California man faces 13 years in jail for scribbling anti-bank messages in chalk

[Silent_Bob]

http://rt.com/usa/california-man-13-prison-banks-237/

Jeff Olson, the 40-year-old man who is being prosecuted for scrawling anti-megabank messages on sidewalks in water-soluble chalk last year now faces a 13-year jail sentence. A judge has barred his attorney from mentioning freedom of speech during trial.

According to the San Diego Reader, which reported on Tuesday that a judge had opted to prevent Olson's attorney from "mentioning the First Amendment, free speech, free expression, public forum, expressive conduct, or political speech during the trial," Olson must now stand trial for on 13 counts of vandalism.

In addition to possibly spending years in jail, Olson will also be held liable for fines of up to $13,000 over the anti-big-bank slogans that were left using washable children's chalk on a sidewalk outside of three San Diego, California branches of Bank of America, the massive conglomerate that received $45 billion in interest-free loans from the US government in 2008-2009 in a bid to keep it solvent after bad bets went south.

The Reader reports that Olson's hearing had gone as poorly as his attorney might have expected, with Judge Howard Shore, who is presiding over the case, granting Deputy City Attorney Paige Hazard's motion to prohibit attorney Tom Tosdal from mentioning the United States' fundamental First Amendment rights.

"The State's Vandalism Statute does not mention First Amendment rights," ruled Judge Shore on Tuesday.

Upon exiting the courtroom Olson seemed to be in disbelief.

"Oh my gosh," he said. "I can't believe this is happening."

Tosdal, who exited the courtroom shortly after his client, seemed equally bewildered.

"I've never heard that before, that a court can prohibit an argument of First Amendment rights," said Tosdal.

Olson, who worked as a former staffer for a US Senator from Washington state, was said to involve himself in political activism in tandem with the growth of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

On October 3, 2011, Olson first appeared outside of a Bank of America branch in San Diego, along with a homemade sign. Eight days later Olson and his partner, Stephen Daniels, during preparations for National Bank Transfer Day, the two were confronted by Darell Freeman, the Vice President of Bank of America's Global Corporate Security.

A former police officer, Freeman accused Olson and Daniels of "running a business outside of the bank," evidently in reference to the National Bank Transfer Day activities, which was a consumer activism initiative that sought to promote Americans to switch from commercial banks, like Bank of America, to not-for-profit credit unions.

At the time, Bank of America's debit card fees were among one of the triggers that led Occupy Wall Street members to promote the transfer day.

"It was just an empty threat," says Olson of Freeman's accusations. "He was trying to scare me away. To be honest, it did at first. I even called my bank and they said he couldn't do anything like that."

Olson continued to protest outside of Bank of America. In February 2012, he came across a box of chalk at a local pharmacy and decided to begin leaving his mark with written statements.

"I thought it was a perfect way to get my message out there. Much better than handing out leaflets or holding a sign," says Olson.

Over the course of the next six months Olson visited the Bank of America branch a few days per week, leaving behind scribbled slogans such as "Stop big banks" and "Stop Bank Blight.com."

According to Olson, who spoke with local broadcaster KGTV, one Bank of America branch claimed it had cost $6,000 to clean up the chalk writing.

Public records obtained by the Reader show that Freeman continued to pressure members of San Diego's Gang Unit on behalf of Bank of America until the matter was forwarded to the City Attorney's office.

On April 15, Deputy City Attorney Paige Hazard contacted Freeman with a response on his persistent queries.

"I wanted to let you know that we will be filing 13 counts of vandalism as a result of the incidents you reported," said Hazard.

Arguments for Olson's case are set to be heard Wednesday morning, following jury selection.

[Tom Sawyer]

http://rt.com/usa/california-man-13-prison-banks-237/

"The State's Vandalism Statute does not mention First Amendment rights," ruled Judge Shore on Tuesday.

hahahahaha.... what an asshat. Who needs a constitution, the laws should be able to cover all those pesky rights.

[Jim Johnson]

There should be really severe punishments for judges who show themselves to be asshat pieces of shit... should also be a column in the judicial review, 'Asshat Judgements'.

[WithoutAPaddle]

Russia Today has become my favorite cable "news" channel.  And if I were 30 years younger, it would be my favorite fantasy "babes" channel, too.  It is basically a communist version of Fox News.  The only differences between the two are, 1) the smarmy Russia Today news babes make snide remarks about capitalism whereas the smarmy Fox News babes make snide remarks about communism, and, 2) the  eyebrows of the Russia Today news babes are the same color as the hair on the top of their heads, whereas the eyebrows of the Fox News babes are never the same color as the hair on the top of their heads.

[KBCraig]

I wish they'd mentioned whether the sidewalks are public, or part of bank property. If they're city sidewalks, the bank should have no legitimate claim.

the  eyebrows of the Russia Today news babes are the same color as the hair on the top of their heads, whereas the eyebrows of the Fox News babes is never the same color as the hair on the top of their heads.

"I'm curious, does the carpet match the drapes?"
"I prefer bare floors."
"In that case, have you considered installing hardwood?"

[WithoutAPaddle]

I wish they'd mentioned whether the sidewalks are public, or part of bank property. If they're city sidewalks, the bank should have no legitimate claim...

The crime of vandalism is a crime against the state, not against the person - corporate or otherwise - so it would still be vandalism if the charge was that it constituted prohibited defacing of property, irrespective of the property's ownership.  Whether the bank can sue for damages in civil court is a matter not addressed here.

For what it is worth, a lot of roadside land that looks to be private property is really part of the government owned road path.  I remember back during the late 1970s, when the section of Central Avenue in Dover, New Hampshire, just south of Siegel's City but north of the hospital, was going to be rerouted slightly to the west, and the city or state negotiated with one of the home owners to buy the front ten feet of his home lot.  Only after the conveyance was complete did the home owner come to realize that since the state already owned about the front 10 to 15 feet of his lawn and driveway, and they were taking ten feet on top of that, that he would wind up with a driveway in front of his attached garage that was so short he could no longer park a car in it with the garage door closed, which is why, if you drive by there, you can now see a strange driveway that is alongside a house, and the building appendage that had been his garage no longer sports a garage door.

[KBCraig]

I wish they'd mentioned whether the sidewalks are public, or part of bank property. If they're city sidewalks, the bank should have no legitimate claim...

The crime of vandalism is a crime against the state, not against the person - corporate or otherwise - so it would still be vandalism if the charge was that it constituted prohibited defacing of property, irrespective of the property's ownership.  Whether the bank can sue for damages in civil court is a matter not addressed here.

Yes, but the criminal charge points to the cleaning expenses suffered by the bank, as the damaged party.