Homeless Couple victorious against contempt charges

I went to the Hearing Friday, watching the City Sttorney's efforts to ostracise, fine and jail two homeless defendants. I had not anticipated becoming a witness in the hearing, it just came up, and Anna's attorney Jonathan Gettleman seemed to believe it proved helpful But this comment is about what I saw during those proceedings.

I noticed who the several interested citizens were, who felt so at home in the courtroom, they went to the bar and chatted up City Attorney Barisone befoe and during court proceedings. So the extreme-fear-factor, legally hollow, bias of daily print news was not as much of a shock as it might have otherwise been. More importantly, I listened to the chatting and reactions and opinions of many people who attended or observed Honorable Volkmann's hearing. Many were saying, "What's wrong with the City Attorney? Doesn't he have any common sense?" and similarly. The story by Robert Norse elaborates on Barisone's performance in this vein.

I want to add another interpretation: Barisone works for the City of Santa Cruz: true he's always offering them advice and trying to answer Council's questions in formal settings, but I believe in THIS instance, he was under specific direction to aggressively grab the "grey areas" of 'part c' - camping section of City of Santa Cruz' anti-sleeping ordinance. Grey at least in the sense of not yet argued and poked at in court. More abstractly, a grey area because any daytime utilization of the camping ban before was virtually an invalid citation, apparently used seldom -- and those times, usually by mistake.

I can imagine maybe some zealot within City agency felt they could trip up the perceived "mess" downtown, create scapegoats, and pave the way for future manipulations all at once. I say 'zealot' because it is hard for me to believe that anyone who has been watching the local deification and transubstantiation of "the sleeping ban" by all involved would NEVER DREAM they could just snow some judge and slip past the whole antagonized wings of local folks? Not Gonna Happen.

Somebodies, in my scenario, used up a whole shitload of energy to put City Attorney between a rock and a hard place, in hopes of the very long shot of getting an illiterate or senile judge at that hearing. They have amazingly linked 'stacks of stuff' with the legally unrelated camping ban, instead of with both property/ownership laws and public health and safety code. The strange yoke says much, to me. Maybe we're looking at the wrong end of the stick?

The City had already attempted to expand an injunction against their two targets informally (even perhaps discretely, but as that was not the "point" of hearing, we shall never know) and so now is seems Barisone gets all the hisses that need to be addressed to the Council and their police department. And to the larger community moreso.

For it will not be an indentured attorney firm that brings this monster-law into the realm of either jurisprudence or the cirtcular bin. It will be real people who want to try working together, solving puzzles together, learning about capacity building together, and protecting each other from the elements and harmful others. Our world is big enough to include everyone here, our way of seeing it, tending it, needs to grow.

Check out the actual words of the city's anti-sleep ordinance if this seems jabberwocky stuff?
Tell me, is mine a paranoid dream, or an important angle?
LEL for Housing NOW! in Santa Cruz

I'm not sure that Anna and Miguel can actually call this a victory. The truth is they slid by on a technicality. If the third officer had been there to offer his testimony, for a ticket that actually was issued during the "no camping" time period, this would have ended up with a very different conclusion. Don't get me wrong, I'm not making excuses. But if this is going to be reported on truthfully the testimony of that third officer needs to be addressed. What if he had been there? Would Gettleman and Briscoe have been able to make their case. Probably not.

Someone needs to help this pair get off the streets. The longer they are out there the more likely it is that they will be given another ticket that may get them into trouble. Surely there has to be someone that can help these two. After reading The Sentinel story, and going through the comments, it's obvious Becky Johnson won't do it because of her housemates bigoted attitude towards homeless folks. Robert is rather silent on the subject. Isn't it in the pair's best interest to get them a private place where they won't be hassled by the police? At least until their injunction hearing. With all the people sitting on the sidelines watching this story I can't believe no one is offering any real assistance to help them out. One more ticket and these folks may end up in jail. And is that something anyone really wants to see?

You must be new to town...

First, Robert never accurately "reports" anything. He uses extreme bias, careful "editing", and outright lies to make his case. Sometimes it is just overzealousness (as when he claimed to have "won" against the city in his Nazi salute case), but most of the time it's a purposeful act. Calling he and Becky out on it never seems to actually change the situation.

Second, Robert and Becky don't have the best interests of homeless people in mind. They never have. They would rather have folks like Anna and Miguel facing arrest repeatedly so that they have a place to hang their banners. As you point out, if they truly wanted to help this couple (who, by the way, have been offered shelter in the past but refused it because it didn't suit them) they would put them up in a hotel or let them crash on their lawn or anything.

Just like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck secretly wanted healthcare reform to pass so that they would have an issue to rail against and gain ratings for a few years, HUFF and its two members really don't want to solve the homelessness issue in Santa Cruz. What would they do then? Actual jobs?

STEVE REICHARDT WRITES: "I'm not sure that Anna and Miguel can actually call this a victory. The truth is they slid by on a technicality. If the third officer had been there to offer his testimony, for a ticket that actually was issued during the "no camping" time period, this would have ended up with a very different conclusion."

BECKY: And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. BARISONE lost! And he lost big. And it was hardly a "technicality." He wasn't able to get a guilty verdict on either of his section "c" citations. Both officers testified that they didn't have a clue what section "b" of the camping ordinance says or when to cite someone for it. Neither officer could persuasively explain what constitutes "camping". They just asserted that it "was obvious." Neither officer could persuasively explain why they KNEW IN ADVANCE that ANNA and MIGUEL would move before the night was over. What are they, psychics? As Judge Volkmann said, the City didn't prove its case.

Your pinning your hopes on the final ticket---an actual 11PM - 8:30 AM citation---when BARISONE won in court the ruling that the injunction as written DOES include section "c" tickets---is just dumb hope. Since no shelter was available at the time for MIGUEL (ANNA likely would have been given shelter as a single woman), he likely could have gotten an acquittal on that one as well since he could have invoked the necessity defense.

BARISONE lost and lost big (if you don't count all the money he and his staff will still net from the effort). The SENTINEL title to the article was really a mis-nomer and an attempt to soften BARISONE's big loss.

...those two own horses?!

What do you mean by "Your pinning your hopes on the final ticket"?? Did you not read at the end where I said I didn't want to see these two end up in prison? But of course, if anyone dare bring up something you don't want to consider you attack them and attempt to paint them in a bad light.

This couple needs to get off the street, FAST. The longer they are out there the longer they are in danger of receiving another ticket that might land them in some serious trouble. Not to mention the health risks they are looking at. But, of course, Becky does not want to do that. I am starting to agree with people making comments such the above post. Why should Becky and Robert get these people off the street when there is so much attention and personal glory to be gained for themselves? If something happens to this couple Becky and Robert can stride in and give the impression of helping them. But the truth is they are doing nothing for them. Becky has so far refused to even let them sleep in her backyard!! She says an anonymous housemate (aka landlord) won't let her do it. She should be ashamed to live in such a household. Paying money to rich people that are bigoted bullies against the homeless is unconscionable.