The work of a true revolutionary...begins at home.

I just came home from court this morning, and finally had a chance to get my police report, detailing what I'm being charged with and what evidence is against me. I already gave them most of it in letters, blogs, and postcards about my protest. I was relieved I didn't have to actually enter a "not guilty" plea this morning, because after all that, it would seem pretty dishonest. I may have a defense against some of this, though, so I'm going to speak to the attorney they gave me at the public defender's office before digging a much deeper hole. But I still have amends to make to my neighbors, since I made such a thoughtless public display of vandalizing them. I even seemed to make light of it in the process.

See, this is all about me throwing that red paint down in an alley already covered in paint during the First Friday June Artwalk. I openly admitted doing that, and committed my act of resistance in front of the graffiti detectives themselves. In the process, though, my paint splattered a few inches up the wall of the building next door, an art studio/ collective that it turns out does work with people involved in mental health programs. I'm so clueless about some of my neighbors that I had no idea they were doing that kind of work, or I would have talked to them about this all in advance, even though I had no intention of hitting the alley side of their studio wall. Instead, I learned about my neighbors from my own criminal report, listing them as my victim. I feel pretty crummy about that.





In my police report, the manager of the place said she wanted to prosecute because what I'd done would have been so upsetting for some folks participating in the programs - which I inferred was of particular concern for those folks with pre-existing psychiatric conditions. I get that - and can see it upsetting others as well. That explains to me why it was important to clean it up, without messing around with my offer to re-paint it myself - even I would have called Graffiti Busters to clean up after myself if I thought it through. It really was unintended - that doesn't mean I'm not responsible, though. I acted out without much thought for the neighbors over there, or their members and guests. That's not very excusable, given what I could have brought out for some folks with images of bloodshed across the alley, as well as the names of the dead. That's me acting out my own unresolved trauma, in part - they don't need my help with theirs.


So, this blog post will no doubt be added to the evidence they use against me in the end, but I'm truly deeply sorry for having dragged you all into the middle of my protest. You're already doing your part to protect our people from ending up in prison in the first place. I hope that if my activities ever trouble you that way - criminal or not - you feel okay contacting me.


Most people with mental illness, by the time we're my age, have already been through too much. I'm dually-recovering myself, survived a horrible, violent suicide of a loved one, and the last thing I would want to do is traumatize someone else further. We all need to feel safe in order to grow, and I undermined that for some folks, I suspect, by all my agitation and graffiti - which invited others to contribute more. I was also wrong to define the terms of resistance by my own standards without talking to others living and working around there that night, outside of what I call my own community.


I thought this protest would be all about getting my message out about the state's violence, not mine. It still is, in a way, but not how I thought it would be. It's been said that the work of a true revolutionary begins in the our own communities, taking care of others. Despite all I preach about the importance of doing so if we're to really hold each other accountable and not rely on the criminal justice system for amends to be made in cases like this, when it came down to it I didn't practice that. I think this is the bigger lesson in all this - it's for me, not for the cops. I understand why people get upset about graffiti, now. My total lack of concern for the effect of my actions that Artwalk on the people right next door is my real crime, though - even if I hadn't even touched their property.



But an apology alone is not an amends. I'm inclined to think that only those folks - and perhaps the participants they were concerned about - can say what they feel justice would be, having been harmed in some way by me - and I respect it if they feel the criminal justice system is the way to get that, and to restore their own sense of safety and order in their community. I'd have a pretty hard time pleading not guilty to that charge, after all this. The charges filed about city property, though, I'll probably fight.


I think I just threw myself at the mercy of the court - or my victims, I'm not sure which. I guess now I should wait until I talk to an attorney before commenting much further on all this. Thanks to my friends for showing their support today.



Peg

--

Margaret J. Plews, Editor
Arizona Prison Watch
P.O. Box 20494
Phoenix, AZ 85036
480-580-6807

"Our strategy should be not only to confront empire, but to lay siege to it. To deprive it of oxygen. To shame it. To mock it. With our art, our music, our literature, our stubbornness, our joy, our brilliance, our sheer relentlessness, and our ability to tell our own stories..."

- Arundhati Roy

Prison Abolitionist
http://prisonabolitionist.blogspot.com
Arizona Prison Watch
http://arizonaprisonwatch.blogspot.com
Arizona Juvenile Prison Watch
http://azjuvenileprisonwatch.blogspot.com
Hard Time Alliance - AZ
http://hardtimehepc.blogspot.com
Survivors of Prison Violence

http://azprisonsurvivors.blogspot.com

"No one has a First Amendment right to deface government property..."

Uh oh. This ruling does not bode well for me or the Friends of Marcia Powell - I hope it goes further. I just found out today that I'll be charged with felony criminal damage for my June Artwalk protest (during which I painted the alley without the city's permission)...this looks like it could quash my less obnoxious free speech activity, too.

-----------------------

Chalking Prohibited Outside White House, Appeals Court Rules

Blog of Legal Times

June 21, 2011

Just a few weeks ago the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said dancing is prohibited inside the Jefferson Memorial. Critics protested. Through dance.

Today, the appeals court turned its attention to a different form of expression—chalk art. The court unanimously said in a panel ruling (PDF) that D.C. law prohibits chalk scribbling on the street in front of the White House.

“No one has a First Amendment right to deface government property,” Judge Brett Kavanaugh declared. “No one has a First Amendment right, for example, to spray-paint the Washington Monument or smash the windows of a police car.”

Kavanaugh said the law prohibiting defacement of public and private property in a content-neutral manner provides “no serious First Amendment objection.”

Rev. Patrick Mahoney, the plaintiff in the suit in Washington federal district court, sought permission for a chalk demonstration in late 2008 to protest against abortion. City police said Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, could show up with thousands of supporters. He was allowed to bring signs and banners. But he was prohibited from marking 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest.

Mahoney sued the city and the Metropolitan Police Department in January 2009 in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. He wanted an injunction to block the city from preventing him from writing with chalk on the street. A trial judge rejected the request.

Two days later, the appeals court said, Mahoney took his chalk to the street in front of the White House. Police confronted Mahoney, confiscated the chalk and told him to stop. Mahoney obliged. He was not arrested. Mahoney amended his complaint to add the officer who stopped the chalking.

Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote the opinion for the appeals panel, which included Kavanaugh and Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson.

The appeals court said the District’s defacement statute is content neutral, banning certain activity—including cutting, chipping, writing and marking—without reference to control of the speaker's message.

Also, the court said the “special nature” of the street in front of the White House—closed to vehicular traffic but open to pedestrians—“serves to heighten esthetic concerns” of the government. “[T]he District’s interest in controlling the esthetic appearance of the street in front of the White House is substantial,” the appeals court said.

The court noted that the District's defacement statute still provided Mahoney other avenues for communication, including signs and banners.

"The District’s threatened use of the defacement statute did not curtail Mahoney’s plans," Brown wrote. "Mahoney was free to announce any “verbal” message he chose. And, Mahoney could depict visual messages on signs, banners, and leaflets. Thus, ample alternative channels of communication existed."

Lawyers for Mahoney were not immediately reached for comment this morning on the appellate court ruling. Carly Gammill of the American Center for Law and Justice argued for Mahoney in the D.C. Circuit in September.

Gammill and James Henderson Sr. of the ACLJ said in court papers that the chalk art demonstration was the only speech activity for which Mahoney sought permission. The city's restriction, then, "prohibited the demonstration in its entirety."

"[W]hatever the storied history and traditions may be that pertain to the street in dispute, Pennsylvania Avenue is nothing other than an archetypical public forum," Mahoney's attorneys said in a brief.

Mahoney's lawyers called the chalk art ban a "peculiar, targeted denial of expression." The attorneys said the District regularly "conducts contests and promotions to entice the public into the public space for the purpose of creating chalk art."

Posted by Mike Scarcella on June 21, 2011 at 11:45 AM

Defend Free Speech for a Happier New Year.

 December 22, 2010

  

I complained to the Phoenix Police today about being handcuffed and perp-walked Wednesday morning while exercising my First Amendment rights outside of City Hall. Then I informed them of my intention to chalk in front of their HQ. I was really just telling them what I was up to so I wouldn't get tasered or shot; I wasn't asking them for permission or to cut me a "break". 

It didn't go over very well. 

We argued for about 20 minutes, during which time one officer insisted that the "ground" in the Arizona Revised Statutes (pasted below) refers to dirt, not the sidewalk or street or anything paved. I was ultimately threatened with arrest on the spot and being booked into jail for criminal damage if I proceeded to chalk the walk, which I did.

I told them as I was walking out the door that I'd respect their access to their loading zone - which one officer made a good point about - but that as I understood it, chalking sidewalks isn't against the law, and if they really believed it was to come and get me. I'd rather have it out once and for all in court than haggle with them about it every time. Sooner or later, one of them is bound to hurt me.

They left me alone once I got started. They didn't even take down my personal information when I offered it (they probably already know who I am and where I live...). 

Perhaps the "Graffitti Detectives" will chase me down another day. In the meantime, though, since my free speech at City Hall had just been stomped on, I still needed to make a "Happier New Year" card. 

Here's two:

Let me know which one you like most and I'll send it to you - 

just be sure to give me your snail mail address.

-------------------------------

 From the Arizona Revised Statutes: Criminal Code

13-1602. Criminal damage; classification

A. A person commits criminal damage by recklessly:

1. Defacing or damaging property of another person; or

2. Tampering with property of another person so as substantially to impair its function or value; or

3. Tampering with or damaging the property of a utility.

4. Parking any vehicle in such a manner as to deprive livestock of access to the only reasonably available water.

5. Drawing or inscribing a message, slogan, sign or symbol that is made on any public or private building, structure or surface, except the ground, and that is made without permission of the owner.

B. Criminal damage is punished as follows:

1. Criminal damage is a class 4 felony if the person recklessly damages property of another 

in an amount of ten thousand dollars or more.

2. Criminal damage is a class 4 felony if the person recklessly damages the property of a utility in an amount of five thousand dollars or more or if the person recklessly causes impairment of the functioning of any utility.

3. Criminal damage is a class 5 felony if the person recklessly damages property of another 

in an amount of two thousand dollars or more but less than ten thousand dollars.

4. Criminal damage is a class 6 felony if the person recklessly damages the property of another 

in an amount of one thousand dollars or more but less than two thousand dollars.

5. Criminal damage is a class 1 misdemeanor if the person recklessly damages property of another 

in an amount of more than two hundred fifty dollars but less than one thousand dollars.

6. In all other cases criminal damage is a class 2 misdemeanor.

Phoenix Ho-Ho-Homes Not Jails.

Was hoping to make a cool Christmas card for my friends while down on W. Washington early this morning, on the public sidewalk right outside of Phoenix City Hall. Experienced some chalkus interruptus, however, so this was about the best I could pull off...

I did get some pretty good cop-watching footage, at least. And the nice Phoenix Police officer (he was really very gentle while restraining me) who placed me in "investigative detention" went ahead and filed a complaint for the "Graffitti Detectives" to investigate and determine if charges should be pursued, which is a good thing.

I could have easily cleaned that up and avoided the possibility of prosecution, but I'm tired of the confusion and harassment. I have the cards of detectives who have given me their blessings, but my safety and liberty are too often at the whim of each cop who has a different idea of what "criminal damage" constitutes. I'll fight it out in court.

Note that I switched out my cowboy hat for an elf cap this week, in keeping with the holiday spirit. I think that's why I was in cuffs while being questioned - my mental status was being assessed. Both the costume and the message (and my occasional chuckling to myself) seemed to alarm the police more than the potential that I was actually being destructive.

I was a little worried when we headed towards the car, but his handcuff key was hanging from the ring in the ignition - he was just getting ready to set me free.

Well, here you go - every picture tells a story, as they say...

Love and Power, to all my friends and comrades struggling to survive out there.

Arpaio 5 Trial dates: Claire, Garyn, and Grace.

That sucks that the judge won't let Claire change her attorney. What's the deal with that? He doesn't even understand her interests - how can he represent her adequately? And Grace still has a hell of a "choice" in front of her: A month in jail or ten years in prison? Hmm.

Next up is a piece I'm re-running from February about prosecutorial abuses.

---------------From Support the Arpaio 5's blogspot---------

Claire and Garyn's Cases and an update on Grace's

It is apparent that the state still has faith, either in juries siding with the hilarious story the police concocted or that these two will actually cave and plea out somehow (although I believe that they both do not have plea deals on the table that aren't expired). They are both done with their preliminary hearings and Garyn's trial is expected to start on November 24th, while Claire's is expected to start in early December.

From what it sounds like, Garyn's attorney is working on trying to get his case thrown out through various motions, while Claire is unfortunately stuck with an attorney who says that she can't file any motions and that her case is a matter of the police story against hers. She tried to fire her attorney and filed to receive a new one and was denied.

Both attorneys, though, have mentioned that a compiling of eyewitness testimony surrounding their arrests would be of great benefit, so if you saw them get arrested on January 16th, that would DEFINITELY help a lot, especially in Claire's circumstance, not to mention Grace's situation.

As a quick update on her situation, she has a plea deal on the table for a class 3 felony, 30 days in jail and up to two years probation, with her deadline being this Friday, Oct. 8th. Other than that, the only news on her case is that her trial is scheduled to begin on Nov. 8th. So again, if you witnessed the events surrounding Grace's arrest, stepping forward and helping out would be wonderful!

If you can help, you can reach us at:

Arpaio5SupportCommittee@riseup.net

Indict Arpaio.

Public pressure is growing in Phoenix for the FBI and DOJ to do their job.

...and free the 5.

Support Food Not Bombs!

This is bad news from the courts - and may herald a new series of city ordinances all over the country trying to silence anti-war and anti-poverty activists. Still the ruling won't stop Orlando Food Not Bombs from feeding the hungry and exposing the mechanisms by which Americans starve our poor to death. Make sure to watch the backs of our own Food-not-bombers here in Phoenix, folks: we need them...in fact, I'll put up a widget with their contact info and meal schedule.

Support these folks in Orlando, please - they're going to get arrested for asserting their first amendment rights and feeding hungry people.

What is wrong with this country, anyway?

More power to you and your comrades, Keith. We're rooting for you out here.

------------------------------

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 11, 2010

CONTACT: Food Not Bombs
Keith McHenry - cofounder
575-770-3377
menu@foodnotbombs.net
http://www.foodnotbombs.net/fnb_resists.html
http://orlandofoodnotbombs.org/

ORLANDO FOOD NOT BOMBS TO DEFY FEDERAL COURT RULING

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals July 6 opinion against Orlando Food Not Bombs is another example of the Federal Courts disregard for the public good. The court ruling will not stop Orlando Food Not Bombs from continuing to provide free meals in protest to war and poverty.

“We accept that Orlando Food Not Bombs had the requisite expressive intent, but we believe that the feedings in this case present at most an ambiguous situation to an objective reasonable observer… Just feeding people in the park is conduct too ambiguous to allow us to conclude that a great likelihood exists that an objective reasonable observer would understand that the feeders are trying to convey a message.” - Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judges Edmondson, Barkett, and Baldock

WASHINGTON D.C. - Two days after America celebrated "Independence Day" the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta found that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution does not protect Food Not Bombs and The First Vagabonds Church of God's right to free expression. TheEleventh Circuit Court judgement against Food Not Bombs joins the Supreme Court's "Citizens United" ruling and the Federal Fifth Circuit ruling against the six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling in showing a disregard for the public good on behalf of corporate greed.

Eric Montanez, one of the Orlando Food Not Bombs volunteers arrested two years ago, helped carry on the group's regular Wednesday night feeding at Lake Eola Park as scheduled ­ and pledged to continue doing so regardless of what happens.

"The city is criminalizing homelessness and poverty and criminalizing individuals and organizations in the community that are trying to address those problems," Montanez said.

Orlando City Attorney Mayanne Downs said at a news conference earlier Wednesday that enforcement won't begin for at least 20 days ­ the amount of time that Orlando Food Not Bombs and other homeless activists who sued the city over the rules have to go back to court.

Food Not Bombs is not "Just feeding people in the park" but is seeking to express in the most effective means possible that America should redirect it's resources from military spending towards food, housing, education, healthcare and other basic needs. Providing free food to the hungry in the most visible location possible under the banner Food Not Bombs is the most
effective means of expressing this message. The court ruling will not stop Food Not Bombs from continuing to provide free meals in protest to war and poverty.

Federal court censorship of Food Not Bombs at this point in history is particularly disturbing considering that U.S. military spending and homeless and hunger are all at record levels. It is more important then ever for the message of Food Not Bombs to have as much impact as possible on American taxpayers by sharing free meals with the hungry under the banner Food Not Bombs in the most visible locations possible. U.S. taxpayers were asked to pay at least $663.8 billion this year for their military as 40 million Americans require Food Stamps millions of people are waiting for unemployment checks and A record 3 million homes received
foreclosure notices in 2009.

Food Not Bombs shares vegan and vegetarian meals in over 1,000 cities around the world. Nine Food Not Bombs were arrested in San Francisco on August 15, 1988. The cities campaign to silence Food Not Bombs ended in 1995 after police made nearly 1,000 arrests. Amnesty International declared all Food Not Bombs volunteers "prisoners of conscience" in 1995
and the United Nations Human Rights Commission, Food First and many other groups came to the organizations aid. Local authorities have arrested Food Not Bombs volunteers in nearly 20 cities in the United States. The only time volunteers have been arrested for feeding the hungry outside the United States was in Utrecht, The Netherlands in the late 1990's. The police apologized for the mistake.

Orlando Food Not Bombs can expect world wide support if threatened again with arrest. Volunteers from all over the United States are likely to travel to Orlando to risk arrest. Food Not Bombs has an eastern United States Gathering planned for November in Washington D.C. where the subject of coordinated global actions will be discussed. Orlando Food Not Bombs will ask full appeals court to rehear the case.

The Eleventh Circuit Court judgement against Food Not Bombs and The First Vagabonds Church of God
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200816788.pdf

###

Requiring permits to feed homeless in parks upheld
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=23141

Orlando Can Restrict Homeless Feedings
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/09/28708.htm

Appeals court sides with Orlando on food ban‎
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/07/07/1718906/appeals-court-sides-with-orlando.html

Orlando group defies federal judge's ruling, continues to feed homeless
http://wdbo.com/localnews/2010/07/orlando-group-defies-federal-j.html

Homeless advocates decry court ruling restricting feedings in parks
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/features/os-homeless-feed-reax-20100707,0,2019022.story

MORE U.S. CITIES ATTACK FOOD NOT BOMBS EFFORT TO FEED THE HUNGRY

Fight over homeless feeding site heats up in Fort Lauderdale
http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/broward/blog/2010/07/
fight_over_homeless_feeding_

si.html

Ordinance Would Regulate Feeding Miam's Homeless
http://cbs4.com/local/Miami.Homeless.Ordinance.2.1524574.html

Miami Florida considers anti-homeless feeding law
http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/07/11/miami-commissioner-marc-
sarnoff-proposes-jail-for-feeding-homeless/

Diablo Food Not Bombs Succeeds in Feeding the Hungry!
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/06/21/18651439.php

"Criminal" Chalking and free speech: Know your rights.

Last fall, as I was engaged in protracted debates with the Capitol Police and security crews about first amendment rights, chalking, and criminal damage, I found and posted some articles about this guy at UofA who was in an absurd amount of trouble for his own chalking activity in Tucson. I was looking into all that again (dusting off all my gear for an action), and I came across this great blog, Sally Gradstudent, that speaks more directly to the Arizona criminal codes in question in the case. Neat blog with good links - it takes on the UofA administration and rallies other students to do the same.

The chalking charges against Jacob Miller and his trusty comrade (someone who began chalking after his arrest in solidarity) were ultimately dropped by the university, by the way, but it doesn't sound like they would have stuck.

--------------------

SALLY GRADSTUDENT

Friday, September 25, 2009

Criminal?

Jacob Miller's arrest is all over the news, turning a peaceful protest into a vortex of media attention. Tucson Citizen's Renee Schafer Horton is trying to get an interview with the UAPD, KGUN9 and KVOA4 both reported on it last night (with interviews from Jacob Miller), the Daily Wildcat filled up most of the front page with a photo from the story. The Desert Lamp has done a great job listing several other chalking incidents on campus.

Not only is the arrest of a peaceful protester disgusting, it also does not seem to us to follow the letter of the law.

Consider the definitions:

"A. A person commits interference with or disruption of an educational institution by doing any of the following:

1. Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly interfering with or disrupting the normal operations of an educational institution by either:

(a) Threatening to cause physical injury to any employee or student of an educational institution or any person on the property of an educational institution.

(b) Threatening to cause damage to any educational institution, the property of any educational institution or the property of any employee or student of an educational institution.

2. Intentionally or knowingly entering or remaining on the property of any educational institution for the purpose of interfering with the lawful use of the property or in any manner as to deny or interfere with the lawful use of the property by others.

3. Intentionally or knowingly refusing to obey a lawful order given pursuant to subsection C of this section.

A. A person commits criminal damage by recklessly:

1. Defacing or damaging property of another person; or

2. Tampering with property of another person so as substantially to impair its function or value; or

3. Tampering with the property of a utility.

4. Parking any vehicle in such a manner as to deprive livestock of access to the only reasonably available water (???what's this doing here??? -Peg)

5. Drawing or inscribing a message, slogan, sign or symbol that is made on any public or private building, structure or surface, except the ground, and that is made without permission of the owner."

Any short walk around campus will reveal numerous chalk drawings, usually made by the sororities. And yet, the police do not interfere with their right to free speech.

This is a serious matter. If Jacob Miller is convicted of these alledged "crimes", he stands to have a criminal record for the rest of his life, as well as fines and possible jail time. The university could then be in a position to suspend or expel him. His court date is October 14th, and if the charges haven't been dropped by then, we should take our peaceful protest to the courthouse.

Check out http://www.arizonaforeducation.com/ for more updates on the case.

Renee Schafer Horton of the TC online raises some important questions about the cost estimate for removing the chalk, and thanks to a quick-thinking graduate student with a camera, we have some answers for her. No power washing was done; the chalk was removed (as we watched) in less than 20 minutes by a group of 3 janitors.

According to UAPD, they may be looking for evidence of even more chalking so that they can hand out new citations. This is from Renee Schafer Horton's blog: Sgt. Juan Alvarez of UAPD said "There were other people that help Mr. Miller, but we couldn’t identify them. If we are able to identify them, we could pursue charges."

Is it just us, or does this come off as "Watch your backs, protesters"?

We will not be intimidated.

Posted by Sally Gradstudent at 9:23 AM

Tales of the Freewayblogger!

Here they are! My friend in Amsterdam found this!

http://www.freewayblogger.blogspot.com/

Freewayblogger - you're so awesome - your my inspiration - get ahold of me in Phoenix!!! (just look out for who might be following me - and tracking the IPs of visitors to my blogs.) - Prison Abolitionist.

First Amendment Arpaio Chalk Talk

Took a little extra work to retrieve these from my camera this week - but here are some of the photos from the First Amendment Rally that sent Joe packing with a song... a rhapsody, to be exact...

Special Legislative Session Continued...

Well, got a little closer to the action with my chalk today, and really pissed off the guy who does security or something for the legislature.

He insisted that I stop chalking (I was up near the road, but on the Capitol side of the street this time), but got flustered when I challenged him on whether or not it was against the law for me to do so. He made a special point of finding out what I could be charged with - "criminal damage." Sounds serious.

I finished my artwork by then and took my photos, so I figured I'd better go before he discovered all the other spots I've chalked this morning, since he was doing me a "favor" by not calling the police. I still think there's something fishy about this being "criminal damage". It washes right off...

Governor Brewer: Prisoners have families, too.