First Amendment Defense for Camping TIcket.

I have considered the violation (camping, BRC 5-6-10) I have been charged with by Officer Starks of the BPD while "camping" on the Courthouse lawn on Pearl St. I believe we have a very strong case for all involved to be found innocent of these charges, primarily due to the fact that we have a video of Officer Ramos of the BPD informing us that we had permission to camp.
There were 10 charges of "camping" issued that night to the people on the courthouse lawn. I would like to propose that we challenge at least one of these tickets on the basis of free speech. I realize that there are risks involved in this course of action, but if we truly believe we live in a progressive and liberal community then we of all occupy movements should be willing to take this risk. I will volunteer to defend myself in this way provided that the Occupy Boulder GA believes it will not hamper discussions with the city, and that I have both ideological and practical support from members of Occupy Boulder and the GA.
The court date on my ticket is Tuesday December 6, 8:30am. That is exactly two weeks from today. What do you all think?

I am told that Carolyn Bninski from RMPJC and on the Goals & Strategies WG has fought the camping laws on behalf of the homeless. The lawyer David Harrison of the NLG has represented homeless people who have received camping tickets. I advise that before people attempt this that they recognize that many individuals and groups like the ACLU have made attempts to fight these laws. If you do choose to pursue this course I would recommend first benefiting from their experience

This is something we can bring up tomorrow at GA.

Good point about the public posting, but I'm not sure how else to do this. Everything we do is public. Are there other options?
-I

Hi Ilan,

I see no reason that your approach should hamper anything. It is your individual right to represent yourself as you wish.

Continuing Lauren's advise to utilize the experience of others, I fought a traffic ticket last year and appealed it all on my own. It used up a LOT of my time and money and I still lost. To use your approach, I'm guessing that you would've had to have notified the police beforehand that your tent was a 'free speech tent'. Or, the tent itself would've had to have been prominently labelled as a 'free speech tent'. In court, they would probably argue that there was no reason for the cop to view the tent as being anything other than the kind of tent addressed in the ordinance on the citation.

Ilan, it's very noble of you to offer to sacrifice yourself in this manner. You have an easy, factual way out and I would recommend that you take it. There will be PLENTY of other opportunities to draw a line in the sand and stand up for free speech or anything else that you wish.

Cliff

Thanks everybody, I will be contacting a lawyer tomorrow and we have a group meeting on Tuesday with all the people who have been ticketed and a lawyer who has volunteered to represent us. I'll get more input and decide what path to take. Thanks!

First of all, I want to reiterate something I've said a number of times in various formats: I think it is important that we do our best to be open and transparent. If justice is on our side, we don't need to confine our conversations to "behind closed doors", physically or virtually. I also think the governments and corporations we have so many issues with would be far more just if they operated transparently, and I don't want to perpetuate that problem.

Second, I'd like to add that it seems to me there's a defense here based on the 14th Amendment. Governments are supposed to provide equal protection under the law to all citizens. The homeless are citizens, too, and this law clearly discriminates against them. I'm no lawyer or Constitutional scholar, but this one seems pretty obvious to me. *shrug*

The goals of openness and transparency should be applauded and corporations need to be held to comply. As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, "Sunlight is the best disinfectant”.

However, I think it is important to remember protections of privacy, privilege, and confidentiality. There are some things that the government or corporations don't need to know; especially if this information could be used to harm citizens and organizations. Who I give campaign contributions to would be something important to keep transparent; what I keep in my sock drawer is something that should be kept private.

Talking about legal strategy about who will use what argument and why is not necessary for transparency. The justice system is an adversarial system and the opposing party can use information to the detriment of the "open" party. I think it is important to be mindful that things individuals say and do can be used in a court room.

I like the 14th amendment argument proposed, which is a good "legal theory". Thanks for offering that. Talking about legal theory is probably a good thing; strategy not so good. There are others as well: 1st obviously, 8th amdt cruel and unusual punishment against the homeless, a 4th amdt right to seizure of homes(tents), and i think an interesting 9th amdt contradiction of infringing expanded rights given Citizens United.