The atmosphere was a bit different than the typical day in Yolo County. Judge David Reed’s department six was packed full of 12 defendants, five attorneys, and countless supporters, to the point where the court’s capacity was maxed and throngs of supporters overflowed into the lobby, where some briefly verbally skirmished with private security personnel who staff the exterior portions of the courthouse.
The next hearing date is scheduled for the June 22, another formality as they will review where they are. More interesting will be a July 13 hearing where motions will be argued, and the defense indicated that at some point they will be filing a Pitchess Motion.
A Pitchess Motion is a request by defense attorneys to access a law enforcement officer’s personnel information in cases in which allegations of excessive force or other issues involving the police arise.
Public defender Ron Johnson, as well as private attorneys Dan Siegel, Stewart Katz, Alexis Briggs and Tony Serra, will represent the defendants.
According to spokespersons for the attorneys, a previous offer that would have accepted a no-contest plea on a single count for 80 days and one year of probation, as well as potential restitution, was rejected by the defense.
A joint letter from UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi and Provost Ralph Hexter indicated that the university will not be asking for restitution.
“We have therefore made it clear that UC Davis has no desire for restitution or retribution, but only wishes to see the rights of everyone on campus preserved,” they wrote in the letter.
However, that does not preclude the bank from seeking restitution. Such a matter would not be settled until after the plea offer were accepted or rejected. The possibility of a restitution judgment of $1 million likely plays a role in the decision not to accept the offer.
No arguments were made on Friday afternoon.
Previously, spokespeople indicated one of the questions that would be at stake would be the criminalization of what they are calling protected political speech.
“It was rejected in part on the grounds that any continuance of prosecution is a wrongful attempt to prosecute political speech on campus,” spokesperson Tim Kreiner said.
“I think the fact that there are charges at all is a bit of a sham, and it’s unfortunate that the university administration feels compelled to try to prosecute its own students or at least refer its own students for prosecution for political dissent on campus,” Mr. Kreiner said.
UC Davis spokesperson Barry Shiller responded, “The last thing in the world you want to see is 11 students and a faculty member facing charges – even misdemeanors that reportedly could be resolved through community service and no jail time.”
“It’s vital to remember that the charges were filed only after campus police received multiple complaints from students and others alleging that they had been prevented from entering or leaving the campus U.S. Bank branch,” he said. “And the blockades continued despite 12 attempts – six in writing – by campus staff to educate protesters about the risks of continuing their actions.”
Defense in court Friday indicated that they had received volumes of discovery.
In January of this year, protesters began to block the US Bank location inside the Memorial Union. According to records the Vanguard received from the university between January 11 and February 28, the protesters managed to close down the bank 27 times and prevent from opening another 3.
While US Bank claimed, its employees “were effectively imprisoned in the branch,” UC Davis has filed suit against the bank for breach of contract after they shut their door for good on March 1.
In August 2009, the bank and UC Davis through the UC Regents entered into a “Financial Service Partnership” agreement. “Opened in 2010, the branch was part of a broad partnership between UC Davis and U.S. Bank, which the university hoped would bring needed funds for student activities,” the Aggie reported in January.
“The university received a total of $167,500 from U.S. Bank last year. That is in addition to the $8,333 we receive every month in rent,” said UC Davis spokesperson Claudia Morain. Moreover, the University got a cut of money depending on the number of bank accounts opened by UC Davis students.
According to the suit, “The Regents entered the Financial Services Agreements in its proprietary capacity. The Bank did not request – and the Regents did not agree – that the Regents would exercise governmental power (such as police power) at the behest of the Bank. The Bank agreed that the Regents has ‘no obligation whatsoever to provide’ security measures.”
Moreover, “The Bank ‘assumes all responsibility for the protection of the Bank, its agents and invitees from acts of third parties.’ The Lease does not obligate the Regents to indemnify the Bank for the costs of providing security.”
The students are facing around 20 counts of Penal Code section 647(c), blocking or obstructing a business, and one misdemeanor conspiracy charge.
Assistant Chief Deputy DA Michael Cabral has refused to comment to the Vanguard. However, in early May he told the Davis Enterprise, “That 11 years (jail time) that’s been floating around out there is not a realistic maximum.” He told the Enterprise that he would not seek to stack the penalties.
At the same time, it has been reported by the Vanguard and others that the students could face up to $1 million in restitution fees. As we noted, the university will decline to seek restitution, however, the bank has not indicated any sort of preference.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]According to spokespersons for the attorneys, a previous offer that would have accepted a no-contest plea on a single count for 80 days and one year of probation, as well as potential restitution, was rejected by the defense.[/quote]
“…for 80 days” of what?
[quote]Previously, spokespeople indicated one of the questions that would be at stake would be the criminalization of what they are calling protected political speech.
“It was rejected in part on the grounds that any continuance of prosecution is a wrongful attempt to prosecute political speech on campus,” spokesperson Tim Kreiner said.
“I think the fact that there are charges at all is a bit of a sham, and it’s unfortunate that the university administration feels compelled to try to prosecute its own students or at least refer its own students for prosecution for political dissent on campus,” Mr. Kreiner said.[/quote]
The claim that this is about freedom of speech is a red herring. The real issue is:
[quote]The students are facing around 20 counts of Penal Code section 647(c), blocking or obstructing a business, and one misdemeanor conspiracy charge.[/quote]
[quote]In January of this year, protesters began to block the US Bank location inside the Memorial Union. According to records the Vanguard received from the university between January 11 and February 28, the protesters managed to close down the bank 27 times and prevent from opening another 3.
While US Bank claimed, its employees “were effectively imprisoned in the branch,” UC Davis has filed suit against the bank for breach of contract after they shut their door for good on March 1.[/quote]
This one has me baffled. The University refers the blockers to the DA, clearly recognizing/conceding the blockers did indeed block the bank from doing business. Then the University, wants to argue somehow it was the BANK’s fault/breach of contract by THE BANK? Huh?
Bankers are such terrible people…
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAqWC3Cpny8[/url]
Jeff: What a great clip! It made my day!
[quote]”However, that does not preclude the bank from seeking restitution. Such a matter would not be settled until after the plea offer were accepted or rejected. The possibility of a restitution judgment of $1 million likely plays a role in the decision not to accept the offer…At the same time, it has been reported by the Vanguard and others that the students could face up to $1 million in restitution fees. As we noted, the university will decline to seek restitution, however, the bank has not indicated any sort of preference..”[/quote]David, you’ve been saying this for weeks even though it doesn’t make a bit of sense that the bank would be seeking millions of dollars from broke students and one trouble-inciting professor.
The university has the only deep pockets here and the bank already publicly blamed the UCD’s lack of clearing out the building for their departure.
Sez who? You’ve never attributed this reason for refusing to accept the plea bargain to any of the defense attorneys, the only ones who can speak with any authority about the defense strategy.
The only purpose in repeating this baseless contention is to gain sympathy for the blockaders, just as the “facing 11 years in prison” has been intended to do.
Just saying, I haven’t said that they will only that they could. I see restitution orders all the time from people who can’t afford to pay more than a small amount each month
JustSaying – But who said that these particular students are broke? If they were, then they wouldn’t have to pay tuition. In fact, some of them are from families that could easily be in the top 1%.
David, you’re the only one saying this. There is a good reason for that. The last restitution order we discussed was issued because the woman stole money from the system. Why would the bank or the judge go after someone who might pay “a small amount each month” when UCD could pay the whole thing off in a minute?
Greg, I say these students are nowhere close to having a million dollars as compared to the university. But, you may be correct. Which of the defendants is even close to being in “the top 1%”? I need to know their addresses so I can demonstrate in front of their houses to protest their favorable tax situations.
Then, there’s Professor Clover. If he’s in “the top 1%,” I need to be giving him more respect since he’s devoting his life to teaching (and free speech) in spite of his riches.
JustSaying – They are “nowhere close” to having a million dollars “as compared with the university”? I’m lost. Is the idea here that universities are rich because they are so big? Suppose for instance that a consulting firm with 1000 consultants who make $80K shares liability with an independent contractor who makes $400K. Is the contractor rich because he’s wealthier than each of the consultants? Or is the firm rich because all together it gets $80 million per year?
Anyway, I’m not going to name names, but I can mention that it looks like one of the bank protesters went to a private high school that’s as expensive as a private university, and that the family of this student owns a pricey retail business.
As for Clover, no, I have no reason to believe that he’s in the top 1%.
Yeah, guess you’re right, the UCD comparison didn’t come out the way I meant it to. Why, I wondered, would the bank go after the students when it blamed UCD’s lack of action and when the university could write a single check for the million. You’re making it more complicated than necessary; the university is rich enough to be a better target than a dozen students, that’s all.
Thanks for clearing up my misguided stereotype view, however. It’s good to know that all the blockaders aren’t penniless students, that at least one is a spoiled brat.
“David, you’re the only one saying this.”
This idea didn’t come from me. It came from the attorneys and some of the protesters.
[quote]This idea didn’t come from me. It came from the attorneys and some of the protesters.[/quote]
Precisely…
Re: ERM
[quote]This one has me baffled. The University refers the blockers to the DA, clearly recognizing/conceding the blockers did indeed block the bank from doing business. Then the University, wants to argue somehow it was the BANK’s fault/breach of contract by THE BANK? Huh?[/quote]
UCD was saying that the Bank did not follow the contract to give a 30 day notice before shutting down.
Reference: Letter from UCD’s lawyer to US Bank’s lawyer
http://news.ucdavis.edu/download/201203/Letter_to_Haworth_Fineman_3.5.12.pdf
Re: ERM
[quote]This one has me baffled. The University refers the blockers to the DA, clearly recognizing/conceding the blockers did indeed block the bank from doing business. Then the University, wants to argue somehow it was the BANK’s fault/breach of contract by THE BANK? Huh?[/quote]
UCD was saying that the Bank did not follow the contract to give a 30 day notice before shutting down.
Reference: Letter from UCD’s lawyer to US Bank’s lawyer
http://news.ucdavis.edu/download/201203/Letter_to_Haworth_Fineman_3.5.12.pdf
Thanks for clearing up my misguided stereotype view, however. It’s good to know that all the blockaders aren’t penniless students, that at least one is a spoiled brat.”
Or another way of looking at this person’s motivation might be that he cares about something more than when his next expensive toy is arriving. Why assume that only someone poor could care about this issue? Many women protested the war in Vietnam Nam even though we were not subject to the draft and had no brothers or boyfriends to worry about. Believe it or not, sometimes people do what they believe is right whether or not it affects them personally.
“Assistant Chief Deputy DA Michael Cabral has refused to comment to the Vanguard. However, in early May he told the Davis Enterprise, “That 11 years (jail time) that’s been floating around out there is not a realistic maximum.” He told the Enterprise that he would not seek to stack the penalties.”
Isn’t it amazing that Cabral says he won’t stack the charges. I wonder if that’s because the defendants have experienced defense attorneys. The fact that these people could possibly face jail time at all and $1 million in restitution on top of that is a disgrace. The banks CEO’s and regulators caused so much economic and personal damage around the world and they get what?—Bailed out!
“David, you’re the only one saying this.”
“This idea didn’t come from me. It came from the attorneys and some of the protesters.”
Please provide names and affiliations and quotes.
I wasn’t writing fast enough to get a quote from the spokesperson, but he said it. Some of the attorneys have told me the same thing off the record, so no names there.