Man faces 13 years in prison for writing in chalk outside bank!

Originally posted by xDeadcowx
reply to post by StrangeTimez

 

Paying 6k to do what the rain does for free.

I would like to know on what grounds a judge is able to dictate what defense a person is allowed to have.

Are they able to decide that someone is not able to mention "self defense" if they were attacked?

Screams of kick backs to me.

DC

Or HE could have done with a bucket of water and a scrub brush. Go clean up your mess, fine 25 dollars for taking the courts time, and go home. Civil courts are anything BUT civil.

This countrt has lost it's mind.

In traffic court near where I live, you cannot plead "not guilty".

You plead "guilty" only, pay your fine, or go to jail. Sounds insane right? You cannot fight a ticket. If you choose to attempt to plead "not guilty", you have to contact the court, and have a trial by judge, no jury. And, they have the right to approve, or deny, your request.

Traffic court here, is nothing more than a cash cow for that county. You avoid breaking the law tgere at all costs, becasuse once you are in their system, you become entrapped by huge fees, fines, and more fees. So much so, that if you are not rich, and you cannot pay your way out, you go to jail, then end up on probation, qith yet more fees and fines.

Yet, they let illegals go. No license? You can go. No insurance? See ya! Have a DUI? Have a good night, Sir. Speeding? Just slow it down now. White or black citizen? Stay away or stay pristinely legal.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Yep, the devil is definitely in the details.

For starters, sidewalks are typically defined as "easements" and it could be argued that it is city property vs. the bank's. It really often depends on who does the maintenance for it. But, since the bank and city seem to be onboard with it, likely doesn't matter in this case.

Then, there is the definition of "defacement" or "vandalism" in the local code. (or if it is even defined at all).

EDIT: According to California Penal Code Section 594, since it was graffiti, it would count as vandalism. The fact that it was washable is a non issue.

As used in this section, the term "graffiti or other inscribed material" includes any unauthorized inscription, word, figure, mark, or design, that is written, marked, etched, scratched, drawn, or painted on real or personal property.

The max for each count is one year in prison. However, I really can't see any judge going that route. Most likely, he'll be fined and ordered to pay the $6000 cleanup cost (as ridiculous as that amount is). He may even have the option of doing some graffiti cleanup in lieu of paying the fine.

reply to post by Libertygal

In traffic court near where I live, you cannot plead "not guilty".

Where the heck do you live?

One of my favorite moments was showing up in traffic court and smiling when the officer took one look at my photo board and diagrams, and realized he was better off dismissing the ticket. (It was an expensive one too, speeding in a school zone, but I had an awesome angle, as the street I was turning off of, was in the middle of the school zone, and unsigned it was an active school zone). Would have been a $300 something ticket! I think my smile was the same one he gave me when he peeked out behind the bus stop with his radar gun. (even without knowing the school zone was active, I was only going about 5mph too fast, as I had just turned).

Originally posted by jacobe001
It is Freedom of Speech.

There is no Permanent Damage being done.

He used a Public Medium (sidewalk to express his speech)

On the other hand, buying of politicians via "freedom of speech" and polluting the airwaves with their filthy lies that encroaches on the rights and harms millions of other American's since they are not represented and don't have the money to buy politicians appears A - OK.

Let's not kid each other.

There are sidewalks all over that have soluble chalk drawings on them.

This is about the cockroaches at BOA and many other Big Banks that are fighting a PR war that they will loose
either way.

I am doing my part to make sure people never forget the crimes they have committed and have gotten away with since they own DC.

That is until they do away with Freedom of Speech for everyone but them and they are working on it.

They already have "Freedom of Speech Zones"

The citizens already have freedom of speech restrictions, but the plutocrats can spout their filth on the airwaves throughout the whole nation.

edit on 26-6-2013 by jacobe001 because: (no reason given)

Your bias is affecting your judgment here.

Let's change it up a little.

Your next door neighbor's daughter told her father that your son smokes pot and made unwanted advances on her. They've threatened to go to the police and now they've taken to expressing their 1st Amendment Right
by writing "warnings" about him....up and down the street on all the sidewalks and streets.....placing flyers on public utility poles......you get the idea.

Your pot-smoking child's sports scholarship and reputation are being sullied by your next door neighbor's simple writing things in chalk. You squirt down the front of your house everyday....and somehow in the morning...they're back.

Please? THINK!

Originally posted by DCPatriot

Your pot-smoking child's sports scholarship and reputation are being sullied by your next door neighbor's simple writing things in chalk. You squirt down the front of your house everyday....and somehow in the morning...they're back.

Please? THINK!

So you agree that it is damage control by BOA?

For 6 months, he wrote on various branch side walks to spread his message and BOA had to do something about it.

His message was there 24/7 unlike him having to walk the pavement with a sign at limited hours and probably would have given up well before 6 months was up.

But BOA and many other parasites have the money to litter our airwaves 24/7 with their marketing propaganda and lies.

Should we limit Freedom of Speech for everyone that may be harmed?

If so, we should start with the ones buying politicians to serve them over the rest of the millions of American's in this country.

reply to post by StrangeTimez


Honestly?

I am more surprised that people still use BoA.

Must be why they are charging him so much; either way, that's some very expensive chalk.

I see some people like to cherry pick their facts:

So here:

1. This is a graffiti case where the defendant is alleged to have engaged in the conduct on 13 different occasions. The trial judge has already held that, under California law, it is still graffiti even if the material can be removed with water. Most graffiti can be removed. Also, the judge and a different pre-trial judge held that the First Amendment is not a defense to vandalism/graffiti. 2.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

And for the record the first amendment is not a defense for repeated vandalism or graffiti,

reply to post by StrangeTimez


Wow, $6,000 dollars to hose down a building and sidewalk! I'm in the wrong business.

Originally posted by StrangeTimez
One bank said they spent $6000 cleaning up the water soluable chalk lol....

edit on 26-6-2013 by StrangeTimez because: Addition

They should have called me. I would have done it for half that price.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by sarahlm
I didn't even know a judge could ban your freedom of speech. Chalk doesn't hurt anyone, this is just pathetic really and they're going to destroy that poor man's life jailing him for it. Next they will be jailing kids for chalking hopscotch on the pavements outside

His freedom of speech was not banned. Vandalism is not an act of freedom of speech. So his freedom is intact, but that freedom has nothing to do with the case and thus is barred from being brought up because it is never a valid defense for this crime.

van·dal·ism
/ˈvandlˌizəm/
Noun
Action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property.

Water soluble chalk is not destructive nor damaging.

Perhaps if he wrote racial hate slogans or something, I could see a criminal charge. It's not his fault someone was dumb enough to spend money cleaning up kid's chalk...

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

Ruling that free speech can't be mentioned during a trial is a violation of free speech. That's like saying the 4th amendment doesn't apply because if it did it would give the defendant a defence to use in court.

Originally posted by centhwevir1979

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

His freedom of speech was not banned. Vandalism is not an act of freedom of speech.

Vandalism. You mean the way he put harmless chalk on the giant piece of litter that is a modern bank building?

I literally laughed out loud lol

Originally posted by neo96
I see some people like to cherry pick their facts:

So here:

1. This is a graffiti case where the defendant is alleged to have engaged in the conduct on 13 different occasions. The trial judge has already held that, under California law, it is still graffiti even if the material can be removed with water. Most graffiti can be removed. Also, the judge and a different pre-trial judge held that the First Amendment is not a defense to vandalism/graffiti. 2.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

And for the record the first amendment is not a defense for repeated vandalism or graffiti,

One of the multiple points of outrage is that writing in chalk is illegal to begin with. I suppose everything done under the umbrella of the patriot act is ok with you as well? Seeing as it is legal? Think for yourself in this case. Should writing about someones unpunished crime in sidewalk chalk be met with this excess? It wasnt slander. It wasnt False. The fact that they nailed him with everything they could should be proof. Charged with running a business outside the bank. This doesnt sound excessive? On top of the potential sentence and insane fine? Because he wrote a websites name outside the bank. This man us all a favor. Debate THAT.

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.

Originally posted by neo96
I see some people like to cherry pick their facts:

van·dal·ism
/ˈvandlˌizəm/
Noun
Action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property.

Just for clarification.

There is a cozy line of restaurants in a suburb neighborhood not far from me where kids and adults alike partake in drawing with colored chalks on the public sidewalks and have done it for years with nary a complaint.

This has nothing to do with "Vandalism" but everything to do with fascists that want to stifle public criticism of their criminal actions by every means possible.

I guarantee you if it was done with signs for 6 months by not just him but thousands of people they would use other means to get rid of them as well.

Oh, wait, they already did that with OWS where they turned a few people into the whole movement where thousands of them were #ting on cop cars, smoking dope and wanting a handout and smashing buildings.

But nothing about accountability by the criminals on Wall Street that crashed the economy

reply to post by StrangeTimez

One of the multiple points of outrage is that writing in chalk is illegal to begin with. I suppose everything done under the umbrella of the patriot act is ok with you as well? Seeing as it is legal?

Nice try has exactly zero to do with the Patriot Act, and everything do with California's own laws.

I suggest everyone that has complaints take it up with California, and their DA.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by StrangeTimez

 

One of the multiple points of outrage is that writing in chalk is illegal to begin with. I suppose everything done under the umbrella of the patriot act is ok with you as well? Seeing as it is legal?

Nice try has exactly zero to do with the Patriot Act, and everything do with California's own laws.

I suggest everyone that has complaints take it up with California, and their DA.

Your missing the point. I am comparing them. To put it more simply, by your logic, if they made segregation legal again would that make it right?

The Branch's of BOA in Cali wanted to stifle criticism and bad publicity with this individual but it blew up in their faces with this story.

I'll be sure to spread it around to relatives, friends and on various spots on the internet.

Should I also be quite creative in the use of marketing propaganda they use to drive the point home, with lies even, since there are no laws against that

Ethics and Morality is not in their vocabulary.

Originally posted by cheesy
reply to post by StrangeTimez

 

faces a 13-year jail sentence

it's better kill your enemy..you just have 15 years in jail..differing only 2 years

edit on 26-6-2013 by cheesy because: did not intend to teach to kill .. just annoyed while only

I can't help but agree completely.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by HairlessApe


Yo care to post on topic like here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Guess not.

Just because a "judge" bars something that is constitutional and based on the case, doesnt mean that he has any jurisdiction to become ROGUE like that, he is but a pimply faced mcdonalds employee of the people or he should be fired or jailed himself.

This is ridiculous for only crime such as massive political and judicial corruption, murder, rape, enslavement of others, should ever do any jail time whatsoever.

I would be taking him to court.