Motion filed to find acquitted child endangerment defendant factually innocent
by Kara Machado, 6/12/2007
Humboldt County Deputy Public Defender Angela Fitzsimons was in court Tuesday on behalf of Sean Marsh.
Fitzsimons has filed a motion requesting a finding of factual innocence.
If granted, the motion would find Marsh “factually innocent” of the charges he was acquitted of in February following a jury trial.
In addition, if a judge found Marsh factually innocent, there could be a finding of good cause for the sealing and ultimate destruction of the records in his case.
On Tuesday, Fitzsimons’ motion was brought before Humboldt County Superior Court Judge Timothy Cissna.
Cissna made a tentative decision to deny the motion for such reasons as: Although the Humboldt County District Attorney’s Office did not prove to a jury that Marsh was guilty, the motion must show that he could determine factually, “100 percent,” that Marsh was innocent.
On Feb. 6, after a little less than half an hour, a jury found Marsh not guilty of misdemeanor child endangerment likely to produce great bodily harm or death and the resisting/obstructing/delaying of Ferndale Police Chief Lonnie Lawson in the performance of his duties.
The case against Marsh stemmed from a May 31, 2006, incident that occurred near the intersection of Main and Brown streets in Ferndale.
Cissna gave a bit of an overview of the case Tuesday: that Lawson testified he saw a young child — Marsh’s then 2-year-old son — and Marsh and that Marsh was “allowing his young child to step into the street at a relatively busy intersection.”
“(And) that could be found, by some people, to be child endangerment, child neglect,” Cissna said.
During Marsh’s trial, Lawson maintained Marsh was negligent in allegedly allowing his toddler to go 18 inches into the intersection at Main and Brown streets on May 31, 2006, and alleged that Marsh delayed his investigation into the incident when Marsh allegedly failed to comply with Lawson’s orders.
Marsh maintained his child only got to the curb of the intersection, that he did stop for Lawson and that he was open to Lawson’s questions until Lawson allegedly became “confrontational” with him.
Cissna allowed Fitzsimons more time to work on her motion and to have it filed no later than July 10.
The Humboldt County District Attorney’s Office — represented by Deputy DA Randy Mailman — must file its response by July 24, Cissna ordered.
Cissna scheduled a ruling on the motion for Aug. 2.
Fitzsimons declined to comment on the matter.
Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.
6.12.2007
6.09.2007
ER, and Mck Press - Are supervisors bluffing on turning back flood damage funds?
Are supervisors bluffing on turning back flood damage funds?
by Gary Rees, McKinleyville, 6/7/2007
As a resident of the Ocean Drive neighborhood, although two blocks back from the bluffs themselves, I am concerned with the prospect that the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors may turn down more than $1.5 million in disaster relief funds to stabilize the bluffs at the end of School Road.
My home may not be endangered directly by bluff erosion for many decades, but I am concerned about the possibility that my neighbors and I could lose sewer and water services when erosion reaches the Ocean Drive and School Road intersection.
The liability and indemnification requirements the county is asking two residents to assume would put them at risk of bankruptcy. The county wants to make them take on all responsibility for maintenance and even defend the county in court. This is a risk that none of the supervisors would likely assume personally and that the two land owners cannot bear.
If the supervisors turn back the money from the federal and state government to solve the bluff erosion problem, the likelihood of getting money in the future appears very slim. The bluffs will continue their march toward the intersection of Ocean Drive and School Road, and houses and septic systems will fall into the Mad River estuary. Once the bluffs erode to that point, water and sewer service for a substantial number of homes in the Ocean Drive and surrounding neighborhoods would be disrupted, and the cost of repair could reach tens of millions of dollars.
The much-used river access on McKinleyville Community Services District property at the end of School Road would be gone. Public access through adjacent fields is restricted because of the application of waste water. The whole character of our neighborhood would change with the loss of this valuable public-access route.
I will be working with others in the Ocean Drive neighborhood on Sunday to distribute fliers about the risk our neighborhood faces if the supervisors don’t find a way to make the Mad River bluffs erosion control project work. We will be asking residents to contact Supervisor Jill Geist (707-476-2395) and to appear at the June 19 meeting of the Board of Supervisors to request that they take appropriate action before June 22, the deadline for accepting the funds.
My neighbors and I also intend to ask the MCSD to request that the county include the Ocean Drive neighborhood and, particularly, the infrastructure at School Road and Ocean Drive in an upcoming disaster prevention grant that will be submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency early next year. Such a grant would allow action to prevent future damage and to respond to the changing conditions of the bluffs. It will cost less and we will save MCSD infrastructure and the Ocean Drive neighborhood.
For more information about the Mad River bluffs, including a slide show, visit the Web site www.madriverbluff.org. If you want to help save this McKinleyville neighborhood, you are invited to join us for coffee and bagels in the parking lot of Rogers Market on School Road Sunday at 10 a.m. We will be walking the area west of U.S. Highway 101 between School and Hiller roads, and neighbors from within that area would be particularly welcome to join us.
Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.
by Gary Rees, McKinleyville, 6/7/2007
As a resident of the Ocean Drive neighborhood, although two blocks back from the bluffs themselves, I am concerned with the prospect that the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors may turn down more than $1.5 million in disaster relief funds to stabilize the bluffs at the end of School Road.
My home may not be endangered directly by bluff erosion for many decades, but I am concerned about the possibility that my neighbors and I could lose sewer and water services when erosion reaches the Ocean Drive and School Road intersection.
The liability and indemnification requirements the county is asking two residents to assume would put them at risk of bankruptcy. The county wants to make them take on all responsibility for maintenance and even defend the county in court. This is a risk that none of the supervisors would likely assume personally and that the two land owners cannot bear.
If the supervisors turn back the money from the federal and state government to solve the bluff erosion problem, the likelihood of getting money in the future appears very slim. The bluffs will continue their march toward the intersection of Ocean Drive and School Road, and houses and septic systems will fall into the Mad River estuary. Once the bluffs erode to that point, water and sewer service for a substantial number of homes in the Ocean Drive and surrounding neighborhoods would be disrupted, and the cost of repair could reach tens of millions of dollars.
The much-used river access on McKinleyville Community Services District property at the end of School Road would be gone. Public access through adjacent fields is restricted because of the application of waste water. The whole character of our neighborhood would change with the loss of this valuable public-access route.
I will be working with others in the Ocean Drive neighborhood on Sunday to distribute fliers about the risk our neighborhood faces if the supervisors don’t find a way to make the Mad River bluffs erosion control project work. We will be asking residents to contact Supervisor Jill Geist (707-476-2395) and to appear at the June 19 meeting of the Board of Supervisors to request that they take appropriate action before June 22, the deadline for accepting the funds.
My neighbors and I also intend to ask the MCSD to request that the county include the Ocean Drive neighborhood and, particularly, the infrastructure at School Road and Ocean Drive in an upcoming disaster prevention grant that will be submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency early next year. Such a grant would allow action to prevent future damage and to respond to the changing conditions of the bluffs. It will cost less and we will save MCSD infrastructure and the Ocean Drive neighborhood.
For more information about the Mad River bluffs, including a slide show, visit the Web site www.madriverbluff.org. If you want to help save this McKinleyville neighborhood, you are invited to join us for coffee and bagels in the parking lot of Rogers Market on School Road Sunday at 10 a.m. We will be walking the area west of U.S. Highway 101 between School and Hiller roads, and neighbors from within that area would be particularly welcome to join us.
Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.
"Wellstone training"
Wonder how much he gets paid to solicit for these guys?
From: "Redwood Progressive" Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
Subject: Wellstone training in Sac. + link to My Word
__
Coming to Sacramento...
RED TO BLUE
POLITICAL SKILLS TRAINING
TOOLS AND TACTICS FOR SUCCESSFUL CAMPAIGNS
CITIZEN ACTIVISIM: GRASSROOTS ADVOCACY AND ORGANIZING
“Successful organizing is based on the recognition that people get
organized because they, too, have a vision.”
- Paul Wellstone
ACCLAIMED GRASSROOTS POLITICAL TRAINERS: WELLSTONE ACTION!
The premier citizen activist training team in the country will be
conducting a focused 2-day camp on rural county challenges.
JUNE 16 & JUNE 17, 2007
9am - 5pm
Limited Seating. Please pre-register.
SEIU Hall / 1911 F Street, Sacramento, CA
$25.00/person
Pay on line at www.TakeBackRedCalifornia.com
or send checks made payable to:
Take Back Red California
c/o Hilary Crosby
1001 Elm Court, El Cerrito, CA 94530
Hosted by: Take Back Red California & The CDP Rural Caucus
SPONSORS
Be for Change, Rural Caucus, El Dorado County DCC, Placer County DCC,
Peace in the Precincts, Progressive Caucus, DFA Marin, Marin County
DCC, 6th AD Democratic Club, TBRC, Senator Pat Wiggins
---------
My Word Links
editorial response by Richard Salzman to Kay Backer of HELP:
http://www.times-standard.com/allopinion/ci_6001510
and Ms. Backer's editorial:
http://times-standard.com/fastsearchresults/ci_5908430
-------------
To subscribe to this list, go to:
http://www.ourhumboldt.org/cgi-bin/dada/mail.cgi/list/progressive/
The following information is a reminder of your current mailing
list subscription:
You are subscribed to the following list:
Redwood Progressive
The following physical address is associated with this mailing list:
po box 387 Eureka CA 95502
From: "Redwood Progressive"
Subject: Wellstone training in Sac. + link to My Word
__
Coming to Sacramento...
RED TO BLUE
POLITICAL SKILLS TRAINING
TOOLS AND TACTICS FOR SUCCESSFUL CAMPAIGNS
CITIZEN ACTIVISIM: GRASSROOTS ADVOCACY AND ORGANIZING
“Successful organizing is based on the recognition that people get
organized because they, too, have a vision.”
- Paul Wellstone
ACCLAIMED GRASSROOTS POLITICAL TRAINERS: WELLSTONE ACTION!
The premier citizen activist training team in the country will be
conducting a focused 2-day camp on rural county challenges.
JUNE 16 & JUNE 17, 2007
9am - 5pm
Limited Seating. Please pre-register.
SEIU Hall / 1911 F Street, Sacramento, CA
$25.00/person
Pay on line at www.TakeBackRedCalifornia.com
or send checks made payable to:
Take Back Red California
c/o Hilary Crosby
1001 Elm Court, El Cerrito, CA 94530
Hosted by: Take Back Red California & The CDP Rural Caucus
SPONSORS
Be for Change, Rural Caucus, El Dorado County DCC, Placer County DCC,
Peace in the Precincts, Progressive Caucus, DFA Marin, Marin County
DCC, 6th AD Democratic Club, TBRC, Senator Pat Wiggins
---------
My Word Links
editorial response by Richard Salzman to Kay Backer of HELP:
http://www.times-standard.com/allopinion/ci_6001510
and Ms. Backer's editorial:
http://times-standard.com/fastsearchresults/ci_5908430
-------------
To subscribe to this list, go to:
http://www.ourhumboldt.org/cgi-bin/dada/mail.cgi/list/progressive/
The following information is a reminder of your current mailing
list subscription:
You are subscribed to the following list:
Redwood Progressive
The following physical address is associated with this mailing list:
po box 387 Eureka CA 95502
6.08.2007
Protecting their turf
Before you read this, you need to read the help wanted ads in teh New York Times and elsewhere - where an "organization" called grassrootscampaigns.com purports to be hiring activists for the ACLU - Turns out they are not the ACLU, but are affiliated with the Democratic National Commitee and MOveOn.Org, using kids from campuses all across the country to mount fake "grassroots" efforts, to masquerade as 'grassroots" concerned citizens...
Yet this may be an issue on which liberals and conservatives find common ground - this appears to be a conservative group fighting against requiring the disclosure of paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying....
January 17, 2007
SUPPORT BENNETT AMENDMENT S.A. 20 TO S.1 “THE LEGISLATIVE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2007”
Dear Senator:
On behalf of the ACLU, a non-partisan organization with hundreds of thousands of activists and members, and 53 affiliates nation-wide, we urge you to support Bennett Amendment S.A. 20 to S. 1, the “Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007” when it comes to the floor for a vote. This amendment would strike Section 220 of the underlying bill.
Section 220, entitled “Disclosure of Paid Efforts to Stimulate Grassroots Lobbying” imposes onerous reporting requirements that will chill constitutionally protected activity. Advocacy organizations large and small would now find their communications to the general public about policy matters redefined as lobbying and therefore subject to registration and quarterly reporting. Failure to register and report could have severe civil and potentially criminal sanctions. Section 220 would apply to even small, state grassroots organizations with no lobbying presence in Washington. When faced with burdensome registration and reporting requirements, some of these organizations may well decide that silence is the best option.
The right to petition the government is “one of the most precious of the liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights.”[1] When viewed through this prism, the thrust of the grassroots lobbying regulation is at best misguided, and at worst would seriously undermine the basic freedom that is the cornerstone of our system of government.
It is well settled that lobbying, which embodies the separate and distinct political freedoms of petitioning, speech, and assembly, enjoys the highest constitutional protection.[2] Petitioning the government is “core political speech,” for which First Amendment protection is “at its zenith.”[3]
Constitutional protection of lobbying is not in the least diminished by the fact that it may be performed for others for a fee.[4] Further, “the First Amendment protects [the] right not only to advocate [one’s] cause but also to select what [one] believe[s] to be the most effective means of doing so.”[5] In Meyer, the Court emphasized that legislative restrictions on political advocacy or advocacy of the passage or defeat of legislation are “wholly at odds with the guarantees of the First Amendment.”[6]
Where the government seeks to regulate such First Amendment protected activity, the regulations must survive exacting scrutiny.[7] To satisfy strict scrutiny, the government must establish: (a) a compelling governmental interest sufficient to override the burden on individual rights; (b) a substantial correlation between the regulation and the furtherance of that interest; and (c) that the least drastic means to achieve its goal have been employed.[8]
A compelling governmental interest cannot be established on the basis of conjecture. There must be a factual record to sustain the government’s assertion that burdens on fundamental rights are warranted. Here, there is little if any record to support the contention that grassroots lobbying needs to be regulated. Without this record, the government will be unable to sustain its assertion that grassroots lobbying should be regulated.
The grassroots lobbying provision is troubling for other reasons as well. First, the provision seems to assume Americans can be easily manipulated by advocacy organizations to take actions that do not reflect their own interests. To the contrary, Americans are highly independent and capable of making their own judgment. Whether or not they were informed of an issue through a grassroots campaign is irrelevant--their action in contacting their representative is based on their own belief in the importance of matters before Congress.
Second, it appears groups such as the ACLU may end up having to report their activities because of the grassroots lobbying provisions. A “grassroots lobbying firm” means a person or entity that is retained by one or more clients to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of such clients and receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate of $25,000 or more for such efforts in any quarterly period. “Client” under existing law includes the organization that employs an in-house staff person or person who lobbies. If, for example, the ACLU hires an individual to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of the ACLU and pays that individual for her efforts in amounts exceeding $25,000, it appears that individual could be considered a grassroots lobbying firm, and have to register and report as such. The fact the ACLU employs that individual appears to be irrelevant to this provision. Unless this is the type of activity that the provision is intended to reach, there is no substantial correlation between the regulation and the furtherance of the government’s alleged interest in regulating that activity.
Groups such as the ACLU could also be affected because of the definitions of “paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying” employed in Section 220. For example, the ACLU maintains a list of activists who have signed up to be notified about pending issues in Congress. Not all of those activists are “dues paying” members who would be exempt from consideration for “paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying.” Additionally, since there are 500 or more such individuals, sending out an action alert to ACLU activists could be deemed “paid” communication and subject to registration and quarterly reporting.
Because the grassroots lobbying provision is unsupported by any record of corruption, and because the provision is not narrowly tailored to achieve the government’s asserted interest, the provision is constitutionally suspect. Requiring groups or individuals to report First Amendment activity to the government is antithetical to the values enshrined in our Constitution. If our government is truly one “of the people, for the people, and by the people,” then the people must be able to disseminate information, contact their representatives, and encourage others to do so as well.
Sincerely,
Caroline Fredrickson
Director, Washington Legislative Office
Marvin Johnson
Legislative Counsel
[1] United Mineworkers Union v. Illinois State Bar Association, 389 U.S. 217, 222 (1967).
[2] Buckley, supra. at 45 (1976).
[3] Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 425 (1988).
[4] Riley, supra. at 801 (1988).
[5] Meyer v. Grant, supra. at 424.
[6] Id. at 428.
[7] Buckley, supra. at 64.
[8] Id. at 68.
Yet this may be an issue on which liberals and conservatives find common ground - this appears to be a conservative group fighting against requiring the disclosure of paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying....
January 17, 2007
SUPPORT BENNETT AMENDMENT S.A. 20 TO S.1 “THE LEGISLATIVE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2007”
Dear Senator:
On behalf of the ACLU, a non-partisan organization with hundreds of thousands of activists and members, and 53 affiliates nation-wide, we urge you to support Bennett Amendment S.A. 20 to S. 1, the “Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007” when it comes to the floor for a vote. This amendment would strike Section 220 of the underlying bill.
Section 220, entitled “Disclosure of Paid Efforts to Stimulate Grassroots Lobbying” imposes onerous reporting requirements that will chill constitutionally protected activity. Advocacy organizations large and small would now find their communications to the general public about policy matters redefined as lobbying and therefore subject to registration and quarterly reporting. Failure to register and report could have severe civil and potentially criminal sanctions. Section 220 would apply to even small, state grassroots organizations with no lobbying presence in Washington. When faced with burdensome registration and reporting requirements, some of these organizations may well decide that silence is the best option.
The right to petition the government is “one of the most precious of the liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights.”[1] When viewed through this prism, the thrust of the grassroots lobbying regulation is at best misguided, and at worst would seriously undermine the basic freedom that is the cornerstone of our system of government.
It is well settled that lobbying, which embodies the separate and distinct political freedoms of petitioning, speech, and assembly, enjoys the highest constitutional protection.[2] Petitioning the government is “core political speech,” for which First Amendment protection is “at its zenith.”[3]
Constitutional protection of lobbying is not in the least diminished by the fact that it may be performed for others for a fee.[4] Further, “the First Amendment protects [the] right not only to advocate [one’s] cause but also to select what [one] believe[s] to be the most effective means of doing so.”[5] In Meyer, the Court emphasized that legislative restrictions on political advocacy or advocacy of the passage or defeat of legislation are “wholly at odds with the guarantees of the First Amendment.”[6]
Where the government seeks to regulate such First Amendment protected activity, the regulations must survive exacting scrutiny.[7] To satisfy strict scrutiny, the government must establish: (a) a compelling governmental interest sufficient to override the burden on individual rights; (b) a substantial correlation between the regulation and the furtherance of that interest; and (c) that the least drastic means to achieve its goal have been employed.[8]
A compelling governmental interest cannot be established on the basis of conjecture. There must be a factual record to sustain the government’s assertion that burdens on fundamental rights are warranted. Here, there is little if any record to support the contention that grassroots lobbying needs to be regulated. Without this record, the government will be unable to sustain its assertion that grassroots lobbying should be regulated.
The grassroots lobbying provision is troubling for other reasons as well. First, the provision seems to assume Americans can be easily manipulated by advocacy organizations to take actions that do not reflect their own interests. To the contrary, Americans are highly independent and capable of making their own judgment. Whether or not they were informed of an issue through a grassroots campaign is irrelevant--their action in contacting their representative is based on their own belief in the importance of matters before Congress.
Second, it appears groups such as the ACLU may end up having to report their activities because of the grassroots lobbying provisions. A “grassroots lobbying firm” means a person or entity that is retained by one or more clients to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of such clients and receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate of $25,000 or more for such efforts in any quarterly period. “Client” under existing law includes the organization that employs an in-house staff person or person who lobbies. If, for example, the ACLU hires an individual to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of the ACLU and pays that individual for her efforts in amounts exceeding $25,000, it appears that individual could be considered a grassroots lobbying firm, and have to register and report as such. The fact the ACLU employs that individual appears to be irrelevant to this provision. Unless this is the type of activity that the provision is intended to reach, there is no substantial correlation between the regulation and the furtherance of the government’s alleged interest in regulating that activity.
Groups such as the ACLU could also be affected because of the definitions of “paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying” employed in Section 220. For example, the ACLU maintains a list of activists who have signed up to be notified about pending issues in Congress. Not all of those activists are “dues paying” members who would be exempt from consideration for “paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying.” Additionally, since there are 500 or more such individuals, sending out an action alert to ACLU activists could be deemed “paid” communication and subject to registration and quarterly reporting.
Because the grassroots lobbying provision is unsupported by any record of corruption, and because the provision is not narrowly tailored to achieve the government’s asserted interest, the provision is constitutionally suspect. Requiring groups or individuals to report First Amendment activity to the government is antithetical to the values enshrined in our Constitution. If our government is truly one “of the people, for the people, and by the people,” then the people must be able to disseminate information, contact their representatives, and encourage others to do so as well.
Sincerely,
Caroline Fredrickson
Director, Washington Legislative Office
Marvin Johnson
Legislative Counsel
[1] United Mineworkers Union v. Illinois State Bar Association, 389 U.S. 217, 222 (1967).
[2] Buckley, supra. at 45 (1976).
[3] Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 425 (1988).
[4] Riley, supra. at 801 (1988).
[5] Meyer v. Grant, supra. at 424.
[6] Id. at 428.
[7] Buckley, supra. at 64.
[8] Id. at 68.
The Ruckus Society
from activistcash.com
Ruckus Society
369 Fifteenth Street, Oakland, CA 94612
Phone 510-763-7078 | Fax 510-763-7068 | Email ruckus@ruckus.org
The Ruckus Society was founded in late 1995 by two giants of the radical environmentalist movement: Mike Roselle and Howard “Twilly” Cannon. Roselle was a founder of Earth First! (of 1980s tree-spiking fame), the group which spun off the domestic terrorist Earth Liberation Front in 1992. He also co-founded the radical Rainforest Action Network. Cannon built his extremist credentials as a front-line activist and ship’s captain with Greenpeace’s French and Russian anti-nuclear campaigns.
Ruckus is turning into a violent version of Forrest Gump, grooming the footsoldiers of the “protest industry” for every major newsworthy protest event since its founding. Activists descending on San Diego for the 2001 “biodevastation” demonstrations (railing against life-saving food technology) looked to Ruckus leaders for planning, logistics, media attention, and physical tactics. The same can be said for the massive and violent protests against Philadelphia’s 2000 Republican Convention, and the aggressive anti-World Bank demonstrations in Washington, DC, during that same year. In these two latter cases (as with Seattle), serious damage was done to private and public property alike. In Philadelphia alone, 23 police cars were damaged and 15 officers were injured.
Whether the target du jour is biotech foods, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, or globalization in general, the organization recruits, trains, transports, and houses the army of militants needed to earn media coverage and make life difficult for the rest of us. Some observers have even claimed that Ruckus paid protesters to show up in Seattle. Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, wrote that one protester there told a colleague, “Sorry, I’ve got to go. If I don’t get to the finish line of the march I don’t get paid.”
Ruckus itself has no problem getting paid, reaping six-figure grant awards from the likes of Ted Turner and the “caring capitalists” at Ben & Jerry’s. When the multinational corporation Unilever bought the ice cream maker in 2000, it agreed to continue Ben & Jerry’s bizarre flavor of philanthropy for the foreseeable future. The Turner foundation has also contributed heavily to Ruckus, including over $150,000 in grants made via The Ecology Center, Inc., a Montana group where Ruckus’ first slate of officers met in the mid-1990s.
Ruckus’s primary contributions to the activist agenda are its “action camps”: weeklong boot camps for leftist protesters, usually held a few weeks prior to a major organized demonstration. A few hundred young Ruckus recruits typically attend each camp, where they are trained in the finer points of “police confrontation strategies,” “street blockades,” “urban climbing & rappelling,” “using the media to your advantage,” and “learning to lock your head to something” (among other things). Predictably, food served at the activist camps is vegetarian all the way. One 1998 camp chef told The Washington Post that “people here have some serious views on food, but that’s to be expected.” A participant in the same event adamantly insisted to a CNN camera crew: “Absolutely no meat whatsoever; no meat products, by-products, whatsoever.”
If you’ve heard of Ruckus Society at all, it was probably in relation to the 1999 World Trade Organization protests in Seattle. Americans watched in horror as organized hoodlums ran roughshod over the city’s commercial district, smashing windows, setting fires, overturning vehicles, ransacking a Starbucks coffee shop and a McDonald’s restaurant, and generally putting lives at risk. It’s no coincidence that the Ruckus Society staffers were in the middle of the melee, giving on-the-record quotes to national media figures. Nor was it an accident that Ruckus director John Sellers represented the protesters when the terms of their arrest were being negotiated with Seattle police. The Ruckus Society is generally credited with organizing the whole Seattle spectacle in the first place. When the dust had settled, Sellers smugly told USA Today, “We kicked the WTO’s butt all over the Northwest.”
Overall, the Ruckus Society is doing exactly what it set out to do. It used to be that activists became more outrageous in order to gain the attention of TV cameras. By breaking laws, escalating conflicts between police and protesters, and operating military-style training camps, Ruckus is upping the ante for other environmental activist groups who wish to be taken seriously within the movement. The effect is that of redefining the cutting edge of the anti-consumer movement, by sanctioning violence and engaging in organized conflict with law enforcement.
The Ruckus Society seems to have no compunction about breaking laws when they become inconvenient to “the cause.” John Sellers himself has been arrested over 40 times, most notably outside the 2000 Republican National Convention, where he was held on a $1 million bond until the event had concluded. While radicals claim that Sellers was railroaded by law enforcement, it’s worth noting that police officers confiscated a variety of weapons from protesters at the scene of Sellers’s arrest, including piano wire and gasoline-soaked rags tied to chains.
Why do Mike Roselle, John Sellers, Han Shan, and others organize willing twenty-somethings and teach them how to raise hell in the streets of America? To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it’s the global economy, stupid! To hard-core environmentalists like those at the helm of Ruckus, the worldwide spread of free trade and the modernization of third-world economies must be bad things if they are the result of genetically improved foods, franchised restaurants, logging, mining, and drilling for oil. And the instrument of the world’s demise is the multinational corporation. The damage done to Starbucks and McDonald’s during the Seattle riots in 1999 is one good indicator of the level of visceral hatred and violence involved.
Never mind that biotech foods will save lives. Set aside the fact that one out of every 15 Americans has his or her first job at a McDonald’s. And forget that globalizing the food chain will do a lot more to narrow the gap between rich and poor than can be accomplished by parading protesters wearing monarch butterfly costumes, or by the violent trashing of American cities. They continue to grab headlines with outrageous behavior, gaining additional foolish and impressionable converts along the way. To date, Ruckus has held over two dozen “action camps” in the United States; as the group’s profile grows, so does the waiting list of young activists who will do just about anything to participate.
Despite the organization’s ties to well-documented acts of violence and its officers’ connections with domestic terror groups, the group constantly claims to limit itself to “non-violent” protest in the spirit of 1960s civil disobedience. But the trail of economic damage wrought by these organized thugs (to say nothing of the broken windows and injured policemen) would suggest otherwise.
This, too, is no coincidence. The Ruckus Society was Mike Roselle’s brainchild; by the time the idea got off the ground, Roselle’s other projects had already matured. The most notable is Earth First!, a loosely organized gang of eco-criminals who pioneered the tactics of “monkey-wrenching” (intentionally damaging logging equipment) and “tree-spiking” (driving 11-inch nails into tree trunks in order to mangle approaching chain saws).
Ruckus clings desperately to the image of Martin Luther King, Jr. (featuring him prominently on their web site), and to words like “non-violence” and “civil disobedience,” but drawing such lines of comparison is an insult to the 1960s generation of social activists. While Dr. King was more than willing to stand up, give his name, and accept the legal consequences for his civil disobedience, Ruckus activists are generally known for wearing masks, assuming aliases, giving false names to arresting police officers, and other cowardly dodges (sometimes for no reason other than the disruption of the judicial system).
Another direct tie between the Ruckus Society and unlawful activity is Cathie Berrey, the group’s “blockades trainer.” Berrey helps to run the Ruckus camps and teaches attendees how to link arms, chain themselves to immovable objects, block traffic, and keep law enforcement from getting where they need to be. She is also the North Carolina coordinator for Earth First!, and a longtime spokesperson for the Direct Action Network, another violent protest umbrella group. Berrey is a self-described anarchist with connections to the now-infamous, violent “black bloc” that has descended on Seattle, Washington, Genoa, Montreal, and other modern protest sites. Nadine Bloch, another Ruckus camp trainer, has been linked to the “black bloc” faction that attempted to disrupt the 2001 presidential inaugural in Washington, DC. FBI countertelligence deputy Terry Turchie has told Congress that “Anarchists working within movements such as the ‘black bloc’ committed much of the property damage accompanying these protests.”
Nearly half of Ruckus’ roster of camp “trainers” proclaims membership in Earth First! as well.
Profile:
Ruckus Society
Copyright © 2007 Center for Consumer Freedom. All rights reserved.
Ruckus Society
369 Fifteenth Street, Oakland, CA 94612
Phone 510-763-7078 | Fax 510-763-7068 | Email ruckus@ruckus.org
The Ruckus Society was founded in late 1995 by two giants of the radical environmentalist movement: Mike Roselle and Howard “Twilly” Cannon. Roselle was a founder of Earth First! (of 1980s tree-spiking fame), the group which spun off the domestic terrorist Earth Liberation Front in 1992. He also co-founded the radical Rainforest Action Network. Cannon built his extremist credentials as a front-line activist and ship’s captain with Greenpeace’s French and Russian anti-nuclear campaigns.
Ruckus is turning into a violent version of Forrest Gump, grooming the footsoldiers of the “protest industry” for every major newsworthy protest event since its founding. Activists descending on San Diego for the 2001 “biodevastation” demonstrations (railing against life-saving food technology) looked to Ruckus leaders for planning, logistics, media attention, and physical tactics. The same can be said for the massive and violent protests against Philadelphia’s 2000 Republican Convention, and the aggressive anti-World Bank demonstrations in Washington, DC, during that same year. In these two latter cases (as with Seattle), serious damage was done to private and public property alike. In Philadelphia alone, 23 police cars were damaged and 15 officers were injured.
Whether the target du jour is biotech foods, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, or globalization in general, the organization recruits, trains, transports, and houses the army of militants needed to earn media coverage and make life difficult for the rest of us. Some observers have even claimed that Ruckus paid protesters to show up in Seattle. Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, wrote that one protester there told a colleague, “Sorry, I’ve got to go. If I don’t get to the finish line of the march I don’t get paid.”
Ruckus itself has no problem getting paid, reaping six-figure grant awards from the likes of Ted Turner and the “caring capitalists” at Ben & Jerry’s. When the multinational corporation Unilever bought the ice cream maker in 2000, it agreed to continue Ben & Jerry’s bizarre flavor of philanthropy for the foreseeable future. The Turner foundation has also contributed heavily to Ruckus, including over $150,000 in grants made via The Ecology Center, Inc., a Montana group where Ruckus’ first slate of officers met in the mid-1990s.
Ruckus’s primary contributions to the activist agenda are its “action camps”: weeklong boot camps for leftist protesters, usually held a few weeks prior to a major organized demonstration. A few hundred young Ruckus recruits typically attend each camp, where they are trained in the finer points of “police confrontation strategies,” “street blockades,” “urban climbing & rappelling,” “using the media to your advantage,” and “learning to lock your head to something” (among other things). Predictably, food served at the activist camps is vegetarian all the way. One 1998 camp chef told The Washington Post that “people here have some serious views on food, but that’s to be expected.” A participant in the same event adamantly insisted to a CNN camera crew: “Absolutely no meat whatsoever; no meat products, by-products, whatsoever.”
If you’ve heard of Ruckus Society at all, it was probably in relation to the 1999 World Trade Organization protests in Seattle. Americans watched in horror as organized hoodlums ran roughshod over the city’s commercial district, smashing windows, setting fires, overturning vehicles, ransacking a Starbucks coffee shop and a McDonald’s restaurant, and generally putting lives at risk. It’s no coincidence that the Ruckus Society staffers were in the middle of the melee, giving on-the-record quotes to national media figures. Nor was it an accident that Ruckus director John Sellers represented the protesters when the terms of their arrest were being negotiated with Seattle police. The Ruckus Society is generally credited with organizing the whole Seattle spectacle in the first place. When the dust had settled, Sellers smugly told USA Today, “We kicked the WTO’s butt all over the Northwest.”
Overall, the Ruckus Society is doing exactly what it set out to do. It used to be that activists became more outrageous in order to gain the attention of TV cameras. By breaking laws, escalating conflicts between police and protesters, and operating military-style training camps, Ruckus is upping the ante for other environmental activist groups who wish to be taken seriously within the movement. The effect is that of redefining the cutting edge of the anti-consumer movement, by sanctioning violence and engaging in organized conflict with law enforcement.
The Ruckus Society seems to have no compunction about breaking laws when they become inconvenient to “the cause.” John Sellers himself has been arrested over 40 times, most notably outside the 2000 Republican National Convention, where he was held on a $1 million bond until the event had concluded. While radicals claim that Sellers was railroaded by law enforcement, it’s worth noting that police officers confiscated a variety of weapons from protesters at the scene of Sellers’s arrest, including piano wire and gasoline-soaked rags tied to chains.
Why do Mike Roselle, John Sellers, Han Shan, and others organize willing twenty-somethings and teach them how to raise hell in the streets of America? To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it’s the global economy, stupid! To hard-core environmentalists like those at the helm of Ruckus, the worldwide spread of free trade and the modernization of third-world economies must be bad things if they are the result of genetically improved foods, franchised restaurants, logging, mining, and drilling for oil. And the instrument of the world’s demise is the multinational corporation. The damage done to Starbucks and McDonald’s during the Seattle riots in 1999 is one good indicator of the level of visceral hatred and violence involved.
Never mind that biotech foods will save lives. Set aside the fact that one out of every 15 Americans has his or her first job at a McDonald’s. And forget that globalizing the food chain will do a lot more to narrow the gap between rich and poor than can be accomplished by parading protesters wearing monarch butterfly costumes, or by the violent trashing of American cities. They continue to grab headlines with outrageous behavior, gaining additional foolish and impressionable converts along the way. To date, Ruckus has held over two dozen “action camps” in the United States; as the group’s profile grows, so does the waiting list of young activists who will do just about anything to participate.
Despite the organization’s ties to well-documented acts of violence and its officers’ connections with domestic terror groups, the group constantly claims to limit itself to “non-violent” protest in the spirit of 1960s civil disobedience. But the trail of economic damage wrought by these organized thugs (to say nothing of the broken windows and injured policemen) would suggest otherwise.
This, too, is no coincidence. The Ruckus Society was Mike Roselle’s brainchild; by the time the idea got off the ground, Roselle’s other projects had already matured. The most notable is Earth First!, a loosely organized gang of eco-criminals who pioneered the tactics of “monkey-wrenching” (intentionally damaging logging equipment) and “tree-spiking” (driving 11-inch nails into tree trunks in order to mangle approaching chain saws).
Ruckus clings desperately to the image of Martin Luther King, Jr. (featuring him prominently on their web site), and to words like “non-violence” and “civil disobedience,” but drawing such lines of comparison is an insult to the 1960s generation of social activists. While Dr. King was more than willing to stand up, give his name, and accept the legal consequences for his civil disobedience, Ruckus activists are generally known for wearing masks, assuming aliases, giving false names to arresting police officers, and other cowardly dodges (sometimes for no reason other than the disruption of the judicial system).
Another direct tie between the Ruckus Society and unlawful activity is Cathie Berrey, the group’s “blockades trainer.” Berrey helps to run the Ruckus camps and teaches attendees how to link arms, chain themselves to immovable objects, block traffic, and keep law enforcement from getting where they need to be. She is also the North Carolina coordinator for Earth First!, and a longtime spokesperson for the Direct Action Network, another violent protest umbrella group. Berrey is a self-described anarchist with connections to the now-infamous, violent “black bloc” that has descended on Seattle, Washington, Genoa, Montreal, and other modern protest sites. Nadine Bloch, another Ruckus camp trainer, has been linked to the “black bloc” faction that attempted to disrupt the 2001 presidential inaugural in Washington, DC. FBI countertelligence deputy Terry Turchie has told Congress that “Anarchists working within movements such as the ‘black bloc’ committed much of the property damage accompanying these protests.”
Nearly half of Ruckus’ roster of camp “trainers” proclaims membership in Earth First! as well.
Profile:
Ruckus Society
Copyright © 2007 Center for Consumer Freedom. All rights reserved.
6.07.2007
Death by Decree - the death of all unique bloodlines, the loss of genetic diversity - thanks to Assemblyman Lloyd Levine
Assembly votes to require neutering
Mark Martin, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau
Thursday, June 7, 2007
(06-07) 04:00 PDT Sacramento -- The state Assembly narrowly approved legislation Wednesday night that would fine Californians who don't spay or neuter their pets, sending to the state Senate one of the most talked-about bills on one of the most emotional issues of the year.
AB1634, by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, is intended to reduce the state's large number of stray dogs and cats, and like virtually every legislative action centering around animals, it has stoked emotional debate. As lawmakers this year consider hot topics like health care reform and redistricting, one Republican assemblyman said Levine's bill had sparked more letters and phone calls from his constituents than any other issue.
The legislation would require pet owners to have their dogs and cats spayed or neutered or face a $500 fine for each animal. Owners of kittens and puppies would be required to get them spayed or neutered by the time they are 4 months old. Owners of guide dogs or animals registered as purebred could pay a fee to get an exemption, as could breeders.
It was approved on a 41-38 vote.
The vote came as lawmakers raced to meet a Friday deadline to pass legislation out of at least one house. Hallways in the Capitol were packed with lobbyists working for or against hundreds of bills.
Proponents of Levine's proposal argued Wednesday that the bill would reduce the number of dogs and cats that flood animal shelters and force the state's shelters to euthanize an estimated 500,000 animals per year. Opponents, mostly Republicans, said the measure was an unneeded mandate.
"This is a prime example of why this Legislature becomes a laughingstock, when we want to reach into that personal aspect of peoples' lives telling them this is how you need to handle your animals' reproductive capacity,'' complained Assemblyman Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale (Butte County). "We ought to be tackling other issues.''
But supporters argued that the measure was important, noting that local governments spend up to $250 million annually euthanizing unclaimed animals.
"We have all sorts of issues that that money could be better spent on than killing unwanted animals,'' said Assemblyman Dave Jones, D-Sacramento, during an hourlong debate in which one lawmaker held up a photo of his three dogs and another described the process most shelters use to kill unwanted animals.
"For almost half a million pets, no one loves them, no one cares about them, and they are killed,'' said Assemblyman Pedro Nava, D-Santa Barbara.
Levine modeled his legislation after a city ordinance in Santa Cruz, which he said reduced the number of animals in city shelters by 60 percent.
He said that ordinance produced "hysterical rhetoric" that pets, especially mutts, would be more costly or unavailable, but that in Santa Cruz, "pets are still available, and mutts are still available.''
The legislation drew concern from small breeders who say they couldn't afford to pay the exemption fee for every animal, and those worried that low-income families have a difficult time affording spaying or neutering. Levine contended that there are programs providing free services throughout the state.
He also noted that the bill would allow pet owners who face the fine to spay or neuter their pet and avoid paying the penalty.
Levine said on the Assembly floor that he planned to amend the bill to allow families with a mutt who want to allow their pet to reproduce to get an exemption allowing for one litter.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has two dogs, has not taken a position on the bill.
E-mail Mark Martin at markmartin@sfchronicle.com.
Mark Martin, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau
Thursday, June 7, 2007
(06-07) 04:00 PDT Sacramento -- The state Assembly narrowly approved legislation Wednesday night that would fine Californians who don't spay or neuter their pets, sending to the state Senate one of the most talked-about bills on one of the most emotional issues of the year.
AB1634, by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, is intended to reduce the state's large number of stray dogs and cats, and like virtually every legislative action centering around animals, it has stoked emotional debate. As lawmakers this year consider hot topics like health care reform and redistricting, one Republican assemblyman said Levine's bill had sparked more letters and phone calls from his constituents than any other issue.
The legislation would require pet owners to have their dogs and cats spayed or neutered or face a $500 fine for each animal. Owners of kittens and puppies would be required to get them spayed or neutered by the time they are 4 months old. Owners of guide dogs or animals registered as purebred could pay a fee to get an exemption, as could breeders.
It was approved on a 41-38 vote.
The vote came as lawmakers raced to meet a Friday deadline to pass legislation out of at least one house. Hallways in the Capitol were packed with lobbyists working for or against hundreds of bills.
Proponents of Levine's proposal argued Wednesday that the bill would reduce the number of dogs and cats that flood animal shelters and force the state's shelters to euthanize an estimated 500,000 animals per year. Opponents, mostly Republicans, said the measure was an unneeded mandate.
"This is a prime example of why this Legislature becomes a laughingstock, when we want to reach into that personal aspect of peoples' lives telling them this is how you need to handle your animals' reproductive capacity,'' complained Assemblyman Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale (Butte County). "We ought to be tackling other issues.''
But supporters argued that the measure was important, noting that local governments spend up to $250 million annually euthanizing unclaimed animals.
"We have all sorts of issues that that money could be better spent on than killing unwanted animals,'' said Assemblyman Dave Jones, D-Sacramento, during an hourlong debate in which one lawmaker held up a photo of his three dogs and another described the process most shelters use to kill unwanted animals.
"For almost half a million pets, no one loves them, no one cares about them, and they are killed,'' said Assemblyman Pedro Nava, D-Santa Barbara.
Levine modeled his legislation after a city ordinance in Santa Cruz, which he said reduced the number of animals in city shelters by 60 percent.
He said that ordinance produced "hysterical rhetoric" that pets, especially mutts, would be more costly or unavailable, but that in Santa Cruz, "pets are still available, and mutts are still available.''
The legislation drew concern from small breeders who say they couldn't afford to pay the exemption fee for every animal, and those worried that low-income families have a difficult time affording spaying or neutering. Levine contended that there are programs providing free services throughout the state.
He also noted that the bill would allow pet owners who face the fine to spay or neuter their pet and avoid paying the penalty.
Levine said on the Assembly floor that he planned to amend the bill to allow families with a mutt who want to allow their pet to reproduce to get an exemption allowing for one litter.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has two dogs, has not taken a position on the bill.
E-mail Mark Martin at markmartin@sfchronicle.com.
6.05.2007
ER - Man (GARZA) sentenced to maximum penalty for statutory rape plea
Man sentenced to maximum penalty for statutory rape plea
by Kara Machado, 6/4/2007
The victim in the Nate Robin Garza statutory rape case said it would be putting it mildly to say she’s gone through hell over the past six months.
The female victim — who was 16 at the time the Dec. 20, 2006, and Jan. 5 sexual relations occurred — spoke at Garza’s sentencing Monday.
In order to protect her privacy, the victim will be referred to as “Jane Doe.”
During Monday’s sentencing, Humboldt County Superior Court Judge Timothy Cissna sentenced Garza, 22, to four years and four months in prison — with more than 386 days served — ordered Garza to register as a sex offender for life and to stay away from Doe.
It was indicated in court Monday that Garza’s sentencing was the maximum exposure he could get in prison for a plea agreement he accepted in the end of April: one count of unlawful sex with a minor — commonly referred to as statutory rape — one count of unlawful oral sex with a minor and admission of a probation violation.
During Doe’s statement in court Monday, she called Garza a predator, described him as “manipulative, lying and sneaky” and said Garza made her feel “special” in order to engage in sexual acts with her that included sodomy.
Doe added that, over the past few months, she’s been to numerous doctor and counseling appointments.
“(I’ve had) so much emotional pain in my heart for what’s happened to me, my family and my friends,” Doe said. “I still believe, and know in my heart, that Nathan is a predator.”
Doe’s mother, who stood next to Doe during Doe’s statement, said, for her, there is no sentence Garza could be punished with that would be enough.
“I told him, myself, to stay away (from Doe),” Doe’s mother said. “(Garza’s persistence) shows me that the only thing Nate Garza is concerned with is himself.”
Doe’s mother said her then-16-year-old daughter knew nothing of sodomy and that she didn’t think it was something she would have to educate her daughter about.
“When a girl tells you ‘I don’t like it; it hurts; please stop,’” Doe’s mother said, “that’s not consensual.”
Although Cissna said in court he didn’t find Garza to appear remorseful for his actions, Garza’s attorney, Humboldt County Chief Conflict Counsel Glenn Brown, said Garza “is remorseful for what he did.”
After Garza’s sentence was handed down, Cissna addressed Doe in court.
“It is hard to imagine what you’ve gone through,” Cissna said. “... Not to diminish what happened to you, (but) I want to give you confidence that you will recover.”
Cissna went on to say it showed strength on Doe’s part to face Garza in court Monday.
“Good luck to you,” Cissna told Doe.
Garza was arrested Feb. 19, almost one year after being arrested in connection with the March 2006 Whitethorn kidnapping/rape case.
Initially, Humboldt County Deputy District Attorney Jeffrey Schwartz said, Garza was charged with — and pleaded not guilty to — nine counts of felony sodomy with a person under 18, eight counts of felony unlawful sexual intercourse and two counts of oral copulation with a person under 18.
Schwartz has said, and reiterated on Monday, that “the mother and victim are satisfied with the plea.”
Schwartz referred to Garza Monday as “a menace to society.”
Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.
by Kara Machado, 6/4/2007
The victim in the Nate Robin Garza statutory rape case said it would be putting it mildly to say she’s gone through hell over the past six months.
The female victim — who was 16 at the time the Dec. 20, 2006, and Jan. 5 sexual relations occurred — spoke at Garza’s sentencing Monday.
In order to protect her privacy, the victim will be referred to as “Jane Doe.”
During Monday’s sentencing, Humboldt County Superior Court Judge Timothy Cissna sentenced Garza, 22, to four years and four months in prison — with more than 386 days served — ordered Garza to register as a sex offender for life and to stay away from Doe.
It was indicated in court Monday that Garza’s sentencing was the maximum exposure he could get in prison for a plea agreement he accepted in the end of April: one count of unlawful sex with a minor — commonly referred to as statutory rape — one count of unlawful oral sex with a minor and admission of a probation violation.
During Doe’s statement in court Monday, she called Garza a predator, described him as “manipulative, lying and sneaky” and said Garza made her feel “special” in order to engage in sexual acts with her that included sodomy.
Doe added that, over the past few months, she’s been to numerous doctor and counseling appointments.
“(I’ve had) so much emotional pain in my heart for what’s happened to me, my family and my friends,” Doe said. “I still believe, and know in my heart, that Nathan is a predator.”
Doe’s mother, who stood next to Doe during Doe’s statement, said, for her, there is no sentence Garza could be punished with that would be enough.
“I told him, myself, to stay away (from Doe),” Doe’s mother said. “(Garza’s persistence) shows me that the only thing Nate Garza is concerned with is himself.”
Doe’s mother said her then-16-year-old daughter knew nothing of sodomy and that she didn’t think it was something she would have to educate her daughter about.
“When a girl tells you ‘I don’t like it; it hurts; please stop,’” Doe’s mother said, “that’s not consensual.”
Although Cissna said in court he didn’t find Garza to appear remorseful for his actions, Garza’s attorney, Humboldt County Chief Conflict Counsel Glenn Brown, said Garza “is remorseful for what he did.”
After Garza’s sentence was handed down, Cissna addressed Doe in court.
“It is hard to imagine what you’ve gone through,” Cissna said. “... Not to diminish what happened to you, (but) I want to give you confidence that you will recover.”
Cissna went on to say it showed strength on Doe’s part to face Garza in court Monday.
“Good luck to you,” Cissna told Doe.
Garza was arrested Feb. 19, almost one year after being arrested in connection with the March 2006 Whitethorn kidnapping/rape case.
Initially, Humboldt County Deputy District Attorney Jeffrey Schwartz said, Garza was charged with — and pleaded not guilty to — nine counts of felony sodomy with a person under 18, eight counts of felony unlawful sexual intercourse and two counts of oral copulation with a person under 18.
Schwartz has said, and reiterated on Monday, that “the mother and victim are satisfied with the plea.”
Schwartz referred to Garza Monday as “a menace to society.”
Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.