.
.
.
I’ve been on Occupy Irvine’s Civic Liaison and Legal Committees for more than a week now, during which I have had substantial interactions with representatives of Irvine’s Police and City Government. I like them. They are just doing the job assigned by their bosses, who in turn are just expressing the preferences of the voters, which is that no one be allowed to “camp” — now defined to include any form of unauthorized sleeping — overnight on Irvine public property. This includes its sidewalks. I and others have speculated that this might have to do with the fact that this lovely planned community suffers from virulent “homelessphobia.” The City is straightforward about its desire not to create “bad precedents” (aka, from my pespective, “good precedents”) that could lead others, like the you-know-what-less, to follow suit.
This disorderly conduct, arguably more serious than even sleeping on a sidewalk, did not occur in Irvine. Proof: people were celebrating a victory by a local professional football team.
I’ve been championing a “cooperate for as long as possible” policy among the demonstrators, partly because I think that it is generally an effective tactic where doing so is bearable — and note that it is becoming less bearable — and partly because I think it’s echt Irvine. (Echt: “real, authentic, genuine.” Keep reading Orange Juice Blog to see more cool words.) As I’ve put it to the General Assembly, “planning is in Irvine’s DNA.” We’re here to be good neighbors and to help awaken the City and coastal OC generally from the misconception that the destruction of the middle class and brazen looting of the commonweal has no more to do with the lives of the Gold Coasters than do the latest Rugby World Cup scores. (At the 57 minute mark, Australia 13, Wales 8.) That means that we want to do things the Irvine way, if possible.
As the City is currently not budging an inch on its bright line against what it calls “camping,” “if possible” is seeming more iffy and less possible. But that’s (mostly) another story.
What interested me just now is running into a story on Alternet entitled “The 12 most absurd laws used to stifle the Occupy Wall Street movement around the country,” available here http://www.alternet.org/story/152743/12_most_absurd_laws_used_to_stifle_the_occupy_wall_st._movement_around_the_country?page=entire, which provided a veritable checklist of the laws that are being used to block occupations. I wanted to see which of them — from a list published the day before the Irvine occupation — applied to Occupy Irvine.
I found that I could identify most of them here — but also that I had a scoop! You’ll have to wade through to the end of the thicket to find it.
Here’s the bare list from Alternet’s Oct. 14 list. (Potential occupiers in Santa Ana, Fullerton, Lake Forest, Midway City, and Silverado take note! Also note that only two of the above are me joking around.)
1) No Snoozing In Public — so far, for Irvine this only applies on the sidewalk at night, not the parks during the day. (I slept in a tent for a few hours on Wednesday before the General Assembly. Thank you, Irvine.) If one construes this as including “no camping,” this is part of Wednesday’s “a new statutory justification for not letting you sleep per day” announcement, invoking section 6-3-585, unauthorized camping. More on this in another post.
2) No Umbrellas — Irvine, unlike Seattle, has not considered umbrellas to be “structures” that cannot be erected on public land. (Standing and holding them is OK. Cities evidently love making people stand.)
3) Curfews — yes, we can’t be in Irvine parks between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. Even Iowa gets to stay up until 11!
4) No Open Flames — other than in the media, I haven’t noticed any.
5) No Sitting or Lying Down — Irvine don’t seem to care if we sit on the sidewalks (or on chairs thereon), but only if we lie down — or if we sleep while doing either, which turns sitting into camping. San Francisco says no sitting or lying down on its sidewalks between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m. It’s a criminal offense! The comedic possibilities for “what you in for” prison sketches is endless.
6) No Obstructing the Pedestrian Walkway — this is the notorious Irvine Municipal Code section 4-14-105, which I’ve covered before. Irvine will not back away from the stand that blocking a segment of its eight-foot-wide sidewalks — yes, eight feet wide — at the Civic Center with one’s sleeping bag is like blocking a lane of Alton Parkway with one’s F-150. Honestly, this makes me want to go to court. If Irvine pedestrians can’t pass on the six feet remaining once someone takes up two feet near the lawn with a sleeping bag, the city has greater problems than I thought.
7) No Private Belongings in Public Space — Chicago said that not only could you as an Occupy Chicagoan not sit or lie on the sidewalk, but that your belongings couldn’t do so either. (But they’re not doing it to quell free speech, oh no.) Irvine, so far, not that crazy.
8 ) Unaffordable Fees — Occupy Dallas was asked to fork up $1 million for liability insurance. That happened to us too! Of course, we were told that some parts of Irvine’s public land use application didn’t apply to us — and that may be one of them — but I still haven’t been told which ones. (I’ve offered to work with the City on completing an application, but have been told that it wouldn’t be approved anyway, which I find demotivating.)
9) No Potties — Occupy Dallas protesters have been walking a half-mile to use the nearest toilet since they started camping out in Pioneer Plaza. We don’t have porta-potties either! We’d even pay for them ourselves, but we can’t leave them up between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. Our bladders and intestines are being used against us — but still people stay the night.
10) No Masks — This applied in NYC. In Irvine, one can still wear a tasteful Guy Fawkes mask.
11) No Amplification…Mic Check? — Irvine has been admirably reasonable in allowing us to use a microphone, perhaps because they too are annoyed by the human microphone. (I had some fun with it on Wednesday night when reporting the message that Irvine wanted conveyed to demonstrators, getting everyone one to repeat after me “Irvine says that Irvine is a very pleasant city” and such.)
12) Mass Arrests, Excessive Force — None so far — but we’ve been really well-behaved. We haven’t even engaged in real civil disobedience yet, just in indefatigable stubbornness.
After today, though, I can add a 13th absurd law: Irvine threatens to use California Penal Code section 647(e), a flavor of “disorderly conduct.” What does this say?
Every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor: … (e) Who lodges in any building, structure, vehicle, or place, whether public or private, without the permission of the owner or person entitled to the possession or in control of it.
By Jove, a sidewalk is a place! That means that, just as one cannot “lodge” without permission in a building, structure, or vehicle without being liable to arrest for disorderly conduct, one cannot lodge … “in a sidewalk.”
(If you suspect that maybe a sidewalk isn’t the sort of “place” that this statute envisions, you’ve just intuited the principle of legal interpretation called ejusdem generis, more about which another time, like possibly never.)
Now I can see why this law is important, because I once had my little finger lodged in a sidewalk — actually, the crack between them — and it was no fun. (That, or I’m making it up for comic effect.) But yes, Irvine is prepared to argue that falling asleep on a sidewalk is “lodging in a place” and is therefore “disorderly conduct.”
And that, right there, explains why, increasingly, the only reason that I don’t want to file suit against Irvine over this statute, unless absolutely necessary, is because I like the city and don’t want to cost it money if I can help it. But, boy, sometimes it gets tempting. I’d love to see them make this argument. (Hint: which one isn’t trespassing?)
Anyways, I haven’t looked at the case law — so if any lawyers here in this blog’s great confluence of the liberal left, the conservative right, and the libertarian neither want to weigh in one why they do or don’t think that sleeping on a public sidewalk is akin to sleeping while trespassing in a place like a building, structure or vehicle, here’s your chance. Irvine personnel do read this, after all. I’d ask the city government to ask the City Attorney (from an outside firm) to provide case citations, but, again, I don’t want to cost the city extra money. After all, I’m trying to be a good neighbor.
Oh, and, as always, this is not intended as legal advice. My general opinion is: don’t break the law.
Greg, you had your “little finger lodged in a crack”? Haaaa HHaaa. Back to the point though. You need to get up to date. I was updated tonight about the Irvine Cop that was insisting that the tired protester that crawled on to the grass right after 6 A.M (permitted time) and fell asleep was violating the no – sleeping ordinance. Another protester was arguing that, that was not the city code. Were you informed about this story yet? P.S. are we the only people in this county that are hip to the fact that life in America is about to become more surreal? The Occupiers are not going away!
If this was two mornings ago (rather than today), I did hear that there was a cop presenting unusual interpretations of the law, which the city appears not to support. I can say that, when on the first day of the occupation I put down a couple of sweaters and made it a full 18 inches onto the grass before passing out for a couple of hours, I was not bothered by any cops, although evidently I was considered to be comic relief.
Irvine is staking out a more and more extreme position regarding what we must do to be in accord with the anti-camping ordinance — and we’re taking notes.
I think That I am going to send a copy of this post to Officer McCoy and Gominsky at SAPD. Maybe they will find it entertaining or useful.? I am looking forward to santa ana on Sat. afternoon.
#14 may be that if a horse steps on you, you’re guilty of assaulting it. Just my surmise.
(Echt: “real, authentic, genuine.” Keep reading Orange Juice Blog to see more cool words.) ……… Hmmmm
Cool or Yiddish words?
What does the Yiddish word echt mean? The Yiddish word echt, means real, true or genuine.
Splendid Esq. Encino you got it correct! I wonder why?
FYI, Yiddish language is pigeon German language spoken by Jews in Germany …. like Jewish Ebonics.
My understanding is that the derivation is German, which of course would make it fair game for the pidgin (look it up, Stan) language of Yiddish.
I wouldn’t say that Yiddish is spoken by “Jews in Germany,” they being in short supply for the past 65+ years, but it is the mother tongue of Ashkenazi Jewry, which extended far beyond Germany itself.
As for the phrase “Jewish Ebonics” — a note to everyone: I’m sorry if it is uncomfortable to face Stanislav’s racism andanti-Semitism like this, but frankly I don’t think I could fail to elicit it if I tried. It’s rare to see it in print in polite society, isn’t it? Consider it an educational experience, if you can.
“why they do or don’t think that sleeping on a public sidewalk is akin to sleeping while trespassing in a place like a building, structure or vehicle, here’s your chance.”…… Hmmmm
My legal information to Es. Encino:
You will find the answer in the broad definition of the word sleeping see below.
Unless the Irvine ordinance specifically defines what “sleeping” means than the ordinance is unclear, vague, ambiguous and unreasonable adopted in bad faith therefore unenforceable.
In addition pay attention to following definition: “A natural, periodic state of rest for the mind and body”.
Issue 1: Can city control natural periodic state of rest for the mind and body on their premisses?
Issue 2: Is it constitutional to deprive a citizen of natural periodic state of rest for the mind and body on the city property?
Issue 3: Is it a torture to deprive a citizen of natural periodic state of rest for the mind and body…. we know that CIA is using sleep deprivation to torture by their own admission.
Creative lawyer could write a letter to the city council which would make their underwear urination, a natural periodic state, uncontrollable.
Think leverage, thing inducing fear and paranoia in the heads of your opposition.
sleep (sl¶p) n.
1.a. A natural, periodic state of rest for the mind and body, in which the eyes usually close and consciousness is completely or partially lost, so that there is a decrease in bodily movement and responsiveness to external stimuli. During sleep the brain in human beings and other mammals undergoes a characteristic cycle of brain-wave activity that includes intervals of dreaming.
b. A period of this form of rest.
c. A state of inactivity resembling or suggesting sleep, unconsciousness, dormancy, hibernation, or death.
2. Botany. The folding together of leaflets or petals at night or in the absence of light.
–sleep v. slept (slµpt), sleep·ing, sleeps.
–intr.
1. To be in the state of sleep or to fall asleep.
2. To be in a condition resembling sleep.
–tr.
1. To pass or get rid of by sleeping: slept away the day; went home to sleep off the headache.
2. To provide sleeping accommodations for: This tent sleeps three comfortably.
–phrasal verbs. sleep around. Informal. To be sexually active with more than one partner. sleep in.
1. To sleep at one’s place of employment: a butler and a chauffeur who sleep in.
2.a. To oversleep: I missed the morning train because I slept in.
b. To sleep late on purpose: After this week’s work, I will sleep in on Saturday. sleep out.
1. To sleep at one’s own home, not at one’s place of employment.
2. To sleep away from one’s home. sleep over. To spend the night as a guest in another’s home. sleep with. To have sexual relations with.
–idiom. sleep on it. Informal. To consider something overnight before deciding. [Middle English slepe, from Old English slæp. See sl¶b- below.]
Way ahead of you.
Good….. Just put it on the paper and serve it.
Same in Santa Ana council!
Bitching 3 min. in front of mike and holding silly signs will do noting.
Stanislav, I don’t try to tell you how to trade currency, do I?
We’re doing fine — and the longer we are law-abiding good neighbors the more echt Irvine we appear. Remember that the Irvine council meetings are broadcast. You think that we want to give up that forum?
It’s a long game here. We don’t have to win by Sunday. And we don’t have to served a half-assed notion penned solely by me when we can assemble substantial legal talent and make it that much stronger.
“echt”………. Hmmmmm
(shmuck: “Yiddish shmok, penis, fool, probably from Polish smok, serpent, tail.” Keep reading Orange Juice Blog to see more cool words.)
Ah, Mr. Fiala’s meds wear off. It was nice whlie it lasted.
Hahaha — luckily, I know more Yiddish than our resident meshugenah alter kocker.
(mohel : “need one?” Keep reading Orange Juice Blog to see more cool words.)
I should add that if there sch condition like Sleepwalking “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleepwalking” then you may be actually sleeping while walking.
Again, a bonanza for a creative lawyer to dig in.
Furthermore, it can be argued that city has a duty to provide accommodations like restrooms, and place to rest same as state does around the freeway, unless they would completely closed the area to the public.
Most of parks have restrooms opened from 22:00 to 6:00 because the park is closed but side walk is not closed so the city must provide similar services to public legally using the sidewalks.
They’ve argued that the sidewalks inside the parks are closed during those hours. I’m not sure that I agree with your conclusion, but I won’t make Irvine’s case for it.
You must argue it as a public event.
They ether close the sidewalks (not in park) or provide restrooms and place to rest on the sidewalks.
Use city charter against them. (duty of care)
This is not camping!
This is an occupation!
Ask to show you an ordinance against an occupation!
These are good thoughts. I haven’t read the City Charter — what does it say about a duty of care?
They will of course say that our calling it an occupation doesn’t change that in their opinion it is simply camping. I think we can win that, but we have other stronger arguments as well.
They can’t close the sidewalks; they’ll argue that the rest doesn’t follow, though. It something that requires serious research.
May I ask what law is your specialty?
Are you like Dr. for horses?….. a legal veterinarian?
Plaintiff’s-side employment law. (Do you have employees? I’d like to talk to them.)
I also do election law, consulting (especially on discovery issues), and I’m probably going to do a little capital murder defense just because the need for volunteer attorneys is so great. First things first, though.
“and I’m probably going to do a little capital murder defense”……… Hmmmm
Do you have any victim in your mind?
Whichever client I were to be assigned. There is a lot more interest in this since that recent execution of an apparently innocent man.
So, you shorting the euro these days?
Please notice that I have asked about a victim not a defendant.
“So, you shorting the euro these days?’………. Hmmmm
It is EURUSD and it is bullish, however, I am holding short position.
That should tell you how the market is for me.
City of Sarasota v. Nipper, No. 2005 MO 4369 NC (Fla. Cir. Ct. 2005).
Defendant homeless individuals were charged with violation of Section 34-41 of the Sarasota City Code, which prohibited lodging out-of-doors in a wide variety of situations. They defended the charges on the ground that Section 34-41 was unconstitutional as applied because it offends substantive due process by penalizing otherwise innocent conduct and did not establish sufficient guidelines for enforcement.
In June 2005, the Sarasota County Court found that Section 34-41 was unconstitutional as written, because the ordinance punished innocent conduct and because it left too much discretion in the hands of the individual law enforcement officer. The city has not appealed the decision and the time for appeal has expired.
City of Sarasota v. Tillman, No. 2003 CA 15645 NC (Fla. Cir. Ct. 2004).
Five homeless individuals were charged with violating Section 34-40 of the Sarasota City Code, which was an anti-sleeping ordinance that prohibited camping on public or private property between sunset and sunrise. The public defender who represented the defendants challenged the constitutionality of the anti-camping ordinance in the context of the criminal case, arguing that the ordinance violated substantive due process and was void for vagueness and overbroad because it penalized innocent conduct. The lowest level county trial court upheld the constitutionality of the city ordinance, finding it was constitutional because it served a valid public purpose, it was not vague in that a person of ordinary intelligence was on notice of the prohibited conduct, and there were sufficient guidelines to prevent selective enforcement of the ordinance. The homeless defendants appealed.
The Circuit Court for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit for the State of Florida reviewed the case in its appellate capacity and found the ordinance unconstitutional on the grounds that the ordinance was void for vagueness and violated substantive due process by effectively making criminal the non-criminal act of sleeping. The city then petitioned the Second District Court of Appeal for certiorari review and the court denied the petition. Instead of asking for rehearing, the city enacted a criminal lodging ordinance. However, the lodging ordinance was subsequently struck down in City of Sarasota v. Nipper.
In re Eichorn, 81 Cal. Rptr. 2d 535 (Cal. App. Dep’t. Super. Ct. 2000).
Police officers arrested James Eichorn for sleeping in a sleeping bag on the ground outside a county office building in the civic center. Eichorn was convicted of violating a City of Santa Ana, California ordinance that banned sleeping in certain public areas. Prior to Eichorn’s trial, the California Supreme Court found the ordinance to be facially neutral and therefore constitutional. At trial, Eichorn had to argue the necessity defense and he attempted to prove that on the night of his arrest, there were no shelter beds available. The court found Eichorn had not made a sufficient enough showing to allow a jury to consider the defense. After objecting to the judge’s ruling, Eichorn’s lawyer decided to go forward without a jury on the constitutionality of the ordinance. The trial judge convicted Eichorn of violating the city ordinance and Eichorn lost an appeal to the Appellate Department. Eichorn then filed a writ of habeas corpus. In the habeas decision, the Appeals Court found Eichorn was entitled to raise the necessity defense, granted the writ and remanded to the municipal court with instructions to set aside judgment of conviction. Ultimately, the municipal court set aside Eichorn’s misdemeanor conviction for illegal camping and his sentence of 40 hours of community service. The District Attorney also decided not to retry him.
Oregon v. Kurylowicz, No. 03-07-50223 (Or. Cir. Ct. 2004).
Defendants, homeless individuals, were charged with violating a Portland “obstructions as nuisances” ordinance. In short, the ordinance made it unlawful and declared it a public nuisance to block any street or sidewalk or to place, permit to be placed, or permit to remain on the sidewalk or street any object that obstructs or interferes with the passage of pedestrians or vehicles. On defendants’ demurrer, they asserted that the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, infringed upon constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process, and violated Oregon’s constitutional prohibition against disproportionate sentences.
The court sustained defendants’ demurrer and held that the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. Because the ordinance made no exceptions to avoid infringing on the right to assemble peacefully, or to exclude conduct that “merely causes others to step around a person who happens to be standing on any part of a sidewalk in a manner that is not causing any harmful effect,” the ordinance was unconstitutionally overbroad. Furthermore, the court held that the ordinance’s terms were indefinite, allowing officers leeway in determining, for example, whether a person or an object is “obstructing” a sidewalk, or whether “normal flow” of traffic is “interfer[ed]” with. In addition, the ordinance lacked a mental state requirement and contained no guidelines for police officers, giving a violator no opportunity to abate his or her behavior and failing to provide fair notice of prohibited conduct.
State v. Folks, No. 96-19569 MM (Fla. Cir. Ct. Nov. 21, 1996).
A Florida county court invalidated a city ordinance prohibiting individuals from “sleep[ing], lodg[ing] or lying on any public or semipublic area.” The ordinance requires that prior to an arrest or charge police must first warn the individual that his conduct violates the ordinance, notify him of at least one shelter the officer believes to be accessible to him, and give him a reasonable opportunity to go to the shelter. In dismissing a charge based on the ordinance against Warren Folks, the County court determined that the challenged section of the ordinance violated both the Florida and U.S. Constitutions.
The court found the ordinance to be overbroad as well as unconstitutionally vague in that it did not specify exactly what must be done to satisfy its requirements. The court opined that “if in fact the ordinance requires a person to remain in a shelter for an unspecified period of time or be arrested, this amounts to incarceration in the shelter without a violation of law having been committed.” In addition, the court found that the ordinance violated defendant’s rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by punishing innocent conduct, and his right to due process in that it allowed for arbitrary enforcement.
Tobe v. City of Santa Ana, 9 Cal. 4th 1069, 892 P.2d 1145 (1995).
Homeless persons in Santa Ana, California filed suit in state court against the City of Santa Ana facially challenging the constitutionality of a city ordinance prohibiting (1) the use of “camp paraphernalia”—including cots, sleeping bags, or non-designated cooking facilities; (2) pitching, occupying, or using “camp facilities” including tents, huts, or temporary shelters; (3) storing personal property on any public land within the city; or (4) living temporarily in a “camp facility” or outdoors in public within Santa Ana. The California Court of Appeals overturned the ruling of the lower court in which the lower court upheld the ordinances with the exception of the provision prohibiting living temporarily in a camp facility or outdoors. The Court of Appeal held that the anti-camping ordinance violates Appellants’ right to travel, which “includes the ‘right to live or stay where one will,’” and, by punishing them for their status as homeless people, violates their right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. The court also held that the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.
In 1995, the California Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The court held that the challenged ordinance, which may have an incidental impact on travel, does not violate the right to travel as it has a purpose other than the restriction of travel and does not discriminate among classes of persons by penalizing the exercise of the right to travel for some. In addition, the court found that the ordinance penalized particular conduct as opposed to status and thus did not violate plaintiffs’ rights under the Eighth Amendment, and was not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. However, the Court noted that the result might be different in an as-applied, as opposed to a facial, challenge.
NLCHP filed an amicus brief in support of plaintiffs-appellees, as did the U.S. Department of Justice.
We’re very aware of Tobe and that it does not foreclose an as-applied challenge.
Voeller v. The City of The Dalles, No. CC02155 (Or. Cir. Ct. 2003).
A homeless individual challenged an anti-camping ordinance under which he had been convicted and fined, alleging that it violated an Oregon State law, ORS 203.077, which requires municipalities and counties to develop a camping policy that recognizes the social problem of homelessness, and contains certain other explicit elements. The case was dismissed at plaintiff’s request in 2003 when the City of The Dalles repealed the anti-camping ordinance, expunged plaintiff’s convictions, and refunded the fines he had paid. The ordinance had been modeled on a similar Portland ordinance, which was found to be unconstitutional in State of Oregon v. Wicks.
Based on the above cases, I have noticed that virtually every case is based on an ordinance dealing with the homes.
However, “The Occupation of Irvine” is not result of a homelessness (not yet) but an exercise of the California’s and USA’s first amendments.
For that purpose the ordinance maybe inapplicable and unenforceable.
12 in a row- isn’t that some sort of commenting record?
Stanley you are just like The Brave Little Tailor, you too should go out and get a belt made; “twelve in a row”.
Onanster, these are cases!
There are many many more than 12.
Read all 12 you moron mongoloid.
In other words it maybe reasonable for a city to prevent camping and sleeping on the street as part of permanent housing accommodations.
However, it may be unreasonable to do same for temporary purpose like a legal protest “The Occupation of Irvine” or natural disaster like earthquake.
The unreasonable = unenforceable.
You actually provided a real service there, Stanislav, for which I thank you.
There is little doubt that homeless people could assert a necessity defense for sleeping in public. I would think (though I have not yet researched it) that someone who had no access to transportation or who had a car but was too tired to drive could also assert such a defense. There’s a question as to whether others could assert it as well. The more it seems like Irvine (despite its protestations) is simply trying to break the back of a movement for anything more than a series of daytime rallies by inducing sleep deprivation, the less sympathetic its position would be before a court.
Sadly, this is not my area of law (though it’s getting tempting to learn.) Happily, it is other California lawyers’ area of law, and they are taking an interest in the situation.
My sense now is that Irvine will not voluntarily agree to scale back its expansive interpretation of its “no camping” rule. It would probably agree to go along with a court order. (Civic resistance to a court order is not echt Irvine. I understand why, given popular sentiment, Irvine may prefer to be ordered to take a certain action rather than to affirmatively choose to do it by themselves, although that’s just my surmise.
Right now, last I heard, people are looking forward to a nice big march (after many people go hang out with Occupy Santa Ana for its grand opening) Saturday mid-afternoon, civil disobedience training on Sunday, and the City Council meeting on Tuesday, at which people will make their case to the Council that what we’re doing warrants an exception and license.
After that, I honestly don’t know what happens. If it’s some action that Irvine deems to be illegal, I will not be promoting, soliciting, or participating in it — though like other attorneys I may be observing it — and time permitting I hope to be part of the defense strategy. The nice thing I can say is that so far it is all, on both sides, very civilized (if not actively genteel.)
I’ll be doing a “state of play” diary later today, most likely, and will delve more deeply into these areas.
Actually, Stanley’s right. Many of these city code items have been developed over the last couple decades to deal with the homeless. And also black and brown people loitering about. Can’t have black and brown people loitering about.
The ugly part now is that these codes are being used to stifle freedom of assembly and free speech.
My sense is that they don’t want to suppress free speech for its own sake. They are worried about setting a precedent that could be used by, among others, the homeless (although my recollection is that they have scrupulously not singled out “the homeless,” or any other specific group, in our discussions. It’s just “if we made an exception for you we’d have to do it for everyone.”)
Unfortunately, by fighting this battle Irvine makes it more likely that it completely loses its “anti-camping” law altogether, making the City a potential haven for the homeless. (It has been suggested, by them, that Irvine could simply set up a designated area for the homeless. My feeling is: go ahead! That would make it harder for us to stay in front of the City Hall, perhaps, but it would be a pretty amazing achievement for a movement that didn’t even seek that end.
As I predicted early on, this is getting expensive for Irvine and it’s going to get more so. As someone who likes Irvine, and who doesn’t want to see it suffer, I wish that they’d just let people occupy the lawn. We’ve conveyed that we’re willing to work with them to make it as easy as possible, we’re willing to make accommodations to their need for maintenance and repair, we’re willing to resod it when we’re gone, etc. We’re willing to be good neighbors. We’re just not willing to leave and go back to business as usual.
Well, I’m also thinking of other cities and the idiosyncrasies of THEIR codes. Law enforcement is using these codes designed to primarily address the homeless to stifle freedom of assembly.
Agree and it must be pointed out!
I agree with that. But few cities are more homelessphobic than well-planned Irvine. The stories I’ve been hearing as homeless activists have been coming to the overnight occupation have been very interesting. (Right now, I’m not divulging them.)
For its own reasons, Irvine should not want to escalate this into a larger fight about its policy on the homeless. We haven’t sought it. But they may be making it inevitable. Honestly, I don’t get it.
“The ugly part now is that these codes are being used to stifle freedom of assembly and free speech.”……. Hmmmm
Only because people are ignorant about the law.
It may not be your area of the Law Esq. Encino but you will not accomplish anything by talking to a doorman.
Talking to a COP is like talking to a dog held by dog keeper. The dog keeper holds chains and dogs is salivating to byte.
Someone must write a memorandum of understanding and personally serve it on the council via the clerk.
The memorandum should contain legal threats including personal liability to city council. A copy should be sent to KFI J&K so it should be juicy so they can make money on advertisers.
Stop talking to COPs. It accomplishes anything accept for undermining your position.
Play POKER!
I should ask that you should escalate and as for a coalition from Santa Ana cruisers to cruise frond couple times and than go back home.
That will send chill.
Definitely, you must do something new each day.
Thanks for the advice, Stanislav.
We’ll proceed in our own time — and, to be fair, I may not know about aspects of what we do in advance. That’s a detriment of my living 25 miles away.
Is cut and paste the only time Stanley can spell correctly?
I redacted the user name for this one (without consulting with Vern) for reasons that will probably be obvious to the comment author. Please don’t do that again.
Well taken Esq. Encino,
However, unnecessarily oppressive redaction.
I can take care of myself as long as I am allowed to do so, I am not concern about me but I am concern about the constitution.
I should add, do not make it a habit!
We do not need another Larry Gilbert here.
It’s not for your benefit. Others here have their own sensibilities as well.
And you are the decider – Judge, Jury and Executioner?
Only left liberal is such a terrorist.
No, Vern is the decider. If he wants to unredact, he can.
You really want to know what that commenter was calling you, Stan? By now it sounds more exciting, and worse, than it was.
OK Vern, I hope that you will do right thing, in the spirit of free speech, otherwise your occupation is waste of your time.
Since you’re dying to know, that commenter used the name “Stanislav = Pussy.” It’s Diamond’s post though, and if he doesn’t want words like that cluttering up his comments thread that’s fine.
I am not dying to know comrade Vern!
However, I am dying for the most powerful document ever written by the men!
Correct!
It ain’t Bible but the United States Constitution.
Once you will understand the above comrade Vern you too will join the realm of magic.
Now please remove Stan=(redacted) and restore original “Stanislav = Pussy.”
I can definitely live with that, bet can’t live without the USA Constitution.
Nah, you know, it doesn’t really have to do with the Constitution. It has to do with the taste of whoever’s running a blog. You refuse to understand that.
Now, if cops were trying to arrest this guy for calling you a pussy, I know you and I would both be there fighting the cops off, right?
What great 18th-century French writer said, “I may think what you say is totally fucked up, but I’ll rip the authorities a new one if they try to stop you from saying it?”
VOLTAIRE, silly.
That equals sign works backwards and forwards, Stanislav. I didn’t like the commenter insulting vaginas.
Thanks for the lecture on the First Amendment’s relevance to a privately owned blog, Stan. You never told me what you were doing with respect to the euro. That, I’m interested in.
“Now, if cops were trying to arrest this guy for calling you a pussy, I know you and I would both be there fighting the cops off, right?”……. Hmmmm
To call someone pussy is not a crime!
To violate the constitution is!
However, you can’t fight cops off without the second amendment which you liberals hate so much, so I would abstain.
“You never told me what you were doing with respect to the euro. That, I’m interested in.”……….. Hmmmmm
Yes I did!
However, same as in legal writings you must interpret my comment.
If you want you may open a thread titled I want to be 1% and I will slowly explain.
My husband got pancreatic cancer, bills piled up. We’re now homeless, you’ll see us pushing 3 cats, we put umbrellas up because of people judging and being mean, I have extreme anxiety. My husband, he just culapese where. Ever and says I’m too tired to fight with cops and the people that don’t know us. We don’t rob, do drugs, or drink. Where we go ,we leave NO TRASH. We do respect as much as possible. But we are human too . We have feelings. Please stop judging and just smile. And maybe hamburger . Lol. Be kind