From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Appellate Hearing for Gary Johnson, Homeless Rights
Date:
Thursday, March 19, 2015
Time:
4:00 PM
-
4:30 PM
Event Type:
Court Date
Organizer/Author:
Ed Frey
Email:
Phone:
831-479-8911
Location Details:
Santa Cruz County Superior Court
701 Ocean Street
Santa Cruz, Ca 95060
701 Ocean Street
Santa Cruz, Ca 95060
This is the second Appellate Hearing for Gary Johnson, who got two years jail time for four nights sleeping in front of the courthouse. This time we will have three judges instead of two, after the Court of Appeal rejected the two-judge panel procedure. For further background go to FullSpectrumDemocracy.org. See esp. Appellant's Opening Brief.
For more information:
http://www.FullSpectrumDemocracy.org
Added to the calendar on Sun, Mar 15, 2015 6:47PM
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
The Santa Cruz Appellate hearing for the PeaceCamp2011/12 case will probably be another rubber stamp session. Ed talks, judges yawn, appeal denied. Then, if history repeats, the same thing happens at the 6th District California Appellate. Then, if history repeats, that's as far as it goes (just like the abandoned PeaceCamp2010 case).
The 3rd District California Appellate recently issued a negative opinion in Allen v. Sacramento (a similar case). Unless the Supreme Court of California (or perhaps the 9th Circuit United States Court of Appeals) is approached, the status of Allen v. Sacramento (nor PeaceCamp201*) will not change, and 647(e) will stand as the go to bludgeon for California municipalities that persecute the homeless 'legally'.
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=3&doc_id=2021295&doc_no=C071710
The abuse of 'rule of law' has not gone unnoticed. A recent report, associated with UC Berkeley and WRAP, surveyed the use of 647(e) and other ordinances that criminalize existence.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2558944
Meanwhile, back at California's legislative branch; SB-608 is a less ego-laden attempt to 'fix' 647(e).
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB608
While it is likely that bigots will push hard to stop SB-608, if it were to succeed the result would be the same as the judicial branch goal of PeaceCamp2010 (while the unjust law 647(e) would not be struck down, it would be modified, and would also acknowledge a persecuted class). If it fails, well, at least the exhaustion of redress will be more comprehensive.
The 3rd District California Appellate recently issued a negative opinion in Allen v. Sacramento (a similar case). Unless the Supreme Court of California (or perhaps the 9th Circuit United States Court of Appeals) is approached, the status of Allen v. Sacramento (nor PeaceCamp201*) will not change, and 647(e) will stand as the go to bludgeon for California municipalities that persecute the homeless 'legally'.
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=3&doc_id=2021295&doc_no=C071710
The abuse of 'rule of law' has not gone unnoticed. A recent report, associated with UC Berkeley and WRAP, surveyed the use of 647(e) and other ordinances that criminalize existence.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2558944
Meanwhile, back at California's legislative branch; SB-608 is a less ego-laden attempt to 'fix' 647(e).
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB608
While it is likely that bigots will push hard to stop SB-608, if it were to succeed the result would be the same as the judicial branch goal of PeaceCamp2010 (while the unjust law 647(e) would not be struck down, it would be modified, and would also acknowledge a persecuted class). If it fails, well, at least the exhaustion of redress will be more comprehensive.
For more information:
http://PeaceCamp2010insider.blogspot.com/
Attorney Osha Neumann in the "Hate Man" case has appealed the use of 647e to drive this long-time Berkeley activist out of People's Park during the day. According to Neumann, for the last decade or more, trial judges were throwing out the use of 647e locally in Berkeley--but a new judge is refusing to do so--hence the Writ.
Thanks to G. for the references.
Thanks to G. for the references.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network