Five attorneys will represent the 12 defendants facing 20 counts of blocking the US Bank Building in UC Davis’ memorial union from January 13 until the bank closed its down on February 28.
A media representative for the attorneys, Tim Kreiner, informed the Vanguard that there was an offer officially made this morning.
“We haven’t seen the offers ourselves, but it was rejected,” Mr. Kreiner told the Vanguard.
At the previous hearing, Michael Cabral indicated that an offer had been extended that included 80 hours of community service and one year of probation.
One of the open questions was the issue of restitution. 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.
The larger issue appears to be the criminalization of political protest.
“It was rejected in part on the grounds that any continuance of prosecution is a wrongful attempt to prosecute political speech on campus,” Tim Kreiner said.
At this point, the defense has apparently, according to the spokesperson received some of the discovery but declined to comment on its nature. Furthermore they declined to comment on potential legal strategy.
“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.”
On Tuesday, Thomas Matzat, one of the twelve defendants in the bank protesting case was scheduled to be arraigned on felony charges that include five felony vandalism and 15 more misdemeanor charges.
Mr. Matzat’s hearing was delayed until June 6 to allow the legendary defense attorney Tony Serra to step in.
Ms. Briggs was not in Yolo County today, and Mr. Serra stood in for her.
She declined further comment other than to say, “It’s an honor to defend free speech in the county I grew up in with such distinguished co-counsel.”
Mr. Serra declined personal comment, quickly redirecting efforts toward two designated spokesperson.
He is viewed by some to be one of the greatest criminal defense attorneys of his era. He is known for his flamboyant and whirlwind style, described in a book as “the white tornado in court, a semantic samurai, a shaman, a bad, a hero to some, a trickster to others, and always a force to be reckoned with.”
The Asian Studies Department sent the Vanguard a letter on Tuesday that was sent to Chancellor Katehi and Provost Hester, stating, “The faculty of the Department of Asian American Studies is deeply troubled by the criminal charges filed against the Davis Dozen, who include eleven students and one faculty member, for their sit-in at US Bank.”
“The Davis Dozen are not guilty of the excessive charges placed against them. We ask you to request District Attorney Jeff W. Reising to drop all charges against the Davis Dozen. The charges and plea bargain offered by the District Attorney are unjust. By alerting us to the terms of the contract with US Bank, the Davis Dozen has exposed the Administration’s complicity in going against the public mission of our university and all that it stands for. Having student ID cards serve simultaneously as US Bank debit cards highlights not only a conflict of interest, but also a collusion, in which UC Davis serves as both marketing tool and profit-making machine that does not serve the students’ best interests.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]”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]
It is not political dissent that is being prosecuted, it is blocking a legitimate bank from carrying out business…
[quote]The possibility of a restitution judgment of $1 million likely plays a role in the decision not to accept the offer.[/quote]
That makes sense. Also, 80 hrs of community service could be a bit much if these students are in school. There is no point to further jeopardize their education/future careers. Probation for a year? Is this normal for a misdemeanor (I’m assuming they are being charged w misdemeanors – the professor is a whole other issue)?
This is great news. The DA can throw the book at them, while arguing they acted in good faith by offering a plea deal – no jail time – so there was no malice involved.
except on the protestor end of things that is. 🙂
“It is not political dissent that is being prosecuted, it is blocking a legitimate bank from carrying out business… “
That’s what the DA will try to argue.
“Probation for a year? Is this normal for a misdemeanor (I’m assuming they are being charged w misdemeanors – the professor is a whole other issue)? “
That’s normal. The professor is facing the same charges. The only felony is Matzat for the alleged vandalism.
“The DA can throw the book at them, while arguing they acted in good faith by offering a plea deal – no jail time – so there was no malice involved. “
You don’t think a potential million dollar restitution is problematic particularly if they take a plea agreement?
You don’t think a potential million dollar restitution is problematic particularly if they take a plea agreement?
Its problematic either way. that’s the beauty of it.
91 Octane- are you a professional fascist, or is this just a hobby for you? And no, I’m not just ‘name-calling’, the views you spout on here are blatantly fascistic.
E Roberts- you’re assuming that a private bank on a public campus is in any way legitimate. Also, seriously, why is the professor “a whole other issue”? He’s got the same charges as everyone else, are you people just trying to make a scapegoat of him because his status as a prof rather than a grad student makes him somehow different? Seriously this obsession with Clover is childish and baseless.
91 Octane- are you a professional fascist, or is this just a hobby for you? And no, I’m not just ‘name-calling’, the views you spout on here are blatantly fascistic.
whipping out the facist card? not going to argue with that kind of extremism. If that is what you are accusing me of, then the problem is you, not me. seek help.
As they say, if the boot fits, wear it… Seems like every time someone poses a difficult question for you, you dodge it.
“91 Octane- are you a professional fascist, or is this just a hobby for you? And no, I’m not just ‘name-calling’, the views you spout on here are blatantly fascistic.”
What?
Adamsmith, do you even know what a fascist is? I mean, other than someone with whom you don’t happen to agree.
Fascism is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology, centering on purity of race and the surrender of all personal rights and freedoms to the state. I hear far too many folks gratuitously throwing around the term “fascist” in order to try to silence those with whom they disagree. Why not just call him a commie-pinko while you are at it for good measure?
“seek help”
it’s cute that you’re trying, really, but if “no you!” is the only response you can come up with, then I just feel bad trying to argue with you. Though, I suppose “neo-fascist” would have been more technically appropriate, so I’ll give you that. I would try to school you, but to be perfectly honest I have better things to do than try to educate reactionaries.
Misdemeanors are never throwing the book at anybody. This whole thing is a circus and if it isn’t plead out it will be a total joke.
Updated with comment from Barry Shiller
I have removed several posts. No attacks on blog participants, please.
the title of the article is correct. this part of the article is incorrect:
[quote]They collectively entered a no-contest plea[/quote]
No contest is the opposite of pleading not guilty.
And no one caught it. Thanks.
“The last thing in the world you want to see is 11 students and a faculty member facing charges”
THEN WHY DID THE UNIVERSITY FORWARD THEM TO THE DA?
Seriously, blatant lying here, I don’t understand how anyone can sympathize with them. The university admin have done nothing but lie and displace blame since before the pepper-spray even happened.
Also, Shor, calling someone a fascist is not an “attack”. It’s a claim about a person’s political views. Advocating for non-violent protesters to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and receive exorbitant fines is blatantly neo-fascist. From wikipedia- “Neo-Fascism: core ideas- authoritarianism, nationalism, dictatorship, propaganda, militarism, social darwinism” etc. Obviously not all of these views are being directly espoused right here, but 91 octane’s views have been consistently authoritarian to the point of being dictatorial, and advocate for the quashing of political dissent through policing. As I said before, I’m not calling them a fascist just for the sake of calling names, I’m saying their political views are reactionary and rightist to the point of extremism. And anyway, wishing unjust punishment on these protesters is way more an ‘attack’ than anything I’ve said.
[quote]”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[/quote]Is there any way to keep Katehi from interfering in jobs she’s delegated to people who know what they’re doing? She admitted she’s an amateur at police work (after she screwed up that operation). Now, she’s proving that she’s not an attorney either.[quote]”The larger issue appears to be the criminalization of political protest.”[/quote]That’s what the defense will try to argue. There are lots of “larger issues” involved here, not one of which has a thing to do with the defendants’ intentional lawbreaking while they undertook a political protest.
The charges against them are hardly “excessive,” they are minor misdemeanors and quite reasonable for the purposeful, repeated, public violations of law over two months.[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.”[/quote]More thoroughly processed bullshit, along the lines of the constant claims that those charged might get a decade in prison. PR, nothing more. Same old talking points, with a $1-million restitution PR-BS add-on for the deep-pocket students and Professor Clover.
Once these folks enter the courtroom, none of this baloney will mean a thing. They will face justice the same as any other citizen with identical charges. We can presume their unlawful actions are carefully documented, thanks to their open and arrogant display over an extended period.
The professor and his 11 followers either broke the law or they didn’t–attempts to make this small trial a “bigger issue…criminalization of political protest” will be for naught.
[quote]”You don’t think a potential million dollar restitution is problematic particularly if they take a plea agreement?”[/quote]Not in the slightest. First, these people are not a target, they have no money. If the bank decides to get the money they’ve lost, they will sue the university.
Second, whether they’re guilty (by plea agreement or via trial) won’t make much difference if there’s a civil trial. The standard to win civil trial damages is low, and doesn’t require a guilty misdemeanor criminal finding.
This suggestion is simply a rhetorical attempt to generate sympathy for those charged, along the lines of the claim that they face 11 years in prison. These do not compute. Good try, though.
[quote]”‘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’.”[/quote]In spite of the efforts to suggest the blockaders had support from the rest of their colleagues, and they they somehow were surprised about getting charged, this evidence will prove the opposite in both matters.
JS:
A few points in response:
1. Restitution is an issue for the “victim” not the attorneys
2. You consider 21 misdemeanors minor?
3. Again, the restitution issue is in the hands of the bank it appears and so the protesters might take the issue out of their owns hands if they cop to the plea without assurances on the restitution issue. That’s not PR BS at all.
4. “First, these people are not a target, they have no money. If the bank decides to get the money they’ve lost, they will sue the university.” That’s not exactly true either. For instance, Linda Vela has no money either but she is still going to have to pay restitution – tens of thousands worth.
5. On Civil Trial, you are completely wrong. What happens in the criminal case will go a long way towards what happens in the civil trial.
How come PG&E never got any restitution from the thousands who protested at Diablo Canyon? Or Maxxam from Earth First?
According to the Wall Street Cheat Sheet today Jim Cramer rates USB a buy.
If Cramer rates USB as a buy, they must be about to implode, e.g. Bear Stearns 😉