “support the hundreds of people who visited or protested the vacant building at 75 River St. in late November and early December last year.” The announcement asserts that Santa Cruz County District Attorney Bob Lee “has selectively chosen 11 people” for prosecution, including journalists and activists, “in a case of political targeting previously unknown in Santa Cruz.”

Demonstrators cited many grievances with Wells Fargo Bank, including the bank’s responsibility for global inequity, home foreclosures, investments in private prisons, and the eviction of people trying to create a community center at 75 River St.

Tom O’Leary held a sign proclaiming “Banks Steal”. He was protesting because, “Wells Fargo signed off orders to evict people from the community center at 75 River St. in early December. Wells Fargo handles drug money while the United States government is supposedly fighting a War on Drugs, yet they bail out banks that handle most of the money, including Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo finances Guantanamo Bay, so that makes them complicit in a fascist institution.”

Tom continued, “They’ve been behind so many foreclosures, and it’s useful to speak out not just as an abstract issue, but to go after the local culprits in foreclosure so there’s a concrete institution people can identify, so they can pin it down and make it more accountable, before ultimately kicking it out of the community.”

Justin, who worked in construction before being laid off, held a sign inviting people to “Join the Conspiracy to Restore Justice”. When asked what brought him out to protest, Justin replied, “Wells Fargo, Bank of America, it’s all the same. I lost my job in construction. My boss couldn’t afford to pay us. The guy who’s house was being repaired couldn’t afford to pay anymore. So it’s a domino effect, on a mass scale, of unemployment.”

At least one person travelled several hours to attend the demonstration. Denica De Foy explained, “I came up from Prunedale, got a ride, then walked 3.5 miles from Capitola to Santa Cruz. I wanted to show support for all comrades who have been erroneously charged for their alleged participation in reclaiming a community space that lay fallow.”

Denica’s sign, rebuking the stance of the Santa Cruz County District Attorney, neatly stated in cursive letters that, “Journalism is not A Crime”.

After seeing the list of people being charged, Denica said it was clear to her that the Santa Cruz Police Department and District Attorney are targeting independent media.

Throughout the demonstration, numerous people showed their support by honking and giving a thumbs-up from their cars.

Representatives of Wells Fargo Bank could not be reached for comment.

For more information, please see:

Indybay Journalists Charged with Felony: Conspiracy to Make Media
Viewpoint Discrimination, Selective Prosecution in Charges Against Independent Journalists

http://www.indybay.org/mediaconspiracy

Reporters Without Borders press freedom index

Josh Stearns of Free Press has been tracking arrests of journalists covering Occupy protests since September. He tracks using news outlets, social media, and tips, and always reaches out to confirm the details with each journalist. He did this for me when I was arrested Jan. 28 covering Occupy Oakland.

According to Stearns, 70 journalists have been arrested while covering Occupy protests in 12 cities around the country.

In an annual survey of worldwide freedom of the press released Jan. 23 by Reporters without Borders, the United States ranks 47th, a fall from last year’s 20th place ranking. According to the group, the US “owed its fall of 27 places to the many arrests of journalist covering Occupy Wall Street protests.”

These arrests can be much more difficult for freelance and independent journalists who lack institutional backing.

Such is the case, for example, with Bradley Stuart Allen, a freelance photographer who faces charges for documenting a building occupation by what a police report called “a group acting in solidarity with Occupy Santa Cruz.” Allen is charged with felony conspiracy, felony vandalism, and two counts of misdemeanor trespass; his case will go to trial May 21st.

Journalism, of course, is in a state of transition, and as traditional media outlets are losing ground, independent and citizen journalists have stepped up to provide in-depth and accurate coverage. Groups like the Society of Professional Journalists, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and Free Press, in turn, have provided that crucial institutional support.

The Free Press has organized thousands to call city governments demanding detained journalists’ release. Stearns maintains a Storify page, and if you see anything happening, remember to tweet him at @jcstearns.

They also made a call for notices of gratitude to arrested journalists, and got sixteen thousand responses.

How should we respond to the unprecedented rise in attacks on freedom of the press we are witnessing worldwide?

From foreign correspondents and citizen reporters being targeted and killed in Syria to new cases of press suppression and intimidation here at home, recent months have provided a series of stark reminders about the risks journalists take to bring us the news we need.

However, we are also seeing the rise of a new era of journalism advocates — ordinary people in communities around the country who are standing up for our freedoms and taking action to protect the First Amendment. For too long we have taken the First Amendment for granted, but increasingly we are taking responsibility for it. In the last few months, more than 40,000 Free Press members sent letters and made phone calls to their mayors, demanding that charges be dropped for the nearly 70 journalists who have been arrested while trying to cover Occupy protests nationwide.

We then asked people to write directly to the arrested journalists themselves, to stand with them and the organizations fighting to protect the First Amendment. Sixteen thousand people responded. This week we are delivering those messages to all those who have been detained.

One of those responses, from Elenore in Idaho Falls, captures the passion and commitment of these messages to journalists: “Your courage in reporting regardless of the consequences is amazing. Thank you for doing your job. Now it’s our turn to try to help you obtain your freedom.”

Listen to Elenore’s message and a few others, as recorded by staff at Free Press:

And here are other messages from concerned people all over the U.S.:

Along with the soldiers in combat who are trying to keep other countries free, you are fighting to keep the U.S. free. Thank you for enduring.

—Jeanette, Bradenton, Fla.

You folks are the canaries in the coal mine, encouraging the rest of us to try to make enough noise to get the attention of the government. If we let you go down quietly, eventually we all go down.

—Michael, Providence, R.I.

Throughout American history, there are countless examples of journalists who had the courage to report movements in America. Civil rights, women’s suffrage, workers’ rights are all things we take for granted now, thanks to the heroism of journalists who risked it all to give Americans their right to have a voice and change our society for the better. Thank you for listening to us and thank you for your courage in defending our rights.

—Catherine, Portland, Ore.

I am a journalist who has worked in war zones in dictatorships where journalists have been mistreated. The USA sends up an outcry when this happens elsewhere. It is an abomination that it is happening here.

—Maura, Spencer, N.Y.

Society underestimates the degree of bravery required to be a journalist. In the modern world, the notion of killing the messenger ought to just be a quaint metaphor, not a valid and accepted tactic. Freedom of speech is protected not even just for them to have leave to speak, but because the rest of us need to hear.

—Kent, Keene, N.H.

As a journalist detained at gunpoint in a police raid in Chapel Hill, N.C., I stand with all who wish to exercise their First Amendment rights in the United States.

—Josh, Carboro, N.C.

I am a first-generation Holocaust survivor. I hold freedom of the press as the dearest of all the freedoms that are guaranteed by the Constitution. I have been watching with great sadness along many Americans as you have been arrested. I stand with you in solidarity in preserving, honoring and protecting your rights to do your most important job of reporting. May God bless you and keep you.

—Jadwiga, Redding, Calif.

These messages are a powerful reminder that supporting the First Amendment is critical to our democracy — and that the public is ready and willing to defend freedom of the press. Now we need our policies and institutions to catch up to what the First Amendment means in the digital age. We don’t need to rewrite or reimagine the First Amendment; we simply need to reinvigorate it, all of us, together.

Click here to read comments from people all over the U.S. who are working to protect the First Amendment in their communities.

…………………………………..

If protecting the First Amendment is important to you, please consider a donation to the Free Press Action Fund. Thank you.

Free Press is a national, nonpartisan organization working to reform the media. Free Press does not support or oppose any candidate for public office. Through education, organizing and advocacy, we promote diverse and independent media ownership, strong public media and universal access to communications.

Stand with Journalists

Since September nearly 70 reporters and citizen journalists have been arrested across the U.S. while covering the Occupy Wall Street movement. These arrests have become so commonplace that the United States’ press freedom ranking has plummeted 27 spots to number 47 worldwide.

Below are the signatures and comments of more than 16,000 Free Press members who are committed to standing with the arrested journalists, and supporting journalism organizations that are fighting for our freedoms.

These statements are a powerful reminder that the First Amendment is a critical democratic issue and that the public is ready and willing to fight to defend it.

To the arrested journalists and organizations fighting to protect the First Amendment:

When journalists are arrested, everyone’s freedom is at risk. I stand in defense of our First Amendment rights with the more than 70 journalists who have been detained in the United States.

Thank you for your work.

444 Page PDF