Pre-Trial Hearing in Norse Case Wednesday August 30 10 AM Dept 1

Unfortunately, I am not able to attend. Good luck to you and your team! Please post updates as soon as you possibly can.

Thanks to those who showed up at the hearing as well as to Case Observer for their interest. I wish I did have "a team". In fact, if anyone wants to volunteer to help do some work for this case, let me know. (831-423-4833)

Judge Guy denied me the right to tape record the hearing--either for broadcast or for private use after scurrying out of the court room apparently to see what the other judges did. My attorneys pissed me off by not making the argument for recording that I asked them to make. It's becoming increasingly difficult to get judges to "allow" recording even though 980d of the California Rules of Court allows recording for personal use unless there's a objection from the judge. (Guy's objection was the standard S.C. judge/D.A. line that a "transcript" is available--at substantial cost, of course and after a long period of time).

I'm hoping we can make the issue more strongly at the trial.

Which, at this time, is still calendared for September 25th in Dept. 1 at 9 AM.

However, Judge Guy did deny prosecutor Webber's motion to bring in lots of irrelelevant prejudicial City Council/police claims of past "disruptions". I've never been tried, much less convicted, of "disrupting" a Santa Cruz City Council meeting--in spite of all the Council and police hype.

D.A. Webber is reportedly less than assured he can prove I committed a "substantial disruption" in the Council meeting. Real disruption--not violation of a Council rule--is the standard.
So violating Rotkin's 5-minute gag rule [see prior articles] may not sufficient, in and of itself, to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of "disrupting a Council meeting". Hence, though Webber (and head D.A. Bob Lee) haven't dropped my case yet, it appears more likely (in the minds of my attorneys) that they will.

There is one irony in our victory at this motions hearing. If we had lost, then we would have been able to vastly expand the trial to contest every alleged instance of "disruption" (the March 2002 "Heil Krohn" case, Ed Porter's "don't tape record me" arrest in November 2002, Kennedy's "whisper at City Council, get ejected" bust of 2004). That would have involved a true circus, subpoenaing many ex-Mayors and City Council members. It would have been politically useful to expose the pattern of repression at City Council.

The reason I didn't opt to take that course and simply not challenge the D.A.'s motion was that my attorneys, who are working pro bono, simply didn't want to take on that huge workload. Also, though it would have been politically explosive and illuminating (particularly in the middle of a City Council election involving Mathews and Rotkin), it would probably have prejudiced the jury against me. Also to mount a full-scale political offense would have required more organization and personpower than I currently have access to.

As it stands, the trial is still on for September 25th but may well be dropped.

With the criminal trial dropped, the next step in exposing City Council's pattern of repression and holding them accountable will be in federal court, probably next year, in my federal civil suit against them (involving the Heil Krohn and Whispering incidents mentioned above). More on that as it breaks.

Any volunteers in this effort, please contact me.

For more background of the real issue behind this latest harassment prosecution check out http://santacruz.indymedia.org/newswire/display/17159/index.php ("Rotkin's Council to Cut Back Public Comment" March 2005).

For a City Council that often says they need community input on issues, it is indeed interesting to see how they treat those who give them real input from a position of supporting human rights. They ignore you at best, throw you in jail at worst, and on rare occasions back down a little bit on an issue when there is enough community outrage.

A couple quick examples:

Their lowering of the fine for the homeless when they are caught in the illegal act of sleeping at night. This small change would not have happened if there was not an active and vocal movement demanding the sleeping ban be dropped.

Their backing down on claiming it is illegal to sell newspapers in the face of popular opposition to the City's violent violation of First Amendment rights with my arrest, police beating, and being put in jail for four days for selling a newspaper. Many years later a federal Judge also agreed that the City policies in Santa Cruz violate First Amendment Rights, but what changed the policy on the ground was public outrage and activism.

In both cases part of what was an important part of the activism was the ability of the public to speak out at City Council.

The City government's attempts to silence critics by changing rules and unfairly targeting Robert Norse for harassment are an attempt to silence the entire community. Robert is standing up for our rights; we should be there to support him on September 25.