Skip to comments.California man faces 13 years in jail for scribbling anti-bank messages in chalk
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 Olsons 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 Olsons 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 ...
We are hosed
Shouldn’t the charge be petty vandalism, and the sentence or fine related to the cost of scrubbing the sidewalks?
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
Have to say that the third world is looking freer and freer compared to the USSA.
“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?
Don’t for a second believe that this story, and today’s Supreme Court ruling are not related.
You guys are really in trouble.
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.
Interest-free loans? I think they meant loans that ended up costing Bank of America $4.5 billion.
what did he write?
Oh good lord. He used sidewalk chalk, make him clean it up.
Maybe a few hours of cleaning up trash, but thirteen years?
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.
Good old USSA.
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.
Maybe he can use the Crayola defense.
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.