Bunny's Shoes Protest of August 1, 2009 - Featuring Officer Warren, SCPD

That is hilarious!! Off. Warren busted Robert at his own game.


Warren gave a definitive statement: They were not on public property, they jimmied a lock to get in, and they were partying, not sleeping. And its all on undispuitable video tape. Then he asked Robert if he thinks that's okay, or if it sounds like illegal trespassing. Clear, simple question.

.....And Robert punks out! Hems and haws and avoids answering the question. "Do you live in town? You have nice legs!"....hem and haw; classic! NEVER dares to answer the question.

So Robert's whole protest against Bunnys, which he maintains is about a legal place to sleep on public property, is actually mounted on a case of illegal entry and trespass.

Time to buy some shoes.

Of course he punked out. In direct response to the question about people forcing themselves onto private property, which is the basis of the complaint that Bunny's Shoes made against the two individuals, Robert's response is to fall back to his rhetoric. He says (paraphrasing) "That's not why we're here; we're here to protest the fact that public property is restricted against sleeping."

No, Robert, you are there, as you have said before, because the owner of Bunny's asked that the city enforce its own rules. So you targeted this business, without knowing all the facts, and when you were confronted with the facts you couldn't handle it.

You keep shifting your focus of attack (how's that boycott of Bookshop SC going anyway? They out of business yet?) but not your methods, which have always failed and always alienated the vast, vast majority of people who live and visit Santa Cruz. Rather than be honest with yourself, you'd rather keep up the charade and ego-boosting.

Well done.

And how many rules/laws/ordinances have you changed? How many homeless people have you helped?

How can you look at yourself in the mirror?

The couple was also asked repeatedly to please not sleep in the breezeway. The fact is the only way to get into the breezeway at night would be to break in. They had been asked numerous times not to do so. After the couple refused to comply and continued to break in the business called the police. then the couple disregarded the tickets and landed themselves into the court case.

Now they have been caught on video breaking in AGAIN.

It is shameful that HUFF is protesting a business who asked people not to do something and were ignored. Not anywhere but somewhere? This couple seems intent on making it about exactly where they want to do it.

That video does not portray Robert in a good light at all.

The police officer obviously has the upper hand in that exchange.

Norse challenges the officer to "clarify what you're really doing here". Fair enough, but then why doesn't he do the same?

Clarify for me why the cop is saying, clear and simple, that there was trespass on private property and partying in the wee hours....whereas the tablers have been claiming all along that Bunny's had people chased off of public property for no just cause?

Clarify for me why the cop asks Robert a simple yes/no answer, but Robert dodges it?

At this point, it seems to me that Huff has been spinning the facts to suit their agenda. It sounds like Bunnys had valid cause to want those people moved, and that the story being told by huff is a lie.

"Somewhere, anywhere" doesn't include private property that you access by picking a lock. And "sleep" doesn't equal partying with samuri swords and your drum circle buddies.

Care to clarify this one Mr. Norse? Because as it stands, you appear to be deceptive, twisting facts, and avoiding giving clear answers to simple questions. At this moment , I now believe that you've targetted Bunny's to further your agenda, not for what they actually did.

Becky has been spouting off for months that the two musicians are innocent of any crimes, and are misunderstood. She said that the duo were on public property, always left when asked, cleaned up after themselves, and were never rude. The emerging facts are now telling a somewhat different story.

They duo were not always on public property. The hallway behind Bunny's is locked at night. In order to get into the hallway they had to either pick the lock or activate the panic bar to open the door. Once inside they were trespassing. The manager of Bunny's asked them to leave on numerous occasions and told them not to come back. They kept coming back and were often quite rude to her. They defecated and urinated in the hallway, despite telling Becky that they did not.

Now, even after a judge told them specifically not to go back to that location, they are on tape at the same location partying and carousing with their friends. They are on tape going into the hallway not with the intention of sleeping, but to whoop it up with their friends, play music, and play sword games.

Ass with any story Becky tells, upon further inspection and additional information, her version turns out to be incorrect.

Bunny's Declaration was used to secure an Injunction against Miguel de Leon and Anna Richardson.

Michelle Chase (Bunny's manager) in her Declaration allege trespass and camping on private property. The City Attorney used this declaration (and others) to secure a much broader Injunction that says nothing about trespass on private property--or littering, or blocking the sidewalk, or anything other than sleeping for that matter.

Rather it bans any sleeping on any PUBLIC property in the downtown area and mandates immediate jail. So it doesn't really address the Bunny's issues at all--unless the point is to drive these two away from public spaces as well--which seems to be the point. The intent also seems to be a punitive declaration against them for doing what every other person can do in private and what homeless people must do in public--sleep at night. Hence it is inferentially an attack on all homeless people.

Vice-Mayor Rotkin's "hide out, or get out!" solution.

This, in a city with zero walk-in emergency shelter at night and another law that bans sleeping city-wide after 11 PM at night for the homeless.

The wording of the Injunction can be found at
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2009/07/02/richardson_injunction.pdf

I repeat this again, not because I don't think the troll/critics above aren't aware of it--I suspect they are. Rather for new readers. Any commentary on this thread which doesn't address the need and right to sleep not anywhere and everywhere, but somewhere--the right to exist, that is, as a homeless person--should be dismissed as stupidity, bigotry, or sophistry. That's why I call the above writers "trolls".

If the injunction only concerned Bunny's property, or if Bunny's repudiated their part in securing it, we'd have no quarrel with the management of the store. But Bunny's has lent itself to a senseless and cruel ratcheting up of punishment for something that can't be avoided at night--sleeping. Instead of finding real solutions--like campgrounds, carparks, or safe zones that would provide cheap immediate emergency shelter somewhere in the greenbelt areas or parks, we have increased repression, hateful stereotyping, and misdirection.

The issue is the Sleeping Ban and increased harassment of the homeless for doing what all of us have to do.

As I told Fred, apparently the angry caretaker of the Palomar area in an earlier video (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/15/18601786.php ) , it's not about crapping, pissing, trespass, or vandalism--all these are covered by separate laws and are jailing offenses. Rather it's about the right to sleep. Not anywhere, and everywhere, but somewhere.

An injunction against survival sleeping is itself an outrageous assault on homeless people generally that implicates those who contribute to it. If the merchants, the police, and snipers on this thread wish to try these two homeless people for specific crimes, let them do so in court before a judge. The only thing the Judge could find sufficient evidence to issue an Injunction against was sleeping at night in the downtown area on PUBLIC property...and that's what is banned.

This is not related to any legitimate concerns by Bunny's or the other yuppiemeisters downtown. If you don't want people to sleep in your doorways or on your private property, if you want people to respect the law, you provide facilities elsewhere, or make it legal for folks to make their own campsites elsewhere. End of story.

Courts in Miami, Austin, Los Angeles, San Diego, Fresno, Portland, and Seattle have all found this to be true. Why are our authorities so blind?

Folks interested in posting the pledge should phone or e-mail HUFF at 423-4833 rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com .

Please report any incidents of discrimination--particularly at Manthri Srinath's Lulu Carpenter's and Lulu's at the Octogon in Santa Cruz--this problem has surfaced again recently.

Okay, so if I understand correctly, these two individuals picked locks, trespassed, urinated, defecated, definitely did NOT sleep in that piece of private property where they were politely asked by the private business to stop doing such things.

When these two tweakers (because, let's be real, we all saw the earlier video you posted "interviewing" them at the first Bunny's protest, and if she isn't on Meth then bob's my uncle) IGNORED these polite requests, the private business did what would be expected- they contacted the city to enforce their laws. As you state, there are laws against what these two NOT SO INNOCENT AND SWEET people did.

The CITY, by your own admission, then decided to enforce the new law that was passed and use this and other examples of illegal, anti-social, downright disgusting behavior to ban them from sleeping downtown in any space.

But you have decided to target the business, which was only concerned about its property and the disgusting activities these two people were doing on it, after being asked to stop without resorting to the police.

So Bunny's becomes the next target of the Norse squad, because you've already banged your head against city hall and failed, banged your head against BSSC and failed, so you needed a new place to put on your show. Bunny's did not get these two people banned from downtown, but that doesn't matter to you- it's a mere fact that gets in the way of your preexisting agenda to rail and tilt at windmills but never actually solve anything.

I mean, really, Robert, when you watch your incredibly childish behavior in this video, are you really proud of yourself? When the officer asks for your opinion as to the situation described previously, not only do you not answer, but you even take a moment to shout "police harassment!" just to buy some time to come up with an answer?

And to get down to brass tacks: I think most people in town and on these threads don't "hate" homeless people, contrary to your repeated claims. They hate the BEHAVIOR that homeless people in Santa Cruz exhibit. The facts that have come to light about these two not-so-innocent, not-so-peaceful "musicians" confirms that. Bunny's didn't complain to the city because there were two homeless people quietly sleeping on public property near their business, leaving not a trace (as you and Becky first insinuated). No, their behavior was very much the opposite of that, complete with the feeling of entitlement so strong that they've come back to the business and repeated these actions within the last few weeks. However, that doesn't change your protest tactics. I think you may need to analyze yourself and your "strategies" a little closer, don't you?

I think Cyrus has some very good points. It looks like the shoe company was just trying to protect and secure their property. They had asked these people to previously leave and they kept coming back. And they had to break into the building to keep coming back. So this does not really look like a complaint about the couple sleeping there more then it is about the breaking in and trespassing. And Robert does not answer about that.

Has anyone seen, or have a copy of, the document the manager of Bunny's signed? I've read so many conflicting stories about what this whole thing is really about. It would be helpful to know if Bunny's called the police for trespassing or for sleeping, or a combination of both. If the complaint is about trespassing, I don't see the leap Robert has made.

Also, why aren't the other businesses on the declaration being protested against? Isn't the Post Office also on the list? No one mentions anything about them.

From: DEFENDANT'S JOINT RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF Mar 22, 2009

"trespassing Anna Richardson (1)" "Miguel DeLeon: Trespassing (1)"

BECKY: Anna and Lito were only cited once each for trespassing, and not at Bunny's Shoes, but outside a bank. Bunny's could have had them cited for trespassing easily if this were a regular thing.

FROM THE BRIEF: "(Michelle) Chase, manager of Bunny's Shoes, says defendants have slept in front of her store. Chase also made observations similar to Gouker (manager of Palomar) minus the unsanitary conditions observed on the one occasion by Gouker. Apparently, the police could not substantiate Chase's observations either in terms of issuance of citations. Finally, Chase mentioned that defendants left when asked, although they may have been unfriendly and belligerant. Chase did not say defendants ever slept outside her store during work hours or in a manner that negatively affected her business."

"As far as the incidents at Bunny's Breezeway, these are accusations that have not been substantiated even to the point of the issuance of a citation. Further, the court must consider that, for the purposes of the preliminary injunction, all of the citizen declarants are offering hearsay, not subject to cross-examination. All the declarants are managers of businesses who have a vested interest in the granting of this injunction to remove Defendants from the sight of their customers who view defendants as undesirable."

CORRECTION: the trespassing citations were both for an area behind the Post Office and not at a bank.

Do you have the original document? What you are quoting from is the Plaintiff's Response. It is not the declaration from Bunny's in it's entirety. There is a reference to something involving The Palomar which is not described.

The whole document signed by the Bunny's manager is what is needed.

The merchant defenders are diverting us from the basic issue and the point of the protest:

To encourage the merchant community downtown to stop its senseless police crackdown on the homeless and pursue more sensible solutions like addressing the Sleeping Ban nonsense.

Since merchants (police and city council) don't seem to respond to reason, perhaps they'll pay attention to financial bottom line.

Nowhere in this thread have critics admitted that the Sleeping Ban in a city with zero emergency shelter is a fundamental human rights abuse. I.e. human beings rich and poor need a place to sleep--not anywhere and everywhere, but somewhere. Until and unless that point of agreement is reached, we have little common ground. It is clear this is an issue critics don't want to discuss.

More audio on the protest tonight between 6-8 PM on 101.1 FM and at http://www.freakradio.org. The show will ultimately be archived at http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb090806.mp3 .

Robert says: "The merchant defenders are diverting us from the basic issue and the point of the protest"

I thought the point of the protest was a reaction to Bunny's calling the police on these two for sleeping.

Now we're finding out that this might not be what happened.

Now we're finding out that there is video evidence that these two have been partying, playing bongos, playing Samurai, and entertaining friends while Robert says they are trying to sleep.

Now Robert is saying "To encourage the merchant community downtown to stop its senseless police crackdown on the homeless and pursue more sensible solutions like addressing the Sleeping Ban nonsense." That's not what you said this was all about when you began your protest.

If your beef is with the Camping Ban then take it up with the city. That's who made the ordinance in the first place. Or is this s new tactic because your activism was getting nowhere with the city officials?

And nice job at targeting the only business that only has women working there.

The homeless defenders are distracting us with their biased, misleading reports and inappropriate protests.

Huff is protesting a company that protects its private property, but unfairly pretending that it was public property.

Becky is distracting us by posting a defendants statement as if it were a definitive or balanced viewpoint of what occurred.

The video shows the whole picture: NO sleeping; partying. Breaking and entering of private property.

I vote for Bunnys, not Huff. (Course, this community hasn't endorsed one vote for huff yet, so I guess that's a redundant statement.)

Becky is giving conflicting information.

Above she says: "CORRECTION: the trespassing citations were both for an area behind the Post Office and not at a bank."

Yet on May 31 in The Sentinel she said; "They were cited by a bank when they slept in front of an access door not used by the public."

Trolls (those who support laws against homeless sleeping) are ignoring the wording of the Injunction, secured by the City Attorney with the help of declarations from Bunny's and others:

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2009/07/02/richardson_injunction.pdf

That is only about sleeping. And not on Bunny's property particularly but it covers all public property. It's a broad warrant for police to harass two homeless people for sleeping in a city that has no shelter.

Do the trolls favor the right to sleep not anywhere and everywhere, but somewhere? Somewhere on public property? Apparently they don't want to say. Or perhaps saying they don't want it all would be a tad too embarassing in a city with 1500-2000 homeless and no emergency shelter tonight.

This has to be repeated because it is the real issue. And yes, it seems that most merchants-even those who bill themselves as "progressive" like the Coonerty's of the Bookshop Santa Cruz won't deal with this issue in a straight forward way.

Which puts us way behind Los Angeles, San Diego, Fresno, Laguna Beach, Richmond, and Palo Alto--which does permit homeless sleeping outside and/or in vehicles--given the obvious ongoing shelter emergency.

Whenever you read a comment denouncing pissing, protest, littering, etc.--note that the poster isn't saying whether s/he supports the right of homeless people to sleep...somewhere. If they don't, the comment is simply...trolltalk.

And maybe someday I'll follow the good advice "don't feed the trolls".

So are you telling us Robert that even though Bunny's called the police and signed a declaration because these two people broke onto their property repeatedly, after being asked not to do so multiple times, were rude and messed up the place, you are protesting them NOT for the fact that they made the call but because the city attorneys used these declarations to get an injunction? So why not boycott the city attorney office? It sounds like Bunny's is getting caught in this simply for trying to protect their property.

And please stop calling people that question you a troll. You are using a very republican party tactic in doing so. They call everyone that does not agree with them un-american and un-christian. You call everyone that does not agree with you a troll or a bigot.

CONFLICTING INFO WRITES: "Becky is giving conflicting information. Above she says: "CORRECTION: the trespassing citations were both for an area behind the Post Office and not at a bank." Yet on May 31 in The Sentinel she said; "They were cited by a bank when they slept in front of an access door not used by the public."

BECKY: That's because Anna Richardson told me she had been cited by a bank. Apparently it was either a "move-along" and NOT a citation or they wrote a citation and somehow all charges were dropped. When I read through the court filings, I discovered that the only citation issued to the couple (each received a citation) was for an area by a picnic table behind the Post Office, hence the correction.

Becky says: "BECKY: That's because Anna Richardson told me she had been cited by a bank."

Yet Becky was so adamant and sure when she railed against people who questioned her. She said it was definitely a bank. She said she knew which bank it was. She said she knew exactly the location that it happened at.

Becky also said that Anna told her they were always polite, cleaned up after themselves, were never rude, and were only looking for a place to quietly sleep.

Now it is on video that this is not the case.

I'm not saying I am anti homeless, or for the camping ban. I only think that Becky and Robert need to get their stories straight and keep them consistent. This is why people question them. The stories always change.

Why is the only solution for Robert and Becky the repeal of the sleeping ban. Wouldn't finding a place other than downtown for the homeless to crash for the night be more productive. Granted if you make your livlihood panhandling downtown it would be more conviennient to wake up where you work but wouldn't we all like a shorter commute to work.

Finding a spot of land could be a good idea. But here is the deal. Such a site falls under the responsibility of the County. The County is where these types of grievances should be aired. We've heard suggestions about using part of the Pogonip or like areas to build a camp. But that is the city of Santa Cruz and that type of use goes against the environmental and safety standards set for those swaths of land. If such land were to be used restrictions and safeguards would need to be implemented to make sure everyone would be safe and that the environment would not suffer.

Since the County has the responsibility to take care of these needs HUFF and Robert should be going to them with their complaints. I have to ask when was the last time Robert and HUFF have gone to a BOS meeting to talk about this issue? I remember reading not too long ago where Becky admitted they have not gone to a BOS meeting in a long time. I have to wonder if they don't go down this route because it is less sexy then being seen at a city council meeting or as visible as creating shouting matches on Pacific Ave. Who knows?

The truth is they might get more accomplished and achieve goals if they work with the County.

The amount of disinformation and just plain b.s. propoganda being spewed about this case would amaze me, were it not for the fact that I know its standard operating procedure for huff. Let's keep it real:

1) The two individuals in question already gave a quote, in the Sentinel, that they HAD an offer by housing services..but they declined to take it because it wasn't convenient when coupled with their desire to be on the mall playing music. So ex-fing-scuse me, but that doesn't strike me as a particularly compelling situation where I feel the need to provide more attractive options on my tax dollar. Take it or leave it.

2) They were not sleeping on public property, as Huff keep alluding. They broke and entered on private property. Now, I see Becky stating on the Sentinel that "technically, they didn't break anything, it was just entering. Well ex-cuse me again, but that's parsing to suit your propoganda agenda. If someone came through an unlocked window of Becky's house to rob her, I suspect she'd be considering that Breaking & Entering.

3) They weren't even there to sleep?! They were doing samuri disco and banging drums? Jeezuz H. And you expect me to worry about meeting the needs of these poor victims of society? Sounds to me more like some space cadet who hasn't been able to support her own lifestyle and habit or a house for OVER 13 YEARS and likes to party alnight on the mall....and I'm supposed to feel bad cause I'm not giving her enough options?

Screw that, and them, and huff.

This is more about Robert wanting make life miserable for the city council than his wanting to help the homeless. If the city were to repeal the sleeping ban he would find some other ordinance to bitch about. He seems to be more about creating a scene than creating real change or helping.

Real law-breakers need to be cited, arrested, and tried for real crimes, not have their sleep in public areas criminalized.

Real posters on this thread need to address the real issue: a sleeping ban in the midst of the shelter emergency.

Real problems will only be addressed when really stupid laws are dumped and really foolish prejudices are overcome.

The right to sleep somewhere, not anywhere and everywhere, is and has been the issue of these protests. Unless and until businesses downtown acknowledge this basic right, they should be viewed with skepticism and suspicion.

It is a City law that most harshly, hypocritically, and absurdly specifies "no sleeping after 11 PM", not the County (though it has similar weaker ordinances).

If other major cities have recognized criminalizing sleepers is cruel and futile, why can't Santa Cruz?

Posters who support businesses who support the Sleeping Ban support this stupidity.

Coming soon: the Downtown Association refuses to discuss the Sleeping Ban and Shelter Crisis.

BEN WRITES: "They duo were not always on public property. The hallway behind Bunny's is locked at night. In order to get into the hallway they had to either pick the lock or activate the panic bar to open the door. Once inside they were trespassing. The manager of Bunny's asked them to leave on numerous occasions and told them not to come back. They kept coming back and were often quite rude to her. They defecated and urinated in the hallway, despite telling Becky that they did not."

BECKY: The manager of the Palomar reported seeing feces and urine in the area. This was at a different time than when Richardson and DeLeon were seen on the video. And yes, they slept there. The video shows that they also were awake there and entertaining themselves with bongo drums and fake sword play. Did anyone witness this at the time? Or were these events only known when they reviewed the tape? I suspect the latter or they could have called the police and had them arrested for trespassing. There was no need for this injunction. Existing laws are sufficient.

BEN WRITES: "Now, even after a judge told them specifically not to go back to that location, they are on tape at the same location partying and carousing with their friends. They are on tape going into the hallway not with the intention of sleeping, but to whoop it up with their friends, play music, and play sword games."

BECKY: It's not clear from the officer's statement whether he is referring to a recent tape or evidence that was presented to the judge during the injunction trial.

BEN: "Ass with any story Becky tells, upon further inspection and additional information, her version turns out to be incorrect."

BECKY: Ben is so eager to discredit me, he has no loyalty to the truth of the situation. Playing drums, singing, and sword play are harmless. Were they seen using "drugs?" Since neither Richardson nor DeLeon use alcohol, most likely this was marijuana.

So someone used marijuana late at night on private property behind a business? I'm shocked! Shocked, I say!

Your sanctimonious harping, and sense of moral superiority, truly make me want to vomit. But that aside? Your constantly shifting platform of "fact" and "rights" is a joke.

The topic here, by Huffs own definition...was the right of homeless to sleep on public property. Not dancing, not breaking and entering public property to play drums or defecate of swing samuri swords....TO SLEEP.

But now the facts are coming out, with video documentation to back it up. And so what are you doing? Your usual. Trying to change the argument, shift the discussion, bully those who disagree by trying to color them as fascist business owners.

So now you say "Playing drums, singing, and sword play are harmless. Were they seen using "drugs?". BUT THAT WASNT THE TOPIC. Or what you claimed this whole thing was about. YOU CLAIMED IT WAS ABOUT THEIR RIGHT TO SLEEP ON PUBLIC PROPERTY. But now see that the reality is that its about breaking into private property to party, smoke pot, and take a comfy crap.

Playing drums, singing,, and smoking pot is harmless if it occurs on ones own property with their consent. It is NOT harmless when it occurs on someone elses property who doesn't give permission for it. Particularly when they pick the lock to do it, and are told to leave, and come back again and again.

To hell with them, and you, and your ever shifting "facts". The fact is that your a lying fool whose story changes by the day and lacks credibility. I will never vote for any campgrounds, or any agenda that huff endorses...specifically because of you and Robert and your b.s. tactics of lies and obfuscation.

The issue is the right to sleep on some public property somewhere. This is the issue that the trollsters (all those sweet anonymous posters) have little to say about.

But that's the point of the protest. And the protests, the tickets, the shame, won't stop--until the law is changed or adequate shelter is available. That's just the nature of things.

Let merchants downtown support basic human rights for poor people. Until they do, people should think twice before patronizing them.

It's really as simple as that.

Call City Council at 420-5020 and the Downtown Business Association at 429-8433. Let them know you'd rather do business where basic human rights are respected than back the current gentrification agenda.

Pledges are still available at 423-4833 for those who want to post them or pass on to bigotry-free businesses.

....because they have the trespassing ordinance which they can invoke at any time.

NOT A FUNNY ONE, BUT A JOKE WRITES: "Playing drums, singing,, and smoking pot is harmless if it occurs on ones own property with their consent. "

BECKY: HUFF supports private property owners use of trespassing laws to take action (call the police) to remove those who are trespassing. But we are not outraged by this. Homeless people have to do in public (or while trespassing on private property) what housed people do in the privacy of their homes.

We housed folk, play drums, smoke pot, and sword play in our living rooms. We defecate in our bathrooms, and sleep in our bedrooms. The property owner had the option of calling a cop and having the people removed for trespassing. An injunction against SLEEPING on public property is still insane.

I have some questions still. Did anyone notice these folks playing drums, playing with swords, etc at the time, or was it only when they looked at the video?

Anna Richardson and Miguel DeLeon dispute that they vandalized anything. The graffiti and the instance of urination/defecation was never connected with the couple, and could have been left by anyone. Going somewhere off the beaten path, dry, and relatively safe from the crazies behind a locked gate must have been wonderful for them for a time.

I suppose they've fixed the gate by now, so it can't be jury-rigged to open.

So now Becky is going to maintain that she and huff supports private property owners use of trespassing laws to take action (call the police) to remove those who are trespassing?

...that's what Bunnys did. As did numerous other business owners. 60 tickets later, the behavior continued.

Apologize, shift stories, lie.....it doesn't change the reality. Its telling that you and bobby have been reduced to the point that your only remaining tactics are attempted intimidation (Bunny's) and guilt/shaming (If you don't agree with us, your a fascist.).

Well, in the infamous words of Robert? Zig Heil baby!@

NOT A FUNNY ONE, BUT A JOKE WRITES: "So now Becky is going to maintain that she and huff supports private property owners use of trespassing laws to take action (call the police) to remove those who are trespassing? ..that's what Bunnys did. As did numerous other business owners. 60 tickets later, the behavior continued."

BECKY: Rather than call a cop ONCE and have them removed or arrested from the private property, Melissa Chase, manager for Bunny's instead files a declaration adding her voice to the "menace" of this homeless couple who sing for their supper. I'm guessing, but maybe it had something to do with no one even knowing they were there until they saw the video? On one or two occasions, Chase reported she had to step over the sleeping couple behind the building and near an office she uses but nowhere near where her customers shop. She herself reports that they left when asked.

NOT A FUNNY ONE, BUT A JOKE WRITES: "Apologize, shift stories, lie.....it doesn't change the reality. Its telling that you and bobby have been reduced to the point that your only remaining tactics are attempted intimidation (Bunny's) and guilt/shaming (If you don't agree with us, your a fascist.). Well, in the infamous words of Robert? Zig Heil baby!@

BECKY: We're not calling out the jackboots to move along a political table! That's the Bunny's management that are doing that. We got confirmation of that from the police on August 1st.

Please see a copy of the notice that the manager of nearby, The Hat Company, posted briefly in her window : http://beckyjohnsononewomantalking.blogspot.com/2009/07/hat-company-posts-pledge.html

She uses the words "targeted" and "extort" wrongfully.

We were clearly targeting Bunny's Shoes, per our signs and flyers. The manager complained to Robert that her business was off 75% when our table was there. Robert said he was sympathetic, to a point. But was she one of the businesses who were working to solve the problem or one who supported and promoted further criminalization of homelessness. He said, "If you were to post our flyer in your window, then I could take that back to the HUFF meeting, and we could consider whether we should move the HUFF table to a different location or not."

She has framed this as "extortion" when Robert was putting her on the spot to take a stand on the criminalization of homelessness. Is The Hat Company a business that discriminates against homeless people and which doesn't support the right of homeless people to sleep somewhere near the downtown area? Remember, taking no stand is compliance with the status quo.

Here's what Robert is saying "The issue is the right to sleep on some public property somewhere.". Then why are you attacking Bunny's? Did they call the police about these two sleeping or doing something on PUBLIC PROPERTY?? NO! They called the police because of what they were doing on PRIVATE PROPERTY.

"Rather than call a cop ONCE and have them removed or arrested from the private property, Melissa Chase, manager for Bunny's instead files a declaration adding her voice to the "menace" of this homeless couple who sing for their supper. I'm guessing, but maybe it had something to do with no one even knowing they were there until they saw the video?"

For starters, they had already been ticketed 60 times. I'm guessing, but maybe she'd been the one who made 1-5-10 of those calls, to no effect. What good is having them ticketed if they continue to do it? The next logical step was taken.

As for the Hat Company? That is implied extortion on your part. And the reality that you're avoiding acknowledging is that you mere physical presence, and that of your scrotey entourage, is enough to keep shoppers away from the area you inhabit. It doesn't matter if your sign reads Bunny's; many people don't want to get near you so by default your physical presence hurts business.

Becky says: "She uses the words "targeted" and "extort" wrongfully. "

No she does not. You have targeted their business out of the four mentioned on the declarations. You never talk about protesting Borders, Lulu's, or The Post Office. Only Bunny's. That is called selective targeting.

You are utilizing extortion tactics. Robert has made the declaration he wants to hit their bottom line if they don't do what he wants. Look up extortion.

I know the owner/managers of both these businesses. I can say without any hesitation that both of these businesses give more to homeless services and outreach programs, financially and donated time, then Becky does. They give of themselves freely and willingly. I think it is disgusting that Becky and Robert minimize all these kind people do simply because they won't say what HUFF wants them to say.

These businesses are doing more to actually help those in our community who need a helping hand. Robert, Becky, and HUFF do more to damage the relationships between people who want to help and those that need it. Put personal politics and ego aside for once. This is about helping people. Not about you getting what you want.

HUFF can certainly be annoying, but it's still legal to protest a store or group of stores.

'Extortion', outwresting, or exaction is a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion.

Do you prefer "Blackmail"?.

You obviously don't like it, and that's fine, but it's called picketing.

When Robert told her he would decist in his activites, and thus stop causing negative impact on her business, only if she did what he wanted her to..... he coerced her.

"Coercion (pronounced /kɵˈɜrʒən/ or /kɵˈɜrʃən/) is the practice of compelling a person or forcing them to behave in an involuntary way (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation, trickery, or some other form of pressure or force. These are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way. "

That is closer to extortion than it is picketing.

I do believe it's all starting to crumble around Robert and huff. People are angry about the protest on Pacific avenue and they think it's the homeless people doing it. Most people don't understand that this is not the homeless community protesting. They don't understand that most homeless people don't want huff speaking for them. This protest is hurting the public's perception of the homeless. And it's huff leading that negative perception.

What I want to know is if the story the couple gave HUFF was vetted or not. I find it quite astonishing that Robert and HUFF would bet the reputation of their organization on this couple without finding out if what they've been telling people is true or not. So many details have changed again and again. It certainly looks as if this couple has been less then honest with HUFF on a few details. Above we even have Becky changing details upon finding out what she had been told was a lie. Now there is this video.

This whole thing looks like the very unprofessional job the McCain campaign did in vetting Sara Palin. And look where that landed his campaign. In the toilet. (which was a good thing for us)

As I have commented before, Robert et al are not interfering with the customers of Bunny's, nor as in the words of Mike Rotkin are they making it "impossible to shop" downtown.

From the Sentinel Forum:

Have Salute Will Nazi wrote:
Bunny's Shoes is quaking in their boots!

Hardly! It may come as a shock to you but Bunny's business, from what I hear, is up. And pretty much thanks to the "protest". It has rallied the citizens who know about the protest to go buy more shoes!

There has been internal discussion among Robert et al to possibly move the protest to a better location, say in front of Borders or in front of Lulu Carpenter's. I would agree with this move. It would absolve us of being blamed for targeting a woman owned business as well as turning our attention to a business that has actually discriminated against the homeless in the course of conducting their business (at least in the case of Lulu Carpenter's). Lulu's is in the habit of banning homeless looking people for life from their store (so even if they improve their condition later they still can't come back). They should be the target of our protest. I don't know of any homeless people who have been denied service at Bunny's shoes or The Hat Co.

On another note, should Robert et al consider the pledge to be an enforceable contract that should be honored by the business that posts it, under penalty of potential protest? I ask because after posting the pledge, Bad Ass Coffee was reported by one homeless person to be discriminating against him. The homeless man obeyed the posted store policy of spending at least $2 before using the computers at Bad Ass. He spent $5, but was kicked off the computer he was using after less than 5 minutes.

Becky said it herself: "He (Robert) said, "If you were to post our flyer in your window, then I could take that back to the HUFF meeting, and we could consider whether we should move the HUFF table to a different location or not.""

That, sir, is coercion. Robert, hearing from the owner of the Hat Company that he is causing her financial suffering due specifically to his tabling in front of her store, tells her that if she will do something he wants done, but that she doesn't really want to do...that he will end the action that is hurting her.

Textbook coercion. Once again:

"Coercion (pronounced /kɵˈɜrʒən/ or /kɵˈɜrʃən/) is the practice of compelling a person or forcing them to behave in an involuntary way (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation, trickery, or some other form of pressure or force. These are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way".

Robert pressured her to do what she didn't want to do. He threatened her income; saying that he would continue to impact it in a negative way unless she did as he desired. NO confusion on that point. Delude yourself if you'd like, but don't try to sell your b.s. to me.

Dandelion Fantastica
Glenn
Shadow
Tim B.
etc.:

Have you actually read the Injunction (http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2009/07/02/richardson_injunction.pdf ) ?

Strangely, I see no reference to Bunnies, Boarders, Lulu or anybody else other then the city. Sounds like your beef should be with city hall.

Let's try it this way. If I call the cops on a loud party down the street, and they actually show up and make contact. One of the people at the party ends up getting busted for something and falls in to the court system and ends up with some kind of punishment. That is not my fault. Even if his friends start blaming me about it and start telling everybody that walks down the street in my neighborhood that I'm the one to blame. That if I had just shut up and let them have their wild rumpus on my street (or in this case) what would be like my back yard then I can get along with my life.

Glad someone actually bothered to read the Injunction. Which has nothing to do with all the allegations made by troll-posters on this website (trespass, defecating, littering, etc.). The Injunction bans Sleeping on public property for de Leon and Richardson on pain of immediagte jail.

Bunny's specifically signed declarations supporting the Injunction that the City Attorney secured. They have not repudiated it.

Their rights extend to their property, but not to criminalizing sleep for people in the downtown area, even to two people they don't like. Particularly when it's illegal in the rest of the city and there is no legal shelter.

It's not clear that Bunny's specifically sought this particular Injunction outcome. But they contributed to it and have not repudiated it.

As members of the Downtown Association which has also supported tightening the Sleeping Ban, made sitting on a bench for more than one hour in a 12 hour period, and increasing forbidden zones downtown, Bunny's is also one of the (many) businesses culpable here.

Recently the Downtown Association has refused to even discuss the matter, even though the Hat Company manager, Maria, assured us that the matter was on their agenda.

Businesses that support human rights abuses do not deserve our dollars.

"For the 777th time", is that how many times you've copied and pasted that link? Sure seems like it.

I've noticed that neither Borders or Lulu has repudiated either, so that still leads to the question of only why Bunnies? It seems that their only fault is not staying quiet about what was going on in the hallway. I'm betting that Bunnies isn't too happy with the way it's worded, I'd think something a little stronger about the concerns that they had, but if this is the best they can get.

"It's not clear that Bunny's specifically sought this particular Injunction outcome. But they contributed to it and have not repudiaetd it.

As members of the Downtown Association which has also supported tightening the Sleeping Ban, made sitting on a bench for more than one hour in a 12 hour period, and increasing forbidden zones downtown, Bunny's is also one of the (many) businesses culpable here."

Yet they are still the only one that is being protested. Do you think that they are the weakest and most likely to cave in?

"Recently the Downtown Association has refused to even discuss the matter, even though the Hat Company manager, Maria, assured us that the matter was on their agenda."

Which just gives a taste of the overall power HUFF has.

"Businesses that support human rights abuses do not deserve our dollars.-"

Absolutely, and it eats me up every time I fill my car up, eat a salad, or buy a new pair of shoes.

Robert says "Businesses that support human rights abuses do not deserve our dollars."

You drive a Toyota. Toyota has a horrible reputation supporting human rights violations against their employees both directly and with their subcontractors. Employing people below living wages and those that refuse benefits. Taking those workers and giving them the longest shifts under unsafe conditions.

Get rid of your car. You are supporting a corrupt capitalist regime.

I'm going to echo on a comment I've seen written a few times but never answered.

Why is the only store being boycotted the only one with an all women staff?

To me this smacks of sexism. There are a few businesses mentioned on the list. Lulu's is owned by a man and not being boycotted. The Palomar is run by all men and is not being boycotted. The Palomar had some very serious charges against the couple in their declaration. More serious then what Bunny's speaks of. Borders is managed by men and they are not being boycotted. Robert refuses to mention that the post office is also on the list of contributors to the declaration. Again, the downtown branch is managed by men.

Does Robert feel that Bunny's is the easiest target and least likely to push back because they are women? Does he feel he has a better chance of intimidating their customers, who are probably 99% women?

Human rights? How about Equal Rights!!

Keep it up Robert. My mom said she will continue to buy from Bunnies every week of your protest in support of their shop. I love it. I've gotten so many new pairs of shoes since the protest started. Please keep it up.

If Mr. Norse cares so much about the rights of homeless persons, then why doesn't he use his trust fund to help them? He constantly screams about them having no emergency/walk in shelter, why doesn't he finance one? Or use his protesting abilities to fund raise for one, if he doesn't deign to spare his own change for them. Causing business owners to harbor more feelings of dislike against the homeless because of his actions, seems to be contradictory to his stated goals.

But as we all saw in the video encounter with the officer, Mr. Norse is not really sure where he stands, he certainly cannot identify with homeless people, so why does he continue to spout rhetoric? Mr. Norse should open his own home and PRIVATE property for the use of ALL homeless persons, not just a select few. They would then have the emergency/walk in shelter that he so desires for them. They could then "sleep somewhere, not anywhere".

Mr. Norse seems to be just another person who thinks the Constitution applies only to his views and agendas as it suits them, he does seem to agree that business have the right to be secure in their own property or, to have the right to protect their assets by moving along those who disrupt their constitutions right to free enterprise.

just a thought

Enigma said "he doesn't deign to spare his own change for them"

Au contraire mon frere. He bought them soup once. Delicious hearty vegan soup. Becky Johnson said so. She held up his soup giving as an example of how Robert sacrifices of himself and out of his own pocket.

I wonder how much that $35.00 set him back.

Sure he COULD spend millions on delivering real assistance and getting people shelter over their heads. He HAS the ability.

But would they still receive the cheap soup?

SARA WRITES: "Why is the only store being boycotted the only one with an all women staff? "

BECKY: Technically it's not a boycott. Robert Norse has personally called for one, but HUFF has not. The reason Bunny's Shoes was picked was because of the over the top participation in the civil injunction against a homeless couple by manager, Michelle Chase. Chase is a woman. Does Bunny's Shoes only employ women? I hadn't noticed, but if you say so.

It has nothing to do with being staffed by women. It has to do with prejudice against homeless people and the willingness to use police, courts, and the City Attorney to enact prejudicial policies and tactics.

Four businesses participated in the civil injunction: The Palomar, Borders Books, Lulu Carpenters, and Bunny's Shoes. Chase's declaration was the most biased one.

SHADOW WRITES: "Au contraire mon frere. He bought them soup once. Delicious hearty vegan soup. Becky Johnson said so."

BECKY: Once? Hardly!! Norse has bought/provided hot, usually vegan soup more like a hundred times. HUFF is a pro-civil rights organization and not a service provider, so the soup was just an extra. I mentioned it to shut up critics who say NORSE has never helped a homeless person ever. Since he's clearly fed thousands of homeless people over the years, that is false on its face.

HUFF (and NORSE) have:
-- successfully challenged the sit/lie law in 1994 requiring it to be rewritten
-- lobbied successfully to be able to sit legally on the base of the Scribner statue
-- lobbied successfully to restore the backyard camping exception when the CITY "accidentally" deleted it
-- lobbied successfully to have the fines for a SLEEPING BAN TICKET to be reduced from $162 to $54 (now $97)
--supported Mike True's effort to legally allow artists to display their own work
--challenged the CITY when they were channeling hundreds of thousands of dollars to a project not yet approved by City Council (the Coast Hotel Project). NORSE was a whistle-blower here.
-- HUFF protests in '89 - '90 led to the establishment of the Free Meal and the Homeless Service Ctr
-- HUFF publicized and supported Donna Deiss when her arm was viciously broken by Sgt. LeMoss of the SCPD
HUFF activist GLEN RABENOLD was able to convince the city council to leave surface parking lots OUT of the 15-min trespass law. A year later, RYAN COONERTY undid this
-- HUFF activists formed "Friends of Camp Paradise" which provided support to the Camp Paradise residents until a flood ended their presence on the banks of the San Lorenzo
--NORSE provides 5 1/2 hours of live, on-air programming each week to the Santa Cruz Community publicizing homeless issues and giving homeless people a voice
--supported STEVE ARGUE when he was arrested for (LEGALLY) selling a newspaper and later beaten in jaiL
--HUFF and NORSE did ground-breaking work re: the police shooting death of Happy John Dine

Robert is a founder of Huff, Robert is staffing the table with huff members, and you're calling it a boycott in your own press releases. As usual, you're unable to tell the truth. It's a boycott.

"HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom) and HRO (Human Rights Organization) in concert with independent activists continue our picketing and protest, which we began in early June......... We understand the 4 WEEK LONG BOYCOTT and protest has had significant impact"

Huffs own release, calling it a boycott: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/07/24/18612318.php?show_comments=1#18616292

Not a boycott? *lol*

Johnson says "It has to do with prejudice against homeless people and the willingness to use police, courts, and the City Attorney to enact prejudicial policies and tactics."

So, what do you propose Bunny's do when 60 tickets don't work, but turn to the cops and courts? Maybe taking matters into her own hands would be more appropriate in your opinion? No, vigilante-ism is also frowned upon; that would be troll busting.

What would you suggest as an alternative recourse then? Bake them some cookies and ask them nicely, after they've already been told 60 times via tickets, to please stop breaking into my property and crapping on it?

Thank you for that most excellent post "As Usual".

This is exactly the sort of thing people are catching on to with HUFF.

The twisting and turning and shuffling and rewording and revisionism.

Becky has a history of saying one thing on one website and another thing on another website.

And in between are the real homeless people trying to better their circumstances. All while HUFF makes them look bad and tarnishes their image.

Thank you Shadow for correcting me, Mr. Norse has bought delicious vegan soup for one homeless person. I was also interested by the list of "accomplishments" by Mr. Norse/HUFF. Alot of those things seem to have been turned around, or come to nothing.

Well if I had the money Mr. Norse has, I would actually do some good with it instead of just whining all the time. Like maybe trying help the large majority of the homeless population kick their heroin and meth addictions. Or how about lobbying City council for increased control in the area of business selling alcohol to the downtown drunks.

But attempting to hurt the business of a store that contributes to the town is so much more important. They just don't want drug and alcohol addicts, who probably all have communicable diseases crapping and urinating in the area where their customers shop.

I must have my priorities skewed though, sorry

Well said Enigma,

I must say, i don't agree with you much but on the issue of lobbying city council to ban sale of alcohol to alcoholics and other ne'er do wells i whole heartedly agree...HUFF should be offering programs where addicts can kick their fatal addictions to alcohol, heroin, and crystal methamphetmine...where does HUFF stand on this issue? or does it have a stance? or do they want these poor addicts who have a disease not to be cured so they can continue to be "poster children" (Deleon, Richardson)....

I don't say it often and probably never will again to you, but Kudos.

Bobby Northern

See http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/08/06/18614270.php?show_comments=1#18617492 "In Response"

Or come on down tomorrow at noon to the sidewalk in front of Lulu Carpenter's where the Pledge Protest continues.

Robert, to be quite frank your posts are turning into an internet chat room version of dueling banjos.

Do you have to link one thread to another thread every time you make a comment?

"For more on this read what I just wrote over here........"

Being new to the Santa Cruz area, I must say I was quite surprised to see video footage of Mr. Norse using a Nazi salute. Is he antisemitic? This concerns me. Why would you use a salute from a political party that is responsible for the senseless murder of millions of Jews? How would that demonstrate your opposition to a certain situation? I'm very concerned that a person who aligns himself with the Nazi party, may not be the right person to campaign for anyone's rights.

So anyway I was bored with the non issue of who needs to sleep where. Seems to me that someone who uses a Nazi salute should not scream about the AMERICAN constitution, and how it applies to their agenda only.

Enigma

Robert says "Or come on down tomorrow at noon to the sidewalk in front of Lulu Carpenter's where the Pledge Protest continues."

Now THIS will be interesting.

That Lulu's guy will have no patience with this one.

I predict a stay away order or some kind of lawsuit on the horizon.

Imagine Robert and HUFF protesting a businessman who helped get a homeless man off the street and into housing.

The irony smells more foul then the Bonny Doon fire smoke.

Latest Protest Update: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/08/23/18618668.php