Appellate Closing Brief For The Second Case

The following is a converted copy of the Appellate Closing Brief, for the 2nd case, that Ed recently filed. Ed will be appearing in court, on my behalf, before a panel of Santa Cruz judges. The judges will be reviewing the appeal request and, if it flows like last time (the 1st case, 6 months served, writ of habeas rumored to be in progress), the judges will make snide remarks and then pass the paperwork on to the California Appellate court, 6th Circuit, in San Jose.

I'm told the review hearing will be tomorrow, March 21st, at 4pm, in department 3 of the Santa Cruz courthouse. I'm told supporters will be there. Sadly, I will not be there, mostly because my #1 fan does not want me to go near Santa Cruz county (I am respecting her wish), because there is a 2 year suspended sentence (this case) polluting my life. A sentence that could be de-suspended by any new charges, for any reason, real or fabricated. So I won't be present at the hearing, in the physical sense.

If you want to read the closing brief, click on read more below. If you want to read the initial appeal filing for the 2nd case or the prosecutorial reply brief they are also a click away.

If you are looking for real justice, like prosecution of Wall Street gangsters, or that LIBOR heist, or Blackwater violating sovereignty, or the removal of that torture memo perp from the 9th Circuit, well, there don't seem to be URLs for that kind of thing. No, not yet.

Status Of Appeal And Writ

Ed (the lawyer) tells me the appeal for the second case (the solo protest of the criminalization of sleep and the criminalization of protest itself) has been filed.

The next date of importance is January 10th, the filing deadline for their response. The filing deadline after that is January 30th, for our response to their response. Then, weeks later, a Santa Cruz panel of judges will probably review the appeal and make a decision. Overturn the verdict (unlikely), reject the appeal (possible), or let it move forward to the 6th Circuit (that is what happened last time).

So I will be digging through case law, between the 10th and the 30th, suggesting citations for the response response, etc. You can help too, if you'd like.

If interested, you could also help find amicus candidates. Ed needs amicus briefs, soon, as part of the effort to have the first appeal, um, no, the writ of habeas, heard by higher courts. If only to get a written opinion on the court's approval (or disapproval) of the criminalization of sleep (and by extension, of existence).

Honestly, I am not expecting much help from amicus briefers. Given what little experience I have had with name brand civil rights organizations (large and small); they seem more interested in polishing the acceptable distant past, with their backsides, while engaging in wine and cheese artifice. Only when the marketable association is easy, and a win likely, do they seem willing to take a stand in the now (which is why I refer to them as #FashionVictims). It would be nice to experience some real legal support from name brands, but until it is considered acceptably active, my guess is no meaningful assistance will be forthcoming.

That's OK. Seeking exhaustion is exhausting...

Appeal For The Second Case

The following is a hastily made copy of the appeal filing that Ed (the lawyer) filed on December 10th, 2012.  The appeal is for the second case (not the first case, which was PeaceCamp2010 specific).  In the second case, I was convicted and sentenced to two years (currently suspended), for protesting the criminalization of sleep and for protesting the criminalization of protest itself (#MakingProtestACrimeIsACrime).

I haven't read this appeal (I only marked it up, hastily, any errors of transcription are mine).  While I am not yet familiar with the contents, my impression is that some of what I wanted (such as asserting the right to sleep as a positive right (thank you India!)) did make it into the filing (it has been a bit contentious, and I am not a lawyer, so I don't have much say, when it comes to filings).

Anyway, I would like to publicly thank Ed Frey.  It hasn't been easy.  It remains a long struggle.  If both cases fail in the higher courts (AKA I am (almost) exhausted), my hope is that the effort might encourage and assist any future attempts, until sleep is legal, or consent is withdrawn.

A Matter Of Taste

Chris (AKA Commander X) is in the news, again.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/12/anon-on-the-run-how-commander-x-jumped-bai/

Some of that story is the story of PeaceCamp2010. That is where I met Chris, protesting the criminalization of sleep in Santa Cruz, California, in July, 2010. But that isn't the story I am going to tell right now. I am going to fill in some of the gaps in the Ars Technica article...

Making Protest A Crime Is A Crime

If the rule of law were respectable, I might find a way to convince a willing lawyer to file sentiments such as these...

The State avoids strict scrutiny, encouraging locals to spread rumors of indirect effects, of fragile normality.

The bondage laden term lodging, and 647(e) itself, are vague, in law. 602(o), as abused locally, no better.

Appellant seeks reversal of the judgment. On the sentencing motion appeal: we seek no more than a single conviction, or a stay of sentence on 3 of the convictions. We seek a ruling that Penal Code 647(e) is unconstitutional on its face and/or as applied, and a ruling on Appellant’s right to sleep and the contours of that right, for all the reasons stated above. We also request that the opinion be published.

Another allocution might sound like this...

Protest is a necessity of State.

Sleep is a necessity of life, yet the State claims sovereignty oversleeping? Over staying warm, even if awake?!

Sleep is expressive, yet the State claims sovereignty over traditional public forums? Over protest itself?

Making protest a crime is unconstitutional.
Making sleep a crime is unconstitutional.
Making protest a crime is a crime.
Making sleep a crime is worse.

What Are You Doing In?

After the appeal status hearing, next week, I'll probably be going to jail.

• somewhere-someone-asked-about-irony-and
• lawyer-reporting-for-jail
• sleep-is-not-crime
• pending-appeal-number-one

The appeal of the conviction for the first protest (against the sleeping ban) is dead, the 6th refused to hear and refused to certify the appeal. The next step is the State Supreme Court (via Habeas), or the Federal Supreme Court, or both, or neither if they also refuse the request for sane social policy.

The deadline for starting the appeal of the second protest is soon, and it could get interesting. Meanwhile, Ed's ankle, and everything near it, is under severe scrutiny (and Ed could use some work!), Linda is still being persecuted, and some public interest researchers that covered PC2010 were/are being persecuted for reporting other stories. After tweeting a bit longer, I'll be in jail, checking my S# account, maybe organizing a Police Misconduct, Law & Litigation study group, and deciding what to do next.

Somewhere someone asked about irony, and I responded, enjoy...

Is it just me or is it a circumstance fraught with irony that Ed is serving his sentence for supporting the homeless under house arrest?

Not just you. But that's nothing, ya shoulda seen the trials! Kafka meets Carlin (in a good mood, maybe), big and little hideousnesses abounded! For years. Decades! Along the way a judge had to say, out loud, lookin' us right in the eye, had to say there is no right to sleep. Yes, really, no right to sleep. No need to imagine it, transcript says so, just like the judge said so, clearly and explicitly. No right to sleep.

But that's not what I wanted to write about. I wanted to write about the criminalization of protest. Ed was prosecuted for protesting. Protesting the sleeping ban, an unjust and inhumane set of infractions. It can be kinda illegal to arrest non-homeless people, well, before Occupy, maybe, especially when they are exercising Constitutional rights, but arrest the County Of Santa Cruz, California did, repeatedly, using an unjust and inhumane misdemeanor law. Judges didn't seem to mind, didn't seem to mind at all. Juries neither, at least those that didn't speak their minds, clearly or subtley, and walk out, walk right out of their selection process.

So yeah, it is weird for Ed to be treated like a felon, jailed via misdemeanor, at home (via overtly cell-phone-like device), for protesting a cruel and inhumane set of infractions, infractions which criminalize something critical to life itself.

Making life illegal is weirder. Nothing new, of course, but really strange to experience, first hand. The State and/or Federal Supreme Courts remain, via Writ or whatever, and there are plenty of cites to debate. But that won't change the past. Santa Cruz, California thinks it is legal to make it illegal for selected people to exist. They insist. So do a number of other places in the USA. That's weird. Really weird.

Don't histories (and religions) keep trying to teach us such trends are something to be avoided? Maybe it's just me...

A Wakeup Call The Size Of A Planet

Studies employing magnetic resonance tomography (MRT) have now been able to demonstrate that a specific cortical network consisting of the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the frontopolar regions and the precuneus is activated when this lucid consciousness is attained. All of these regions are associated with self-reflective functions.

http://www.mpipsykl.mpg.de/en/institute/news/press/pr0712.html