20 Occupy Sacramento Cases Dismissed – Dec 12 Hearing Transcript

“Who uses VHS?”

Download PDF: http://worldorder.wiki/dox/Occupy_Sac-Transcript_12.12.11_Hearing.pdf

Download High Quality Video: http://worldorder.wiki/video/Occupy/WWO-OccSac-Dec12-Court_Transcript.divx

Stream Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gx_qzCLemL8

Nine Occupy Sacramento defendants with 20 curfew (civil disobedience) cases were dismissed on December 12th, the day before our first round of trials were supposed to begin. But the City Attorney’s Office can evidently not handle the volume of our cases, and has dismissed dozens, including those related to my first two arrests.

I just received a copy of the hearing transcript. I feel bad here for the city’s attorney, Mr. Lindsey, scolded by the judge for the office’s lack of preparation. He did not order the unconstitutional arrests in the first place, and likely did not make the decision to prosecute.

In the end he explains how they will try to slap us with $100 administrative fees anyway, even though the charges are being dropped. Our lawyers explained they could have gone that route earlier instead of bringing the charges to court, but it is way too late for that. We are in the process of appealing those fees.

My understanding is also that the resolutions the city was hoping to get but didn’t, were the $100 deals we were each offered in the weeks before. None of us took the offered deals, we wanted jury trials. The city could not handle this.

Five days before this hearing, Occupy Sacramento held an action resulting in 20 more arrests, putting us past the mark of 100 arrests in two months. That night of December 7th was my third arrest. It has not been resolved yet (unlike the two resolved in this transcript), and I am due back in court for that on Feb 10th.

“THE COURT” means the judge. Gary Lindsey is a Deputy City Attorney. Linda Parisi is one of the lawyers defending one of my brothers and sisters in civil disobedience. This excerpt starts on page 20 of 33 in the attached PDF document.

Superior Court of California – County of Sacrmaneto
Honorable Ernest W. Sawtelle, Judge, Department 9
The People of the State of California, Plaintiff,
Amy Anderson, Kathyrn Coke, Julio Escobar, Daniel Garza, Morgan Lesko, Tracy Rice-Bailey, Evan Talmage, Sarah Thomas Prodan, Sean Thompson, Defendants.

THE COURT: All right. Miss — Miss Parisi —


THE COURT: — what’s your position?

MS. PARISI: Yes. I — I would indicate to the Court that really we are ill-equipped to argue these motions. There is a discovery order that was pending before the Court and granted with a compliance date of December 5th. If my recollection is correct, we have not been provided with discovery.
And as a result, we are incapable of articulating the full arguments to the Court because therefore their failure to comply with discovery.
Additionally, when I review their pleadings, they articulate no facts as required by statute in order to suggest why joinder of these two cases would be appropriate.

MR. LINDSEY: It’s not that we haven’t provided discovery at all. We have provided discovery. There may — there may not be as complete as the defense has sought, and there — maybe the Court may decide to do something short of dismissal.

THE COURT: Are there other items coming? I mean, was — you — they asked for some things in discovery. Apparently it was granted.
Did you turn over everything? Some?


MS. PARISI: Two of the 13 requested items have been complied with. There are 11 items outstanding.

THE COURT: All right. Let me talk to Mr. Lindsey a second.
Are you planning on discovering the other items to the defense or have you changed your mind and you want to — and you can’t do it or you won’t do it?
What’s the issue?

MR. LINDSEY: Well — well, for instance, with the videotapes, they’re — unfortunately, this is on VHS tape. That would take real-time to —

THE COURT: Who uses VHS?

MR. LINDSEY: Apparently Sacramento Police. Don’t ask me.
And it would take real-time to reduce — like to reproduce it, but would take an extreme amount of time because somebody has to actually do it in real-time.

THE COURT: You’ve videotape that you need to copy and turn over?

MR. LINDSEY: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, so when will you have that ready?

MR. LINDSEY: I believe by next week, your Honor, if we — if we —

THE COURT: I don’t understand entirely what the issue is with the tape. It seems, you know, pretty easy to copy a videotape.
But is this some unusual videotape?

MR. LINDSEY: It’s not the direct — let’s say if you had like a CD and you directly burned it in a matter of minutes. It’s sitting there the entire time. Somebody has to sit there for hours on end.

THE COURT: Is this a videotape that was down at the park of incident?

MR. LINDSEY: Yes. Yes, your Honor. Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: So who — was this city police took —

MR. LINDSEY: That’s correct, your Honor.

THE COURT: There was like a C.S.I. officer or some officer was taping the incident?

MR LINDSEY: That’s correct, your Honor.

THE COURT: And now they don’t have the technology to make a copy of that?

MR. LINDSEY: They do.

THE COURT: And so why would it take more than — I don’t know, a couple hours to get that done? I don’t understand.

MR. LINDSEY: It would take not more than a couple hours.

THE COURT: So why haven’t you turned that over yet?

MR. LINDSEY: I see your point, your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, what — what do you want to do about that?
I mean, are you gonna have it — can you get it today? What’s the issue?
You are ordered to turn over to — did Judge Frawley give you a day to turn over —


THE COURT: In other words, you have a certain amount of time.
Did he give you a day to discover it?

MR. LINDSEY: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: What was the deadline?

MR. LINDSEY: It was the 5th, your Honor.

THE COURT: He gave you until the 5th?

MR. LINDSEY: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Of December?

MR. LINDSEY: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Today is the 12th. So you’re — a week has gone by and you haven’t been able to do it.
Can you explain why you haven’t turned it over?

MR. LINDSEY: We were in negotiations for resolution that looked like they were gonna go through as far as actual resolution and they fell through.

THE COURT: Do you understand Court Orders is not a suggestion, Mr. Lindsey?

MR. LINDSEY: Yes, I do, your Honor.

THE COURT: I mean, it’s certainly understandable, a huge backlog or there is a reason for getting some information.
But when it doesn’t sound like you’re explaining there isn’t any difficulty in getting that information, you just didn’t discover it.
So tomorrow’s the day of trial. What were you gonna do, show up tomorrow and — without giving the discovery?
The defense seems to say they want trial tomorrow, but help me out, Mr. Lindsey.

MR. LINDSEY: I — I see your point, your Honor.

THE COURT: So where is the tape?

MR. LINDSEY: The tape is —

THE COURT: Can you get it today?

MR. LINDSEY: Reproduced or the physical tapes, your Honor, are you saying — you’re asking reproduced?

Can you make a copy and turn it over to defense today? You’ve got a trial set tomorrow.

MR. LINDSEY: I don’t believe so, your Honor.

THE COURT: Why not?

MR. LINDSEY: The tapes — I believe the tapes are such length as far as duration of time that they wouldn’t be ready for everybody.

THE COURT: Not particularly acceptable, Mr. Lindsey.
You contact the police department and tell them there’s a Court Order. They must have it. That’s the way it usually works. And then they make a copy.
And if there is some problem with it, then you come to court and explain what the problem is, if there is a technological problem or something like that.
So you have 10 out of — uh, actually two out of 13 items?

MS. PARISI: Right. I was mistaken. I believe we made a request for it looks like 22 items and two have been complied with.

THE COURT: So two out of 22 items.
What — what are the other items and why haven’t you turned them over?
Let’s start with why haven’t you turned the other 20 items over?

MR. LINDSEY: Well, there are items that we did turn over.


MR. LINDSEY: It was more than than two.

THE COURT: Okay. Whatever the number, where is the balance of the items that the Court ordered you to turn over by December 5th or was it by December —

MS. PARISI: December 5th.

THE COURT: Yeah. You were told that you must turn them over by December 5th and here you are seven days later.
So where is the rest of the items?

MR. LINDSEY: They still need to be fully compiled, your Honor.


MR. LINDSEY: And it would be in the possession of parks and recreation.
For instance, your Honor, the city of Sacramento —

THE COURT: Are they physical items?

MR. LINDSEY: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: I mean, in other words, these items of evidence that the defense — you could show the defense. I don’t even know. I don’t [know] what the issue is now.

MR. LINDSEY: For example, permits going back five years for all the park permits, that kind of thing.

THE COURT: Okay. So these aren’t difficult things to obtain it doesn’t sound like. You just need to make photocopies of them.
Is that what you’re saying?

MR. LINDSEY: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: So again, Mr. Lindsey, why hasn’t all this been turned over? I fail to understand why it hasn’t been turned over up to this point.
Have you asked anybody to turn it over? Have you asked parks and rec. —

MR. LINDSEY: Yes, I have, your Honor.

THE COURT: What’s the status? Have you talked to them today? Where is this information? We’ve got trial set for tomorrow.

MR. LINDSEY: I did not talk to them today, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. So what were you planning to do? Were you going to show up tomorrow morning without showing up (sic) the discovery and expect everybody to go along with that?
   You have to have a plan here. I’m not trying to be rude here.

MR. LINDSEY: I understand, your Honor. I understand.

THE COURT: You have — if you’re gonna go to trial, you have to be able to provide the discovery.
Did you object to giving the discovery over in the first place?

MR. LINDSEY: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: So you agree that this was discoverable information and the Court ordered it, and it sounds like you haven’t really taken that many steps to comply with the discovery order because you thought it was going to resolve apparently. But that plan doesn’t appear to be working out too well for you.
So tomorrow is the date for trial. I think the 45th day is the 19th, something like that.

MR. LINDSEY: That’s correct, your Honor.

THE COURT: So what — what’s your plan? You tell me what the plan is.

MR. LINDSEY: Come back tomorrow, see what we can get done and we go from there, your Honor, and whatever the Court’s decision is or decision as far as tomorrow as far as what we can physically produce for the defense.

THE COURT: Is — those motions came through this department at one point and before it was assigned out, and I do recall reading it.
It appears to me that everybody cut and pasted — everybody had the same exact same request from what I can recall. Everybody had the same items.

MR. LINDSEY: Pretty much, yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: So it wouldn’t be difficult if you can come up with one complete packet of discovery, you have to copy it nine times and you’re done, right?
So can you even complete the packet of discovery tonight?

MR. LINDSEY: I don’t know for sure, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Lindsey, you’re representing the People on this case. This is your responsibility to do this.
And I don’t know what’s going on back in your office. Why don’t — you don’t have more support here where you’ve got nine defendants set for trial?
But right now I don’t know what you’re doing. You haven’t moved to join the defendants or to charge anybody under a single complaint.
You haven’t provided it sounds like 80 percent of the discovery that’s requested in this case.
I think everybody was gonna answer ready tomorrow.
Were you gonna try all nine cases yourself or were you gonna have nine different city attorneys over here trying these cases tomorrow morning?

MR. LINDSEY: We have to spread out, your Honor.

THE COURT: What were you going to spread out?

MR. LINDSEY: In between attorneys, your Honor.

THE COURT: You were gonna have nine lawyers here tomorrow?

MR. LINDSEY: Well, not nine.

THE COURT: Since you didn’t move to join these, and and it’s at the Court’s urging that they be joined, I just — I fail to understand your plan.
What is your plan?
How do you — how are you going to prosecute these cases in a way that the defense all gets the discovery they’re — they’re entitled to and where we have enough courtrooms to try ’em and there are enough prosecutors to try ’em?
And by prosecutors I mean city attorneys who are prosecuting these cases.
Do you need some time to talk to somebody?

MR. LINDSEY: Yes, your Honor. I do.

THE COURT: Why don’t you take 15 minutes and — and talk to — this over with somebody and we’ll — we’ll come back on the record, okay?


… (recess) …

THE COURT: All right. On — on the discovery issue did you want to be heard any further?

MR. LINDSEY: Actually, your Honor, I think I can resolve the whole thing if I can just make a brief statement.

THE COURT: That would be great.

MR. LINDSEY: Yes, your Honor.
The City Attorney’s Office appreciates the Court’s dealing with the high volume of cases that came through in relation to “Occupy Sacramento”. I think it was over 50 maybe.
And there were attempts to resolve these cases, given that they were misdemeanors and so on and so forth, along the lines with something other than going to trial, having to do D.E.J. or potentially administrative penalties under the City of Sacramento administrative process.
As I mentioned before, that ultimately fell through. But at this time it’s probably obvious we should go through the administrative penalty process instead of the criminal court system in relation to these cases.
And on that I would make a motion to dismiss in the interest of justice.

THE COURT: So the nine cases or actually nine defendants, there is more than that. So there is a number of cases total here, but you’re just talking about the cases on calendar today?

MR. LINDSEY: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: So that will be including — all the cases that are set for trial tomorrow, including all the trailing cases for each defendant?

MR. LINDSEY: That’s correct. Everything just Prodan and Thompson.

MS. PARISI: ThompsonProdan, she has two set for trial, one trailing.
I understand him saying he’s moving to dismiss as to all three.

THE COURT: Is that going to include any — everything with Amy Anderson?

MR. LINDSEY: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All cases with Kathryn Coke, Jolio Escobar, Daniel Garza, Morgan Lesko, Tracy Rice-Bailey, Even Talmage, Sara ThomasProdan and Sean Thompson?

MR. LINDSEY: That’s correct, your Honor.

THE COURT: All of the cases that are on calendar today, I’m not going through the numbers on each of those, but all of those cases at this time will be — is a motion to dismiss for interest of justice?

MR. LINDSEY: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: As to all of those defendants, no objection is being heard from any of the defense. Defense attorneys all do appear to be present at this time. That will be granted.
And there are no bonds I assume.

MS. PARISI: I don’t believe so.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MS. PARISI: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. LINDSEY: Thank you.