California Man Faces 13 Years In Prison For Offending Bank of America With Kiddie Chalk

[djzombie]

http://rt.com/usa/california-man-13-prison-banks-237/

saw this posted on reddit earlier. the most odd thing about this to me is a judge declaring that an attorney can't bring up first amendment rights in his defense.

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.

[Ksandra]

I hate BoA

[notorious bum]

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time, punk.

[ronin sparthos]

So Perry Masons of BG: What the hell case can he make with those restrictions?

Launder money to terrorists and drug cartels: Too big to jail.
Express distaste with multinational bank: Fuck you, go to jail immediately.

'Murica!

[Aristio]

So what's with the barring of using the first amendment? Other than some minor vandalism charges, what is this really about?

[Callisto]

I'm no legal expert but if I had to guess, they're not being allowed to use the first amendment as justification for the 'vandalism'(obviously that's a little ludicrous since it was washable chalk), but vandalism is a crime regardless of the reason(it's not like violent charges with possible self-defense charges, there's no sort of self-preservation that could make vandalism a necessity) and his lawyer would have been able to smokescreen that fact by puffing up FREEDOMS to the jury.

[ringthree]

So what's with the barring of using the first amendment? Other than some minor vandalism charges, what is this really about?

I am just guessing, but there was probably an argument that a first amendment claim would be incorrect in this case (the first amendment doesn't allow for defacing of other people's property, for example) and that mentioning it would bias the jury.

[Tyche]

I thought sidewalks were public property. If so, there's precedence set on every street corner in the burbs.

[Drex]

I think it's funny that, apparently, the important part of this story is not the first amendment thing or the insanely long sentence, but BoA, who had the audacity to ...call the cops. And send an email asking about the case. The rest is the gov. But we can't let reality get in the way of the populist narrative, I guess.

[Drex]

I thought sidewalks were public property. If so, there's precedence set on every street corner in the burbs.

They are, but the city claims that it is vandalism because it was done out of malice. Hence why the fine plus restitution instead of just restitutions.

The fine and jail time reflect 13 counts of vandalism, not the "victim". Dude was fine until he wrote down shit.

[Tajin]

A fuckton hours of public service since, you know its washable chalk and not spray-paint. Noooo lets waste taxpayer money on jury and bullshit.

At least is not my money.

[Rhyis.]

Hopscotch players beware.

[notorious bum]

Graff scene is lollerskating right now, while painting large penis murals over some BoA billboards, probably.

[Callisto]

They are, but the city claims that it is vandalism because it was done out of malice. Hence why the fine plus restitution instead of just restitutions.

The fine and jail time reflect 13 counts of vandalism, not the "victim". Dude was fine until he wrote down shit.

^
If he was out on the sidewalk wearing a sandwich board that said the same thing, no problem.

[mallister]

Aquitted today.

[Tajin]

Nice!

[Ksandra]

Aquitted today.

moar detail:

SAN DIEGO — The mayor called the case "stupid" and a jury swiftly said it shouldn't stick, taking the eraser to vandalism charges for a man who wrote anti-bank slogans on San Diego sidewalks.

A Superior Court jury deliberated for five hours after a four-day trial before acquitting Jeff Olson Monday of the 13 misdemeanor charges that could have brought 13 years in jail and $13,000 in fines.

Olson, 40, was charged with scrawling messages like "Shame on B of A" and `'No thanks, big banks" in water-soluble chalk on sidewalks outside San Diego Bank of America branches from April to August 2012. He included a drawing of an octopus reaching for dollar bills.

Olson turned to his attorney, nodded and smiled as the verdicts were read.

The trial was the latest in a series of dustups between City Attorney Jan Goldsmith, who prosecuted the case, and Mayor Bob Filner, who called it a "nonsense prosecution" that came in response to complaints from Bank of America.

"It's washable chalk, it's political slogans," Filner said last week. "I think it's a stupid case. It's costing us money."

Jail time is highly unusual for graffiti convictions, which typically result in fines or community service.

The city attorney's office said it offered to reduce the charges if Olson agreed to perform community service by cleaning up graffiti, but he refused. The office said the case was referred by the police department.

"Graffiti remains vandalism in the state of California," the city attorney's office said. "Under the law, there is no First Amendment right to deface property, even if the writing is easily removed, whether the message is aimed at banks or any other person or group. We are, however, sympathetic to the strong public reaction to this case and the jury's message."

The judge, who imposed a gag order on participants during the trial, refused to allow Olson's attorney to argue that the messages were constitutionally protected free speech. Instead, the attorney argued the messages caused no damage and were not malicious.

Olson, who was inspired by the Occupy Wall Street movement, said he was relieved by the outcome and that the prosecution brought more attention to his views than he ever imagined possible.

"I couldn't have done better if I rented an airplane with a banner and put billboards up all over town," he said.

http://rt.com/usa/california-man-13-prison-banks-237/

[quannum]

not guilty yall got to feel me

[Andalusian girls]

system works when you have non-jackasses in positions of power who can counterbalance the jackasses in positions of power

[Ddz]

"It's washable chalk, it's political slogans," Filner said last week. "I think it's a stupid case. It's costing us money."

Fucking nice. Some common sense.