Bitcoin Forum
November 14, 2024, 12:48:30 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 28.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: California man faces 13 years in jail for scribbling anti-bank messages in chalk  (Read 1700 times)
Wilikon (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
June 28, 2013, 12:36:15 AM
 #1

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.
r3wt
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 504


always the student, never the master.


View Profile
June 28, 2013, 12:38:34 AM
 #2

fuck the goverment. our forefathers would hang these pricks from the highest of trees.

My negative trust rating is reflective of a personal vendetta by someone on default trust.
btceic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 250


♫ A wave came crashing like a fist to the jaw ♫


View Profile WWW
June 28, 2013, 12:49:16 AM
 #3

this is disgusting, i am ashamed to be an american right now.

♫ This situation, which side are you on? Are you getting out? Are you dropping bombs? Have you heard of diplomatic resolve? ♫ How To Run A Cheap Full Bitcoin Node For $19 A Year ♫ If I knew where it was, I would take you there. There’s much more than this. ♫ Track Your Bitcoins Value
Singlebyte
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 1000



View Profile
June 28, 2013, 07:40:40 AM
 #4

 Huh

I am speechless.  Government protecting big banks.  Ridiculous!
Kluge
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1015



View Profile
June 28, 2013, 08:14:06 AM
 #5

Defendant has super-shit lawyer. That Tom Tosdal must feel like supreme commander of fuckin' idiot.

Prosecutor should go for the throat and pile on criminal chrages for attempting to incite unlawful acts against the banks government. Only "philosophical abstraction" is protected speech when against the government.
Foxpup
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4533
Merit: 3184


Vile Vixen and Miss Bitcointalk 2021-2023


View Profile
June 28, 2013, 10:51:13 AM
 #6

"The State's Vandalism Statute does not mention First Amendment rights," ruled Judge Shore on Tuesday.
No shit. For those of you who don't get it, the reason the Vandalism Statute doesn't mention the right to free speech is because freedom of speech only applies to what you do with your own property, not other people's. You're free to put anti-bank messages on a sign in front of your house, on a T-shirt, on a billboard you paid to advertise on; but you're not free to put your message on other people's property without their permission. Tom Tosdal is either a complete retard or batshit insane if he doesn't understand that. Roll Eyes

Will pretend to do unspeakable things (while actually eating a taco) for bitcoins: 1K6d1EviQKX3SVKjPYmJGyWBb1avbmCFM4
I am not on the scammers' paradise known as Telegram! Do not believe anyone claiming to be me off-forum without a signed message from the above address! Accept no excuses and make no exceptions!
Lethn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
June 28, 2013, 10:55:34 AM
 #7

I actually agree with it, but they shouldn't ban him from mentioning it, they should just make him look like a moron, people like this piss me off because they don't understand the meaning of consent and think freedom means you get to fuck over other people without repercussions, they should bear in mind that if they lived in a completely lawless society they could end up being shot at for doing that.
Kluge
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1015



View Profile
June 28, 2013, 11:23:34 AM
 #8

Really, though, the bank made the dumbest claim of the story. "one Bank of America branch claimed it had cost $6,000 to clean up the [water-soluble!] chalk writing."

That quote's presence is vandalizing my monitor, and I can't remove it without hiring a team of contractors to scroll for me.
Frizz23
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162
Merit: 500


View Profile
June 28, 2013, 11:40:17 AM
 #9

The USA are turning more and more into a fascist country.

Edward Snowden, a guy that deserves the Peace Nobel Price, gets hounded.

Barack Obama, a sock puppet of the big puppeteer (big capitalist east coasts pigs), got the Peace Nobel price.

In which world are we living?

To all those people writing "I am ashamed to be an american right now": Move your bloody ass and do something about it!

Ξtherization⚡️First P2E 2016⚡️🏰💎🌈 etherization.org
Ekaros
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728
Merit: 500



View Profile
June 28, 2013, 04:51:56 PM
 #10

Really, though, the bank made the dumbest claim of the story. "one Bank of America branch claimed it had cost $6,000 to clean up the [water-soluble!] chalk writing."

That quote's presence is vandalizing my monitor, and I can't remove it without hiring a team of contractors to scroll for me.

So they had bankers doing some real work? I don't see any other way for that crazy rate for cleaning...

12pA5nZB5AoXZaaEeoxh5bNqUGXwUUp3Uv
http://firstbits.com/1qdiz
Feel free to help poor student!
legitnick
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500



View Profile WWW
June 28, 2013, 05:18:02 PM
 #11

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.

WOW. Thats absolutely ridiculous. Government completly breaking the right of free speach. This should be taken to the supreme court.

5 BITCOIN RAFFLE GIVEAWAY
"I dont lift" - Lord Furrycoat
TECSHARE
In memoriam
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008


First Exclusion Ever


View Profile WWW
June 28, 2013, 09:22:35 PM
 #12

I actually agree with it, but they shouldn't ban him from mentioning it, they should just make him look like a moron, people like this piss me off because they don't understand the meaning of consent and think freedom means you get to fuck over other people without repercussions, they should bear in mind that if they lived in a completely lawless society they could end up being shot at for doing that.

I think the real question here is does the punishment fit the crime? If his crime was damage to property (AKA vandalism) I think each count might cost about $50 to hire a guy with a power washer to fix it (or just a long rain). Does that sound like something that warrants 13 years in prison to you?

Now however if they are prosecuting him based on the content of his speech within the act of vandalism, unless the message itself breaks established limits on content of speech (no direct threats, etc), they are in fact judging the content of his speech and he should be protected under the first amendment. His words as far as I know were not inherently criminal. Give the man a fine and send him home. Why do we let murderers out in a year or two but send a guy writing on a wall with some chalk to prison for 13? If you can answer that you will understand USA much better.
Lethn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
June 28, 2013, 10:03:42 PM
 #13

It's true that, it seems to be the context or politics behind the crime rather than the crime itself that matters more now.
Foxpup
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4533
Merit: 3184


Vile Vixen and Miss Bitcointalk 2021-2023


View Profile
June 29, 2013, 01:51:20 AM
 #14

I think the real question here is does the punishment fit the crime?
What punishment? He hasn't even been tried yet, let alone sentenced. 13 years is the maximum penalty for 13 counts of vandalism. If his lawyer is smart enough to argue that he didn't do any permanent damage (though that's a big if), he'll almost certainly be let off with a small fine, if that.

Will pretend to do unspeakable things (while actually eating a taco) for bitcoins: 1K6d1EviQKX3SVKjPYmJGyWBb1avbmCFM4
I am not on the scammers' paradise known as Telegram! Do not believe anyone claiming to be me off-forum without a signed message from the above address! Accept no excuses and make no exceptions!
BrightAnarchist
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 853
Merit: 1000



View Profile
June 29, 2013, 02:10:27 AM
 #15

This makes me feel sick.
Severian
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250



View Profile
June 29, 2013, 02:15:58 AM
 #16

they should just make him look like a moron

Too late. He could never look as moronic as the bank and the prosecutors at this point.
bitster
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 53
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 29, 2013, 03:10:22 AM
 #17

I dont care who disagrees if it can be simply hosed off its not vandalism!
enquirer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 306
Merit: 257


View Profile
June 29, 2013, 05:43:27 AM
 #18

Life in US is getting more scary by the day. They should make a rule that for every new law - two old laws should be abjudicated.
Littleshop
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 1004



View Profile WWW
June 29, 2013, 01:39:23 PM
 #19

I dont care who disagrees if it can be simply hosed off its not vandalism!

A) it can be hosed off
b) it is political speech
c) no libel
d) gross overcharging by the prosecutor

For those reasons it should be ignored.  By the letter of the law it is vandalism .  I have a HUGE problem with the jury being given instructions on the first amendment that are improper.  This is one for jury nullification if there ever was one.

B613
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 7
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 29, 2013, 04:35:19 PM
 #20

No one in their right mind doubts that the damage was symbolical and primary reason for prosecution is suppression of criticism.

Do people of America need to proclaim another Declaration of Independence from another tyranny?
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!