Becky Johnson won

[Danger Mouse]

Sum Dim wrote:

Becky on some forum, was commenting on how the defendants were "victimized" by this process. In fact, I think she suggested that the defendants were the "only" victims in all of this. Both her supporters and her detractors were commenting that this ruling was a "victory" for the accused, disagreeing on whether they were happy about that, or whether it made them wish to go throw themselves off the nearest bridge in despair.
I would put it to Becky and all the other participants in this process, on all sides, that the process itself, due process, specifically, has been the saving grace, and the affirmation that much is right in our world. The defendants were no more victims here than were the shareholders of Wells Fargo and whichever Berkshire Hathaway reinsurers actually pay to fix that building. Nor were they victims any more than the citizenry of Santa Cruz are when Robert Norse makes everyone waste $150,000 fighting silly lawsuits over perceived injustices that, as the courts ultimately rule, exist only in his rich imagination.
The defendants received due process in all it's glory. We should all thank our fellow citizens for the opportunity to live in a society where we can all receive a fair hearing.
In many places in the world, an Occupy movement couldn't happen, and people like Robert and Becky would be taken out back and summarily executed. Not only does that not happen in America, but they receive a fair shake every time they go to court. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. But every time, justice is served.
Let us all give thanks for that. And congratulate them on their acquittal today.

Best forum post in several years. Incoming "threat" response by fat unemployed cat feces covered methhead.

[Sum Dim]

I posted this response to Linda Lemaster's query about due process. I'll repost here, assuming the Indybay people can't deal with it, and delete it:

Linda, before I begin, I am Sum, of the Leicstershire branch of the Dim family, and not Dim, of the famous Sum family from Gangnam, South Korea.

No worries. It's a common mistake.

I'm not sure how, directly, to answer your question, but I get the impression that the thrust of your query is that you feel that the defendants didn't receive their fair share of justice; that is to say that they were owed more justice than they received.

As I indicated, I feel that this process has affirmed that much, but not all, is right in our society. One could quarrel over the imperfection of the system, and to what extent the quality of justice is strain'd. However, the fact that the system produced the result it did, does in itself give the lie to the popular refrain on this site that we are living in a police state, and that our civic leaders and judiciary are akin to Nazis and fascists. Can you recall a police state in which the police were told to stuff it, and the state's prosecutors were fined for failure to comply with an evidentiary process? Of course not. In a police state, justice would have been meted out at the point of a gun, within an hour or two of that OccuDome thing being erected.

So, while Robert and Becky have won this battle, in a sense, in so doing, they have lost the bigger argument, which is over their claim that the system is incapable of justice.

Stalin didn't allow people to wear bathrobes in his halls of government. Robert wouldn't make it very long in an actual Stalinist state. People have died on battlefields in faraway places so that people like he and Becky Johnson can behave the way they do. This is a noble and a necessary thing in the furtherance of freedom. This terrible price, and the other expenditures associated with the machinery of keeping a free society functioning freely, such as police and courts, prosecutors and public defenders, are what we accept as the price of our freedom. It's worth remembering that its isn't free. Quite conversely, it is extraordinarily dear. It's a pay-to-play system, and when one engages it in the manner of the Santa Cruz Eleven (or Seven, or Four...), then one must be prepared to also bear the costs of seeking justice.

So, I've no sympathy for the defendants here, but I also have no sympathy for the police or the prosecution, who were either wrong, or incompetent. The only person I feel sorry for is Burdick, who must've been really exasperated at this enormous waste of his time.

I'll say again though, that the winners here are all of us, and the prize is our imperfect freedoms, for which we should all give thanks.

[A Fan]

Bravo!

[The Original Donny B]

Becky Johnson wrote:

Thank-you, thank-you, thank-you. And I want to thank all the little people who pulled me through this difficult time. Now we must marshall our efforts to support the remaining 4 defendants. No one should ever have been charged with more than misdemeanor trespass.

"And I want to thank all the little people who pulled me through this difficult time."

Well that was very egotistical and condescending of you, BJ.

[The Original Donny B]

Sum Dim wrote:

I posted this response to Linda Lemaster's query about due process. I'll repost here, assuming the Indybay people can't deal with it, and delete it:
Linda, before I begin, I am Sum, of the Leicstershire branch of the Dim family, and not Dim, of the famous Sum family from Gangnam, South Korea.
No worries. It's a common mistake.
I'm not sure how, directly, to answer your question, but I get the impression that the thrust of your query is that you feel that the defendants didn't receive their fair share of justice; that is to say that they were owed more justice than they received.
As I indicated, I feel that this process has affirmed that much, but not all, is right in our society. One could quarrel over the imperfection of the system, and to what extent the quality of justice is strain'd. However, the fact that the system produced the result it did, does in itself give the lie to the popular refrain on this site that we are living in a police state, and that our civic leaders and judiciary are akin to Nazis and fascists. Can you recall a police state in which the police were told to stuff it, and the state's prosecutors were fined for failure to comply with an evidentiary process? Of course not. In a police state, justice would have been meted out at the point of a gun, within an hour or two of that OccuDome thing being erected.
So, while Robert and Becky have won this battle, in a sense, in so doing, they have lost the bigger argument, which is over their claim that the system is incapable of justice.
Stalin didn't allow people to wear bathrobes in his halls of government. Robert wouldn't make it very long in an actual Stalinist state. People have died on battlefields in faraway places so that people like he and Becky Johnson can behave the way they do. This is a noble and a necessary thing in the furtherance of freedom. This terrible price, and the other expenditures associated with the machinery of keeping a free society functioning freely, such as police and courts, prosecutors and public defenders, are what we accept as the price of our freedom. It's worth remembering that its isn't free. Quite conversely, it is extraordinarily dear. It's a pay-to-play system, and when one engages it in the manner of the Santa Cruz Eleven (or Seven, or Four...), then one must be prepared to also bear the costs of seeking justice.
So, I've no sympathy for the defendants here, but I also have no sympathy for the police or the prosecution, who were either wrong, or incompetent. The only person I feel sorry for is Burdick, who must've been really exasperated at this enormous waste of his time.
I'll say again though, that the winners here are all of us, and the prize is our imperfect freedoms, for which we should all give thanks.

Well said.

[just sayin]

Clark is a buffoon:

http://www.kionrightnow.com/story/20548286/po...

[The Original Buzz]

just sayin wrote:

Clark is a buffoon:
http://www.kionrightnow.com/story/20548286/po...

and Colby is an ass.

[A Fan]

just sayin wrote:

Clark is a buffoon:
http://www.kionrightnow.com/story/20548286/po...

Meth tweaker John back to spamming at 4 AM?

[Sum Dim]

A candidate for deletion on Indybay, so here goes

And you're missing the point that I'm repeatedly making, namely that the while the justice the defendants received may have been tempered by imperfection, and while the owners and insurers may have received the short end of the stick inasmuch as they will not be fully compensated for the damage to their property, justice was in fact served upon defendants and prosecutors alike. As a wise litigator once told me, the best outcome in litigation is when all parties walk away feeling like they got screwed. By that measure, this was a resounding success.

I'm not going to look at your reading list. I'll assume it essentially makes the argument that we're not as free as you feel we should be. I already heard you on that. I substantively disagree with you, although more freedom and less responsibility would indeed be nice. No one is owed that, however, if they choose to live in a society. So feel free to assign that homework to someone else.

We'll never agree, John, so I'll let it go with this one further comment: I do not begrudge folks for working the system - we all do it to a greater or lesser extent - but for someone who has collected a welfare check from the state for many years, it seems a bit thick to claim that the world you live in isn't free. It's hard to imagine anything freer.

[Becky Johnson]

So Now ADA Rebekah Young says the LAW was wrong? I'm sorry, but here are a number of issues that haven't come out on KSBW or in the SENTINEL.

Our trespass law, which is a misdemeanor, meaning immediate JAIL, is quite specific. It says that any private property owner who wishes the SCPD to remove trespassers from its property must have signs posted with the actual code section cited. I don't have a problem with that.

Wells Fargo had no such signs posted.

Our trespass law says that once posted, the property owner needs to have a letter of trespass on file at the police station. I don't have a problem with that.

Wells Fargo had no such letter on file.

Our trespass law says that police may not enter or direct people away from private property until they have direct instructions from those persons authorized to give them. I don't have a problem with that.

Wells Fargo took almost 24 hours to have the proper person (IF that ever happened. It wasn't clear during the hearing) make that request and to post the proper signage on the bldg.

Our trespass law says that once notified, a person will be charged with trespassing if they do not leave. None of the three whose charges were just dismissed had been notified it was trespassing, and once notified, had refused to leave. According to Officer Winston's testimony, Sgt. Harms gave the 1st verbal warning to leave "around 7:30PM" and "after dark." Those filmed coming and going into the building prior to dark on Nov. 30th simply can't be charged.

Deputy-Chief Steve Clark should know this. What he should be more concerned about is the absolutely sloppy police work that was done as part of this investigation and the lack of prep the officers underwent before testifying.

they couldn't even truthfully testify to what all saw on the SCPD video tape evidence submitted to the court by DA Young.

[DBS]

Becky Johnson wrote:

So Now ADA Rebekah Young says the LAW was wrong? I'm sorry, but here are a number of issues that haven't come out on KSBW or in the SENTINEL.
Our trespass law, which is a misdemeanor, meaning immediate JAIL, is quite specific. It says that any private property owner who wishes the SCPD to remove trespassers from its property must have signs posted with the actual code section cited. I don't have a problem with that.
Wells Fargo had no such signs posted.
Our trespass law says that once posted, the property owner needs to have a letter of trespass on file at the police station. I don't have a problem with that.
Wells Fargo had no such letter on file.
Our trespass law says that police may not enter or direct people away from private property until they have direct instructions from those persons authorized to give them. I don't have a problem with that.
Wells Fargo took almost 24 hours to have the proper person (IF that ever happened. It wasn't clear during the hearing) make that request and to post the proper signage on the bldg.
Our trespass law says that once notified, a person will be charged with trespassing if they do not leave. None of the three whose charges were just dismissed had been notified it was trespassing, and once notified, had refused to leave. According to Officer Winston's testimony, Sgt. Harms gave the 1st verbal warning to leave "around 7:30PM" and "after dark." Those filmed coming and going into the building prior to dark on Nov. 30th simply can't be charged.
Deputy-Chief Steve Clark should know this. What he should be more concerned about is the absolutely sloppy police work that was done as part of this investigation and the lack of prep the officers underwent before testifying.
they couldn't even truthfully testify to what all saw on the SCPD video tape evidence submitted to the court by DA Young.

Sure thing whackjob.

Maybe the SCPD Horses ate the "No Trespassing signs!!!

[not so fast]

Becky Johnson wrote:

Our trespass law, which is a misdemeanor, meaning immediate JAIL, is quite specific. It says that any private property owner who wishes the SCPD to remove trespassers from its property must have signs posted with the actual code section cited. I don't have a problem with that.
Wells Fargo had no such signs posted.

Just curious, but did you clearly post a "no pear in the tailpipe" sign on your private property...and file a "no pear..." letter with the SCPD when you were allegedly "vandalized"?

If not, then no law was broken and your property (car, in his case) was never legally violated.

[Johns Jewels]

not so fast wrote:

<quoted text>
Just curious, but did you clearly post a "no pear in the tailpipe" sign on your private property...and file a "no pear..." letter with the SCPD when you were allegedly "vandalized"?
If not, then no law was broken and your property (car, in his case) was never legally violated.

Old Colby loser would give his shriveled left nut to put his pear in her tailpipe.

[Becky Johnson]

Perhaps WELLS FARGO was vandalized by someone. But not by any of the defendants. Police did testify that Alcantara touched one of the surveillance cameras. However, no billing sheet itemizes fixing or replacing any damaged cameras so all police have is evidence he touched but did not break a security camera. I personally do not believe that Alcantara vandalized anything.

[Reality Check]

Becky Johnson wrote:

Perhaps WELLS FARGO was vandalized by someone. But not by any of the defendants. Police did testify that Alcantara touched one of the surveillance cameras. However, no billing sheet itemizes fixing or replacing any damaged cameras so all police have is evidence he touched but did not break a security camera. I personally do not believe that Alcantara vandalized anything.

So if I break into your house, and I invite 'friends' over who vandalize your house, and I pile your furniture up at the door so the police can't get in (and according to you, they can't come in unless you have 'no trespassing' signs and a letter on file) at the end of the day I walk away and say "too bad you owned a house". That's a great lesson, isn't it?

[DBS]

Becky Johnson wrote:

Perhaps WELLS FARGO was vandalized by someone. But not by any of the defendants. Police did testify that Alcantara touched one of the surveillance cameras. However, no billing sheet itemizes fixing or replacing any damaged cameras so all police have is evidence he touched but did not break a security camera. I personally do not believe that Alcantara vandalized anything.

Hey BJ, don't EVER wonder why an ever-increasing number of parents refuse to allow you to babysit their children's classroom.

[Becky Johnson]

REALITY CHECK WRITES: "So if I break into your house, and I invite 'friends' over who vandalize your house, and I pile your furniture up at the door so the police can't get in (and according to you, they can't come in unless you have 'no trespassing' signs and a letter on file) at the end of the day I walk away and say "too bad you owned a house". That's a great lesson, isn't it?"

BECKY: 75 River Street can in no way be equated with someone's private dwelling. It's an EMPTY BUILDING. Its right downtown and its been vacant over 4 years. The FACT that some people entered it (no forced entry) and turned it into a community center for 3 days does not teach anyone that its "too bad you owned a house." Only an IDIOT would think that. And you are not an idiot. My understanding of this action was to draw attention to the inequities that exist with Chase, B of A, and Wells Fargo banks, which rob us of vitality, our wages, and our property while the rich just get richer.

Why is Wells Fargo WHAREHOUSING that building? Google "Fractional Reserve Banking " for an answer to that question.

[Becky Johnson]

TO DBS: re: claims made in post #56: Name ONE parent. Just ONE.

[BJ caught lying]

Becky Johnson wrote:

TO DBS: re: claims made in post #56: Name ONE parent. Just ONE.

Me.

[Buzz]

Becky Johnson wrote:

TO DBS: re: claims made in post #56: Name ONE parent. Just ONE.

Why so you can harass him or her?