Archive For Posts Censored By The Ind...

The Original Buzz

“The buck stops here!”

Since: Sep 12

Scotts Valley

#457 Jan 7, 2013
I just published the following on IndyBay at 4:27PM today:

"Why do you censor virtually all of the posts that don'y follow your party line? Is free speech only OK if your censors agree with it? Why the double standard?"

How long do you think those advocates of the 1st Amendment will allow it to remain?
Donny B

Falls Church, VA

#458 Jan 7, 2013
The Original Buzz wrote:
I just published the following on IndyBay at 4:27PM today:
"Why do you censor virtually all of the posts that don'y follow your party line? Is free speech only OK if your censors agree with it? Why the double standard?"
How long do you think those advocates of the 1st Amendment will allow it to remain?
Not long. If they did, they'd be in a position where they'd have to answer and they don't have one.
bump

Santa Cruz, CA

#459 Jan 7, 2013
DBS

Sunnyvale, CA

#460 Jan 7, 2013
I just witnessed SEVEN comments get deleted by the Indycrap manure-slingers, in the SC-11(7) thread. I hit my refresh button, and all the comments vanished.

They even learned how to reset the counter, so NOBODY will know that anything got censored!!!
shhhusssshhh

Santa Cruz, CA

#461 Jan 7, 2013
First rule of indybay censor is don't post about indybay censor!
Reality Check

Alameda, CA

#463 Jan 7, 2013
Bummer, I was out working, missed all the posting/censoring...

The Original Buzz

“The buck stops here!”

Since: Sep 12

Scotts Valley

#464 Jan 8, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
Bummer, I was out working, missed all the posting/censoring...
That's a problem John Colby has never had. In fact, IndyCrap thrives on the effluent emitting from John's computer. His parent's must have been prescient in their naming him, since he turned out to be a human toilet bowl!
DBS

Sunnyvale, CA

#465 Jan 8, 2013
DBS wrote:
I noticed that the censors on Indycrap aren't censoring while the SC 11 crackpots are in Court.
GENTLEMEN START YOUR HECKLING!!!!!!!
Here we go again!!!
DSB

Santa Cruz, CA

#466 Jan 8, 2013
Donny B wrote:
<quoted text>
I think NOT! I urge readers to flood the Pillsbury Doughboy (John Colby) with emails demanding that he stop making a nuisance of himself, get a job, and cease being a welfare parasite.
Becky Johnson.
DSB

Santa Cruz, CA

#467 Jan 8, 2013
DBS wrote:
<quoted text>
Here we go again!!!
Robert Norse.
DSB

Santa Cruz, CA

#468 Jan 8, 2013
The Original Buzz wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a problem John Colby has never had. In fact, IndyCrap thrives on the effluent emitting from John's computer. His parent's must have been prescient in their naming him, since he turned out to be a human toilet bowl!
Robert Norse Kahn?
DSB

Santa Cruz, CA

#469 Jan 8, 2013
DBS wrote:
<quoted text>
Here we go again!!!
The!
DSB

Santa Cruz, CA

#470 Jan 8, 2013
DBS wrote:
<quoted text>
Here we go again!!!
charges!
DSB

Santa Cruz, CA

#471 Jan 8, 2013
DBS wrote:
<quoted text>
Here we go again!!!
were!
DSB

Santa Cruz, CA

#472 Jan 8, 2013
DBS wrote:
<quoted text>
Here we go again!!!
dropped!
home video

Santa Cruz, CA

#473 Jan 8, 2013
Dropped like Pat from the HOME program list?
sum dim goes down

Santa Cruz, CA

#474 Jan 12, 2013
Right Back At Ya
by Sum Dim
Friday Jan 11th, 2013 1:21 PM

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 apparently 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.
Reality Check

Sunol, CA

#475 Jan 12, 2013
BURDICK AIDS AND ABETS AN ONGOING POLITICAL PROSECUTION
Burdick's theory was a strange one. He held that evidence that the four remaining defendants were guilty of misdemeanor"trespass after being warned to leave" (PC 602o) justified holding them for "felony vandalism".

This, even though no evidence was presented by the D.A. after 11 months that any of them vandalized.

Burdick claimed that it was a "natural and probable outcome" of four people who had allegedly been told to leave and then refused to do so. How so?

The argument, if you credit it at all, in this kind of peaceful First Amendment protest, goes better with the charge that Burdick dropped for all the defendants--602M, trespass to occupy. If proved, I suppose, it might by this tortured "aiding and abetting" argument link someone "occupying" with the damage done by someone else at some other time--since it was an "occupation". Burdick, however, dropped these charges.

But failure to leave at one point is clearly unrelated to vandalism committed by parties unknown sometime in the three day period.

As a spontaneous First Amendment demonstration, there might have been dozens of people willing to openly acknowledge and face "trespass" charges in court for a peaceful brief occupation of a 3 1/2 year vacant bank building as a matter of principle--however Bob Lee, burnishing his "law 'n order" image came back with these absurd felony conspiracy and vandalism charges. But the charges were unnecessary to begin with, because everyone left the building--peacefully.

The action, as I understood it, was taken to expose Wells Fargo and challenge the waste of vacant building space and need for a community center and homeless shelter here in Santa Cruz. These are simply facts which few dispute.

INFLATED CHARGES MARCH ON
But D.A. Lee inflated the charges with felony conspiracy and felony vandalism, presenting no evidence of either conspiracy or vandalism (by the people specifically charged). Some might suggest this shows shoddy police and D.A. work since police had the option to enter the bank and ID/detain/cite/arrest the people inside at any time during the three days. Particularly after the large crowd of people outside the bank on November 30th had dispersed. Or send in undercover cops to document the real perpetrators of vandalism.

Instead police chose to selectively target and then forward some of their least-favorite activists for prosecution to the D.A., ignoring numerous others, claiming they "couldn't identify" anyone else. And the D.A. chose to prosecute some of those least-favorite activists, ignoring some (including former Mayor Beiers whom the police had recommended for prosecution).

The whining and abusive accusations of Deputy-Chief Steve Clark denouncing Burdick seem an additional pit of clueless cacophony in this ongoing circus. Or a self-serving commotion to distract from his own department's bad decisions. See http://www.kionrightnow.com/story/20548286/po... .

Once set in motion, the prosecutorial juggernaut was supposed to roll on, I guess- regardless of how crappy Clark's SCPD work was. The whole scene gives the impression of a political prosecution arranged to save the face of the SCPD, assist in intimidating the (already dispersed) Occupy Santa Cruz movement, and provide a kind of "show trial" for political activists in the to show how "tough" on direct action First Amendment activity the SCPD and their pals in Bob Lee's office could be. Allcosting far far more than the supposed damages in the building.
Reality Check

Sunol, CA

#476 Jan 12, 2013
SCPD LOOKS FOR SCAPEGOATS FOR ITS OWN BAD CHOICES
At the time, I thought that Chief Vogel made a good decision not to continue the violent assault of the SCPD in front of the building which they began (and were ready to reinforce with chemical weaponry, according to court testimony). However those who cooperated with the SCPD to help a "peaceful exit", were ultimately punished for their good deeds and face prison time now. Even though the actual evidence presented by police and prosecution do not add up to the elements of the two crimes--something that will hopefully be shown at trial if these charges survive a Motion to Dismiss, coming up after the Arraignments later this month.

Finally, Bob Lee assigns one inexperienced relatively clueless assistant D.A. to face eleven defense lawyers. Given that she got endless support from judges along the way, who ok-ed time and time again on her failure to provide requested evidence, perhaps D.A. Bob Lee felt she didn't need additional help. But if he were really serious, I'd have thought he'd provided her with additional back-up once her cases were dismissed one after another.

The fact that he did not further indicates this is some kind of token effort, perhaps undertaken out of concern for impoverished banksters in town? Or done to appease rising right-wing forces before the November election? Who knows?

THE REAL ISSUES
All charges needed to be dropped. Real sanctions not just token ones need to be pressed against Rebekah Young, even if that means formal complaints to the Bar Association with real consequences. Civil lawsuits need to be filed against the authorities who masterminded this life-consuming ordeal of the last year. New standards for police and prosecutorial behavior need to be established to restore the First Amendment here in Santa Cruz and lift the fear that has hovered over the activist community.

Empty buildings are the crime. Freezing weather is the reality. Foreclosure is the continuing threat. And the real criminals are at large and in power.
Reality Check

Sunol, CA

#477 Jan 12, 2013
Left the courtroom after hearing Honorable Judge Paul Burdick's terms and decisions for the coming Trial, thinking about the "sanctions" Burdick imposed on assistant D A Rebecca Young's "quality of work", especially regarding disclosure of evidence, to Indictees and their legal counsel.

The judge said it's important that the amount be modest so as not to trigger a California Bar Assn or state 'trigger' with misconduct charges against Young a possibility. So he decreed $500+ to go to the court clerk's department. As defendant Becky Johnson noted after court, "No wonder, the recording clerks are working on seven cases at once!"

So goes the Empire in the hologram of Usury.

Compassionate Judge Burdick? Or perhaps attempting even-handedness? At any rate, Burdick went on to note how rarely a judge actually invokes Ssnction orders. Culminating with, "In fact I have never done this before." Then Judge Burdick seemed to reassert the authority of his own Black Robes and the real moment we all shared in his courtroom, and promised the trial would be fast and on track.

I believe that the sanctions are even more significant as part of the Santa Cruz Eleven story BECAUSE the judge was bent on keeping his "punishment" or fine with the confines of the pretrial. I lately consider what we've learned of impacts between Homeland Security, the FBI and Wall Street money crooks amplifying some sort of Shadow Government running amok. So it is refreshing to see this judge reassert his authority. I wish him the luck of Solomon.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Soquel Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Soquel mass murderer John Linley Frazier will a... (Nov '08) May 9 cid2357 24
Review: Raintree Apartments (Nov '17) Apr 30 Joel 20
News Suspect in Soquel murder makes first court appe... (Aug '10) Jun '17 831caligurl 46
News The Habit Burger Grill coming to Santa Cruz (Aug '16) Aug '16 agitated and anxious 2
News Adobe Animal Hospital, hit by recession, to clo... (Feb '10) May '16 ella seneres 92
News Santa Cruz rings in year with 28 arrests, 53 ci... (Jan '16) Jan '16 nanana 4
honeless in santa cruz (Nov '15) Nov '15 JC Sux 6

Soquel Jobs

Personal Finance

Soquel Mortgages