Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

California man faces 13 years in jail for scribbling anti-bank messages in chalk
RT ^ | 6/26/13 | staff

Posted on 06/26/2013 10:54:45 AM PDT by Nachum

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.

(Excerpt) Read more at rt.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: jail; messages; scribblingantibank

1 posted on 06/26/2013 10:54:46 AM PDT by Nachum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Comment #2 Removed by Moderator

To: Nachum

We are hosed


3 posted on 06/26/2013 10:57:20 AM PDT by frogjerk (We are conservatives. Not libertarians, not "fiscal conservatives", not moderates)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Shouldn’t the charge be petty vandalism, and the sentence or fine related to the cost of scrubbing the sidewalks?


4 posted on 06/26/2013 10:58:03 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Pelosi’s inlaws can steal hundreds of Millions of dollars and walk, but a peon spends his life in prison for protesting.

Justice, Obama style


5 posted on 06/26/2013 10:58:27 AM PDT by American in Israel (A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but the foolish mans heart directs him toward the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Have to say that the third world is looking freer and freer compared to the USSA.


6 posted on 06/26/2013 10:58:28 AM PDT by trapped_in_LA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

“A judge has barred his attorney from mentioning freedom of speech during trial.”

What do you call an attorney with an IQ if less than 50?

Your Honor.


7 posted on 06/26/2013 11:00:01 AM PDT by MichaelCorleone (Jesus Christ is not a religion. He's the Truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: Nachum

Don’t for a second believe that this story, and today’s Supreme Court ruling are not related.


9 posted on 06/26/2013 11:03:04 AM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
He criticized a bank? That should be a capital offense!
10 posted on 06/26/2013 11:03:15 AM PDT by MrBambaLaMamba (Obama lies, smokes, blasphemes, eats pork, reads your mail, eavesdrops and drinks during Ramadan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

You guys are really in trouble.

11 posted on 06/26/2013 11:06:02 AM PDT by Slyfox (Without the Right to Life, all other rights are meaningless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

I guess they didn’t want him to practice his right to Free Speech, they should have given him 100 years so we’d not doubt what was in the heart of those who did the sentencing.


12 posted on 06/26/2013 11:07:08 AM PDT by rovenstinez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
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.

Interest-free loans? I think they meant loans that ended up costing Bank of America $4.5 billion.

ProPublica

13 posted on 06/26/2013 11:07:15 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

what did he write?


14 posted on 06/26/2013 11:08:09 AM PDT by MNDude (Sorry for typos. Probably written on a smartphone, and I have big clumsy fingers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Oh good lord. He used sidewalk chalk, make him clean it up.
Maybe a few hours of cleaning up trash, but thirteen years?


15 posted on 06/26/2013 11:10:13 AM PDT by svcw (Stand or die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

I can see why the judge’s ruling make sense. The case is about vandalism, not about the actual message. So the free speech argument is irrelevant.

If the law is written in such a way that the punishments for water-soluble chalk graffiti are too harsh, that is not an issue for the court to address. I do think the judge should use discretion in handing out the least harsh punishment allowed by law in this case, but still, he is within his judicial authority.

What am I missing here? If I am wrong, please explain why, without resorting to accusations of my being a troll or a closet fascist, which would only demonstrate the accuser’s inability to engage in rational discussion.

If I am wrong, enlighten me.


16 posted on 06/26/2013 11:10:17 AM PDT by Maceman (Just say "NO" to tyranny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Good old USSA.


17 posted on 06/26/2013 11:10:29 AM PDT by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

He’s the guy that can throw your sorry butt in jail on a contempt of court charge at the slightest whim.

Judges here (Silicon Valley) make it crystal clear that they will NOT tolerate “any of this jury nullification nonsense” in THEIR courts.

Re-posted with the generally accepted substitute word for nether orifice removed (as well as the entire context of Mr K’s posted question) in hopes of avoiding censorship.


18 posted on 06/26/2013 11:11:10 AM PDT by null and void (Republicans create the tools of oppression, and the democrats gleefully use them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Nachum
This is the type of case which demands jury nullification.
19 posted on 06/26/2013 11:12:17 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (This message has been recorded but not approved by Obama's StasiNet. Read it at your peril.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Maybe he can use the Crayola defense.


20 posted on 06/26/2013 11:16:03 AM PDT by stayathomemom (Beware of kittens modifying your posts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

I’m torn. Part of me says this “judge” is way out of bounds because this does appear to be an obvious free speech issue. The other part of me sees that this is probably one of those damned OWS protesters (anti-bigbank) and I’d like to see him rot in jail because he’s stupid.

It’s a toss-up.


21 posted on 06/26/2013 11:16:07 AM PDT by Cyber Liberty (I am a dissident. Will you join me? My name is John....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNDude

WHAT EXACTLY!


22 posted on 06/26/2013 11:16:24 AM PDT by Big Red Badger ("don't hurt me , G 'man!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
A judge has barred his attorney from mentioning freedom of speech during trial.

Just let that one sink in for a moment...


23 posted on 06/26/2013 11:17:02 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void; Admin Moderator

I’m sorry - I should have said “What a Clymer”


24 posted on 06/26/2013 11:17:09 AM PDT by Mr. K (There are lies, damned lies, statistics, and democrat talking points.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Maceman
What am I missing here?

Common sense. Or, more appropriately, that is what the judge is missing. It's the same as expelling a student for having an aspirin under some sort of 'zero tolerance for drugs' policy. Obviously, taking an aspirin for a headache is not the same as dealing crack out of your locker. Nor is writing on the sidewalk with chalk the same as defacing private property with spray paint. Blind application of rules and laws is not justice without thought to the purpose of the rule or the good old fashioned right or wrong is not justice; it's idiocy.

25 posted on 06/26/2013 11:25:36 AM PDT by tnlibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio

Even mentioning jury nullification in my local court could earn you contempt of court jail time.


26 posted on 06/26/2013 11:29:15 AM PDT by null and void (Republicans create the tools of oppression, and the democrats gleefully use them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: MrBambaLaMamba

“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”- Voltaire


27 posted on 06/26/2013 11:30:34 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

http://www.sandiego.edu/law/academics/faculty/bio.php?ID=663

the judge appears to be a professor at the University of San Diego....oh boy


28 posted on 06/26/2013 11:31:25 AM PDT by BookmanTheJanitor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
...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,”...

Now that is ironic.

29 posted on 06/26/2013 11:34:21 AM PDT by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BookmanTheJanitor
the judge appears to be a professor at the University of San Diego

He must be trying to provide an example to his class of what "basis for appeal" means.


30 posted on 06/26/2013 11:36:36 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: null and void

And that is why it should be practiced but never mentioned, as such.


31 posted on 06/26/2013 11:43:02 AM PDT by Pecos (If more sane people carried guns, fewer crazies would get off a second shot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: null and void
Even mentioning jury nullification in my local court could earn you contempt of court jail time.

Last time I got to voir dire before a trial I was one of the top 12 potential jurors (based on seating position). One of the lawyers asked whether anyone had heard of jury nullification and I gave too detailed of answer, so I got sent home before the trial.

32 posted on 06/26/2013 11:45:00 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (This message has been recorded but not approved by Obama's StasiNet. Read it at your peril.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty
I am not in any way torn.

I, unlike the defendant and every person defending him including many freepers am perfectly capable of communicating without vandalism.

33 posted on 06/26/2013 11:46:03 AM PDT by MrEdd (Heck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Maceman

For a charge of Vandalism to actually stick, if he has a decent lawyer, there has to be criminal intent.

The arguement that he was making a point is valid, and also that he went out of his way to utilize a temporary and non-destructive means of doing so.

The Judge is a douche and needs removal from the bench...


34 posted on 06/26/2013 11:57:28 AM PDT by Axenolith (Government blows, and that which governs least, blows least...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd

No criminal intent, no destruction of property = No Vandalism...

Is that hard to understand?


35 posted on 06/26/2013 11:58:56 AM PDT by Axenolith (Government blows, and that which governs least, blows least...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: tnlibertarian

The bank said that it cost $6k to clean up the “damage.” That sounds like a lot to me, but if they can show proof that they incurred that cost, I can see fining the defendant for that plus punitive damages.

I agree 13 years in jail is ridiculous, but I don’t know how real that is. The media often reports “potential sentences” that way for sensationalism. The defendant commits a crime, gets charged with multiple counts, each of which carries some number of months sentence. But the fact is there are usually sentencing guidelines, which combine the terms so that they generally run concurrently. So the defendant ultimately gets, say, five years, whereas the total “potential” sentence reported by the media is 125 years.

I agree it would be a travesty for the judge to give this guy a 13-year sentence, but I wouldn’t jump to any conclusions about that being reality.


36 posted on 06/26/2013 11:59:18 AM PDT by Maceman (Just say "NO" to tyranny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Maceman

We shall see what penalty hizzoner sees fit to impose.

This case is so vital, and so important that the judge has seen fit to suspend the accused’s first amendment rights, why would he care about his rights under the eight amendment?


37 posted on 06/26/2013 12:04:59 PM PDT by null and void (Republicans create the tools of oppression, and the democrats gleefully use them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Anarcho-tyranny in action, plain and simple.


38 posted on 06/26/2013 12:07:46 PM PDT by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maceman
I agree it would be a travesty for the judge to give this guy a 13-year sentence, but I wouldn’t jump to any conclusions about that being reality.

You are absolutely right about the sentence possibility probably being 'worst case - never going to happen.' I didn't read the article and see the $6k cleanup bill. I pictured more of a sidewalk chalk drawing gone with the next rain.

39 posted on 06/26/2013 12:32:09 PM PDT by tnlibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Maceman

Threatening a defendant with obscenely long sentences is the government’s own version of jury nullification - forcing the defendant to take a plea and give up his right to a jury trial, in order to avoid that obscene sentence.

Nice plus mark for the prosecutor, a career builder, saves the state or the Feds the expense of a trial, admitted criminal serves six month to a year easy time.

What not to like? Aside from the harm done to the Constitution, common sense, justice, a level playing field...


40 posted on 06/26/2013 12:37:22 PM PDT by heartwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

“The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by who resists it.”
— John Hay, 1872

“It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.”
— Voltaire (1694-1778)


41 posted on 06/26/2013 1:25:31 PM PDT by veracious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio
Last time I got to voir dire before a trial I was one of the top 12 potential jurors (based on seating position). One of the lawyers asked whether anyone had heard of jury nullification and I gave too detailed of answer, so I got sent home before the trial.

Sounds to me like you got the opportunity to explain the concept to the other jurors.

42 posted on 06/26/2013 1:28:58 PM PDT by zeugma (Those of us who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Maceman
The case is about vandalism, not about the actual message.

Vandalism is destruction of property, so the perpetrator would be liable for compensating the victim for the amount destroyed and whatever fines or jail time connected with the act.

NOTHING was destroyed here, so this is a mega overreaction by the judge IMHO. It sound more like this guy is being made an example of for thumbing his nose at a big bank more than anything else.

Wonder who this judge does HIS banking with, anyway?

43 posted on 06/26/2013 2:09:45 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a Person as defined by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as defined by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Don’t mention 1st A?

My next chalk missive will start and end with:

“1st Amendment, Free Speech”

Let hizonner try to exclude that!

I did pass 1st grade, including “Chalk Awareness Techniques”.


44 posted on 06/28/2013 3:39:05 PM PDT by Scrambler Bob ( Concerning bo -- that refers to the president. If I capitalize it, I mean the dog.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson