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

RT ^ | 6/26/13 | staff

[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.

[veracious]

“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)

[zeugma]

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.

[MamaTexan]

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?

[Scrambler Bob]

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”.