Banksters can rob you blind, illegally foreclose on mortgages, launder drugs money, rig the markets, all with impunity because they are too big to fail and too big to jail but....
A guy protests by chalking on the pavement!!!!!
The shock and horror of it... how dare he, the peasant...
(BTW, The conspiracy is that you are losing your Constitutional rights to the Banksters... I know... unbelievable isn't it)
The judge overseeing the case of a San Diego resident who is going to trial for “vandalizing” around Bank of America properties has thrown out the accused’s invocation of the first amendment. Jeff Olson, 40, is looking at 13 years in prison on top of tens of thousands of dollars in restitution.
Olson was arrested and charged with 13 counts of vandalism because he wrote anti-bank slogans near Bank of America branches with water-soluble sidewalk chalk, the stuff kids use to write on driveways. Sidewalk chalk could easily vanish amid a light rain, yet, Bank of America saw fit to pursue filing charges against a protester trying to persuade people to move their assets from Bank of America to locally-owned credit unions.
Is he looking at 13 years or is that sensationalist reporting?
Concerned with the media's coverage of the trial of Jeff Olson, a 40-year-old man facing charges over anti-bank messages written in washable chalk on city sidewalks, San Diego Judge Howard Shore issued a gag order Thursday prohibiting him and others involved in the case from speaking to the press.
Gag orders are rarely issued during misdemeanor trials, but Dorian Hargrove of the San Diego Reader reported that Shore was unhappy with reports that mentioned the fact that Olson could face a total of up to 13 years in prison or a $13,000 penalty for the vandalism charges. "It's not going to happen and I would be surprised if it ever happened to any defendant with no criminal record," Shore declared Thursday.
The response from the San Diego City Attorney's office seems quite reasonable:
1. This is a graffiti case where the defendant is alleged to have engaged in the conduct on 13 different occasions. The trial judge has already held that, under California law, it is still graffiti even if the material can be removed with water. Most graffiti can be removed. Also, the judge and a different pre-trial judge held that the First Amendment is not a defense to vandalism/graffiti.
2. The defense is trying to make this case into a political statement, which it is not. This is just one of some 20,000 criminal cases that are referred to us annually by the police department. We have prosecutors who decide whether to issue cases. They are professionals. The City Attorney was not involved in deciding whether to issue this case as is typical practice in prosecution offices for most cases. He hadn't heard of this case until it was in the media.
3. The defense is whipping up hysteria about the prospect of 13 years in custody. This is not a 13 year custody case. It is a standard graffiti case compounded by the fact that the defendant is alleged to have done it on 13 separate occasions. Because there were 13 different occasions when the defendant allegedly engaged in the conduct, the law requires them to be set out separately in the complaint. This increases the maximum sentence, but it still is a graffiti case and nothing more. The courts routinely hear graffiti cases and handle them appropriately using judicial discretion.
4. It is not unusual for victims to contact police or prosecutors about a case. Our prosecutors are trained to focus only on their ethical standards in deciding whether to file a case.
5. We prosecute vandalism and theft cases regardless of who the perpetrator or victim might be. We don't decide, for example, based upon whether we like or dislike banks. That would be wrong under the law and such a practice by law enforcement would change our society in very damaging ways.
Banksters can rob you blind, illegally foreclose on mortgages, launder drugs money, rig the markets, all with impunity because they are too big to fail and too big to jail but....
A guy protests by chalking on the pavement!!!!!
The shock and horror of it... how dare he, the peasant..
A Huffington post article claims a bank official pressured city attorneys to file charges against Olson. Why didn't the bank press charges directly?
Olson's chalk drawings seem to have been made on public sidewalks and not on bank property. If that's the case, then the vandalism Olson committed was against the city and not the bank. It's the city that is pressing charges, is it not? How can any of this be considered a loss of constitutional rights to banksters? Never mind that graffiti is not protected by the first amendment - as has already been mentioned.
A Huffington post article claims a bank official pressured city attorneys to file charges against Olson. Why didn't the bank press charges directly?
Olson's chalk drawings seem to have been made on public sidewalks and not on bank property. If that's the case, then the vandalism Olson committed was against the city and not the bank. It's the city that is pressing charges, is it not? How can any of this be considered a loss of constitutional rights to banksters? Never mind that graffiti is not protected by the first amendment - as has already been mentioned.
Maybe the prosecution was brought for political purposes, maybe it wasn't. I am a natural born cynic but even I know that a case, once brought, is tried on points of law. A judge has not allowed a defence on a point of law it really is that simple. A harsh sentence would show politcal
motivation if found guilty though. It a case of suck it and see when the trial ends.
The response from the San Diego City Attorney's office seems quite reasonable:
1. This is a graffiti case where the defendant is alleged to have engaged in the conduct on 13 different occasions. The trial judge has already held that, under California law, it is still graffiti even if the material can be removed with water. Most graffiti can be removed. Also, the judge and a different pre-trial judge held that the First Amendment is not a defense to vandalism/graffiti.
2. The defense is trying to make this case into a political statement, which it is not. This is just one of some 20,000 criminal cases that are referred to us annually by the police department. We have prosecutors who decide whether to issue cases. They are professionals. The City Attorney was not involved in deciding whether to issue this case as is typical practice in prosecution offices for most cases. He hadn't heard of this case until it was in the media.
3. The defense is whipping up hysteria about the prospect of 13 years in custody. This is not a 13 year custody case. It is a standard graffiti case compounded by the fact that the defendant is alleged to have done it on 13 separate occasions. Because there were 13 different occasions when the defendant allegedly engaged in the conduct, the law requires them to be set out separately in the complaint. This increases the maximum sentence, but it still is a graffiti case and nothing more. The courts routinely hear graffiti cases and handle them appropriately using judicial discretion.
4. It is not unusual for victims to contact police or prosecutors about a case. Our prosecutors are trained to focus only on their ethical standards in deciding whether to file a case.
5. We prosecute vandalism and theft cases regardless of who the perpetrator or victim might be. We don't decide, for example, based upon whether we like or dislike banks. That would be wrong under the law and such a practice by law enforcement would change our society in very damaging ways.
Did the judge cite the Californian law that it was still graffiti even if it can be removed with water?
Of those 20,000 criminal cases, how many are for chalk graffiti?
The bank is not a victim of the graffiti as it was not on their property.
Why doesn't the bank sue for slander?
The vice chairman of the bank pressured for this prosecution, it would not have happened without.
Writing is speech. The bank is taking away the freedom of speech.
This is giant corporate power muzzling dissent against their insatiable criminality and gluttony. It is politics at it's worst. It is totalitarianism.
The banks have their own police forces.
The banks do what they want, they run the world because they make the laws by holding the sword of Damocles over the politicians, this is minor evidence.
This is what he wrote:
"I wrote, 'No thanks big banks.' I wrote, 'Shame on Bank of America,'" he told San Diego CBS television affiliate KFMB-TV. He told another local station, ABC affiliate KGTV: "If I had drawn a little girl's hopscotch squares on the street, we wouldn't be here today."
Looks like the riot police will be out smashing people with their truncheons and pepper spray. Can't use the water cannon though because it will destroy the evidence.
Still, it's more for money for the private prisons and good for the war effort what with all the helmets and stuff they will have to make for $1 a day.
I suppose if they fine them as well they can keep them inside for life as they will never be able to pay the fine and will be sent back to prison again. They really got it sorted.
NYC only brought in new laws a year ago so that's handy.
New York City councillor Peter Vallone - who sponsored New York City's new law - and Felix, a member of the Berlin-based reclaimyourcity.net - which documents "artistic intervention in modern cities" - argue for and against graffiti.
The trial, stated the judge, should only focus on whether or not Olson is guilty of vandalism and not what his motivations behind the vandalism were. Shore cited the case, Mackinney v. Nielsen 69 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir.1995), where a man was acquitted after a court ruled that use of chalk was not considered vandalism. The law was later changed to define vandalism as defacement "with graffiti or other inscribed material."
Some of the points he makes are pretty good but IMO the delivery is too ott and detracts from the message.
They are not unpopular in the main, which is their saving grace IMO. I think the Monarchy will fall when the Queen goes as I think she has singlehandedly kept it going for decades but I could be wrong.
I know you already know about the woman who was declared a1 fit for work even though she had terminal cancer and died a few days after losing her appeal but I'll include a link for those who haven't heard about it and perhaps someone may want to debunk it, justify it or suggest that we should get unfair laws changed or something equally helpful like that.
Sure, an argument can be made for either case, but without evidence, who knows?
It sounds like the city went ahead with charges because the guy did this over 13 times, perhaps they felt inclined to act. If somebody was writing disparaging remarks against me on the sidewalk in front of my house, I too would pressure authorities to make it stop. Having said that, I feel compelling the city to legal action against a chalk drawing dude is an ill-suited response for an institution like the Bank of America to have committed.
On a side note, I still don't see how any of this demonstartes the erosion of first amendment rights by banksters.
Because it's not. It doesn't matter what was wrote or who called it in. It is against the law to write on the sidewalk (public property) with chalk without prior permission apparently. First Amendment doesn't give anyone the right to write on public property, in California it's water soluble or not. If someone complains about it and it doesn't rain, that means someone has to come out and wash it off. That cost money. If he wanted to make a legal statement, he should have wrote on his own property, like a car and then park it on the city street in front of the bank.
Because it's not. It doesn't matter what was wrote or who called it in. It is against the law to write on the sidewalk (public property) with chalk without prior permission apparently. First Amendment doesn't give anyone the right to write on public property, in California it's water soluble or not. If someone complains about it and it doesn't rain, that means someone has to come out and wash it off. That cost money. If he wanted to make a legal statement, he should have wrote on his own property, like a car and then park it on the city street in front of the bank.
This is by no means a cut and dried issue as the following articles attest.
But the fact is, it wasn't that he chalked on the pavement that was the problem... (as he said if he had drawn hopscotch on the pavement there would be no problem), it is about 'what he wrote' and that goes to freedom of speech AFAIAC.
You cite that it costs money to wash it off.... How much do you think these arrests and court cases cost?
The bank doesn't have to guarantee anyone's First Amendment rights. They can report the crime simply because they don't agree with what was written. The court isn't charging him with what he wrote but where and with what.
I think it will be thousands. The guy is I think, homeless... (probably why he doesn't like the bank), I expect he will be too poor to pay. What happens to people who are too poor to pay fines in America, they get sent to prison. When they come out ... the fine is still payable and probably has extra costs so they get sent back to prison and so begins a nice little lucrative merry go round.
I guess you support that as well... It is the law after all and everyone must obey the letter of the law without question must they not?
If you want to be mad that writing on the sidewalk with chalk is a crime then go with it. If someone wrote a hopscotch on the sidewalk and no one reports it then that is peoples right to ignore it. If someone sees something they don't agree with and they report it that is also their right.
It's one of those issues where debate exists because it's on the line.
If he did the drawing with a paint can, then nobody would be at all surprised or outraged that he got charged with vandalism. But he did it with chalk, which is easier to remove but does not go away by itself. So it kind of straddles the line of being graffiti. The line is blurred by it being (generally) acceptable for kids to calk the sidewalk (although I'd imagine there would be several people who feel otherwise).
Why would the free speech implications differ based on chalk vs. paint? This isn't about free speech, it's about vandalism, and deciding if it crosses the line.
In an interesting twist, a San Diego resident claims the city did not prosecute an individual who chalked a local elementary school with Nazi graffiti because his actions were protected by the first amendment.
The attorney's office claims to have no record of the case.
The Criminal Division of the City Attorney’s Office reviews cases submitted by law enforcement agencies. After a search of the City Attorney case management system for any cases submitted to our office for review involving swastikas since 2010, 7 were submitted to our office. All Defendants in those cases were charged with vandalism, in addition to other appropriate charges, and all cases resulted in a criminal conviction. None involved McKinleyElementary School.
Win or lose, San Diego is not alone in bringing graffiti cases against those who use chalk rather than a can of spray paint.
In an August 2012 report, Mother Jones magazine found that more than 50 people in 17 U.S. cities have been tagged by authorities for chalk drawings. The report cited cases in San Francisco, Denver, New York and Manchester, N.H.
Some of the points he makes are pretty good but IMO the delivery is too ott and detracts from the message.
They are not unpopular in the main, which is their saving grace IMO. I think the Monarchy will fall when the Queen goes as I think she has singlehandedly kept it going for decades but I could be wrong.
I know you already know about the woman who was declared a1 fit for work even though she had terminal cancer and died a few days after losing her appeal but I'll include a link for those who haven't heard about it and perhaps someone may want to debunk it, justify it or suggest that we should get unfair laws changed or something equally helpful like that.
Aye - ott he is, but that's his schtick; and it is feckin' funny! He's just recovered from cancer himself, and to celebrate, crawling on all fours and with his nose, he pushed a ball four miles from Camberwell to Westminster to protest the brutal cutting and privatising of the nhs. He's a good egg, Mark.
Isn't it funny, O (but not surprising) that the 'goodthinkers' here come out in favour of the establishment and against a harmless protestor? And now comes the gag order! Who said Americans don't do irony? Gagged over the discussion that this case might have implications for free speech! Good one. It's clearly political, and all these arguments based on 'ifs and buts' about how many years/how much the fine etc. are irrelevant - the threat is there - and, ofcourse, it's there to be seen. Don't want any old pleb getting ideas about dissent, do we? And the US judiciary isn't exactly noted for its fairness, is it now.
It's the same 'goodthinking' here as the 'if-you've got-nothing-to-hide-you've-go-nothing-to-fear' dingle brains. Just establishment anti-thought parrotted by the faithful, unable to even tolerate discussion outside the confines of what is considered 'acceptable'. Cue name calling and more 'goodthinking'. Plenty of examples of this in the UK, too - behold the D-Notice slapped on the UK media over Ed Snowden and the NSA GCHQ revelations; not that the UK media needs much encouragement to gag itself - they do a pretty good job on their own most of the time.
Anyway, O - on a lighter note, I see that ATOS has declared Margaret Thatcher fit for work. Which'll be a relief for all those down below - they've laid off twenty thousand demons and shut down 300 furnaces since she arrived. Bet they can't wait to pack her off to Tesco for a shelf-stacking job (unpaid, ofcourse - it's just 'work experience'). Ding Dong!
This illustrates quite well what I was saying. There are no 'lines', either real or imagined. It's obviously harmless protest - no person or animal got hurt; no property was damaged. That's not vandalism - and vandalism shouldn't be conflated with 'free speech', either.
Some of the points he makes are pretty good but IMO the delivery is too ott and detracts from the message.
They are not unpopular in the main, which is their saving grace IMO. I think the Monarchy will fall when the Queen goes as I think she has singlehandedly kept it going for decades but I could be wrong.
I know you already know about the woman who was declared a1 fit for work even though she had terminal cancer and died a few days after losing her appeal but I'll include a link for those who haven't heard about it and perhaps someone may want to debunk it, justify it or suggest that we should get unfair laws changed or something equally helpful like that.
I think you are wide of the mark with the monarchy. Don't confuse apathy for unpopularity. They have a few tests to come in the next year or 2, the Scottish referendum, Philip dying and then possibly the Queen herself. Their PR is in full force with a new and contemporary monarchy and I highly doubt Parliament have the will to get rid of them. I don't expect it will happen in ny lifetime.
"To obtain a conviction the prosecution must ordinarily prove that the accused damaged or destroyed some property, that the property did not belong to the accused, and that the accused acted willfully and with malice."
Damage does not need to be permanent, if vandals were to write with chalk on your home or car, that would be vandalism. Toilet papering or egging a house is vandalism. Usually if that only happened a single time, people would clean it up and move on with life, but if it happens repeatedly, wouldn't most people seek legal means to get them to stop?
This may have been harmless but what if we allowed this behavior? Do you not think that allowing people to write anything they wish on public property could lead to something harmful? Do we allow gang members to tag the sidewalks with chalk? This is a territory thing and could lead to gang violence. Do we allow someone to write "go home" in front of an immigrant owned business? This could lead to violence. Unless someone can prove the court is prosecuting on the content of the graffiti then there is no free speech case. A privately owned business, or American citizens, do not need to uphold anyone else's free speech. If someone wanted to call in a kid writing on the sidewalk with chalk that would be F'ed up but it would be within their right, just as it is to ignore it or to call in chalk writing because they don't agree with the statement.
What if, if, if....What if you keep conflating free speech with criminal damage? What if a stoat and a weasel knocked on your front door - would you be able to tell them apart?
What if, if, if....What if you keep conflating free speech with criminal damage? What if a stoat and a weasel knocked on your front door - would you be able to tell them apart?
This may have been harmless but what if we allowed this behavior? Do you not think that allowing people to write anything they wish on public property could lead to something harmful? Do we allow gang members to tag the sidewalks with chalk? This is a territory thing and could lead to gang violence. Do we allow someone to write "go home" in front of an immigrant owned business? This could lead to violence. Unless someone can prove the court is prosecuting on the content of the graffiti then there is no free speech case. A privately owned business, or American citizens, do not need to uphold anyone else's free speech. If someone wanted to call in a kid writing on the sidewalk with chalk that would be F'ed up but it would be within their right, just as it is to ignore it or to call in chalk writing because they don't agree with the statement.
More 'goodthinking'. You seem overly concerned with the 'rights' of people who want to complain, but not of the right of a (by all accounts) disenfranchised man armed with a piece of chalk to write non-offensive protest messages on a pavement. Some common sense required here. Spending thousands and thousands on prosecuting such a citizen? Leave the argumentum ad metum at home, mate; that sort of thing doesn't wash here.
I'm all for free speech, but writing it on public property I am not. Like I suggested he should write on his own property and park it or sit out in front of the bank to protest. Since when does free speech give anyone the right to break a law? Unfortunately this sort of thing is against the law so the content of the graffiti is not the issue in the eyes of the court.
At the end of the day given that this is a jury trial I guess it will be the people that determine what is or is not acceptable. There have been a few similar cases in the UK but they appear to get dropped by the CPS when it gets to the magistrates.
More 'goodthinking'. You seem overly concerned with the 'rights' of people who want to complain, but not of the right of a (by all accounts) disenfranchised man armed with a piece of chalk to write non-offensive protest messages on a pavement. Some common sense required here. Spending thousands and thousands on prosecuting such a citizen? Leave the argumentum ad metum at home, mate; that sort of thing doesn't wash here.
Where is the real cost in prosecuting anyone? Given that prosecutors, investigators and courts are public funded the people involved would still get paid anyway. The money would still be taken from the public purse irrespective.
Where is the real cost in prosecuting anyone? Given that prosecutors, investigators and courts are public funded the people involved would still get paid anyway. The money would still be taken from the public purse irrespective.
I take it he is not denying he committed the crime? He is just fighting that the bank called it in because of the content of the writing and this violates his free speech right? Or is he claiming that the court doesn't or hasn't prosecuted any other forms of chalk "art"? This guy has no criminal back ground, he probably would have just gotten probation, pay some fines and do community service if he had any understanding of who has to up hold his rights and who doesn't.
Where did I say what was 'acceptable'? And how could something I didn't say be prefaced with 'still'? Did you read what I wrote? It surely can't be that hard to distinguish between 'free speech' and 'criminal damage', can it? I'm not interested in all these ifs, buts and maybes - I think it's wrong to prosecute; I think it's a sledgehammer to crack a peanut; I think it's political (obviously); I think people might just come out and say whether they think this guy should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law over this - let's see the cards - it seems the answer is yes - but maybe it's just because you all like to argue over every blade of grass. It seems a matter of common sense and common decency; something a bit thin on the ground these days.
Of course free speech can have consequences in certain situations such as shouting fire in a crowded theater, verbal abuse, slander or making threats to harm somebody.
In most cities and towns, residential and commercial property owners are responsible for the upkeep of public sidewalks adjacent to their property such as clearing off snow and ice. In the case of graffiti on the sidewalk, the property owner would be responsible for cleaning it off, which costs time and/or money. Since a bank is not in the business of cleaning sidewalks, they would probably have to hire somebody to pressure wash the sidewalk, especially considering the lack of rain in San Diego. Regardless of ones opinion of banks, anybody has the right to press for charges if they incurred costs due to vandalism.
I agree with the message, but I also think that it can be construed as vandalism.
There are over 5,000 miles of sidewalk in the City of San Diego. The City is responsible for the maintenance of sidewalk damage caused by vehicle accidents, water main breaks, grade subsidence and trees within the Right-of-Way. Normal sidewalk wear and tear or age damage is the responsibility of the homeowner who can take advantage of the City's 50/50 Cost Sharing Program to help offset the cost of repairs.
