Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
UC Berkeley Police Risking Oak's Defenders Lives!
UC is risking the lives of Oak's defenders!
Yes, the role of law enforcement is to protect and serve. But in this case, it seems that UCPD Police Chief Victoria Harrison's directives are to "protect" the UC's interests and "serve" a life threatening response to the peaceful and non-violent protectors of the Berkley Oak Grove. On June 17th at 6:30 am, UC Berkley began the process of attempting to remove the Treesitters with dozens of UC Campus cops and hired henchmen extractors.
Apparently, the UC and Chief Victoria Harrison believe that they are above the law. Despite a court injunction against removing the Oaks and their defenders, climbers have been cutting branches and safety lines of the Oaks defenders, endangering the lives of activists. The UC's attempts at starving out the Treesitters by blocking resupply attempts for food and water have failed due to the actions of a large support base of the Berkley community on the ground. As the climbers and campus police threaten the lives of the Treesitters, supporters on the ground continue to denounce the dangerous and reckless actions of the Treesitter's assailants, by voice and bullhorns.
"Dumpster Muffin", one the oaks defenders, is perched high in a platform extended high above the tip-wip of a Coast Redwood situated in the grove. As she gyrates her hips and dances for the crowds below, her platform sways precariously back and forth. One has to wonder why the UC would risk endangering the lives of these noble and fearless defenders in order to remove them against a court injunction, and well before the recent Oaks Grove ruling has been interpreted by Alameda County Superior Court Judge Barbara Miller. "Ayr", a supporter from the ground, hollers through a bullhorn at the campus police, pleading with them not to risk the lives of the Oaks Defenders. Luckily for the Treesitters, a multitude of supporters have gathered to observe the actions of the UC police.
Unfortunately, the UC has turned a blind eye to the court system, as well as the law and common decency. All are invited to visit the grove and support the defenders of these precious Oaks. You can read more about the struggle at the Save the Oaks website, as well as to find directions to the easily accessable grove.
What? You can't make it? But you still want to help! You can help them by calling UCPD Police Chief Victoria Harrison at (510) 642-1133 or email this cold and heartless extension of UC corruption at vlh@berkeley.edu. The UC seems to think they are above the law. Help the Oaks Defenders by showing the UC that they are accountable for their actions.
Apparently, the UC and Chief Victoria Harrison believe that they are above the law. Despite a court injunction against removing the Oaks and their defenders, climbers have been cutting branches and safety lines of the Oaks defenders, endangering the lives of activists. The UC's attempts at starving out the Treesitters by blocking resupply attempts for food and water have failed due to the actions of a large support base of the Berkley community on the ground. As the climbers and campus police threaten the lives of the Treesitters, supporters on the ground continue to denounce the dangerous and reckless actions of the Treesitter's assailants, by voice and bullhorns.
"Dumpster Muffin", one the oaks defenders, is perched high in a platform extended high above the tip-wip of a Coast Redwood situated in the grove. As she gyrates her hips and dances for the crowds below, her platform sways precariously back and forth. One has to wonder why the UC would risk endangering the lives of these noble and fearless defenders in order to remove them against a court injunction, and well before the recent Oaks Grove ruling has been interpreted by Alameda County Superior Court Judge Barbara Miller. "Ayr", a supporter from the ground, hollers through a bullhorn at the campus police, pleading with them not to risk the lives of the Oaks Defenders. Luckily for the Treesitters, a multitude of supporters have gathered to observe the actions of the UC police.
Unfortunately, the UC has turned a blind eye to the court system, as well as the law and common decency. All are invited to visit the grove and support the defenders of these precious Oaks. You can read more about the struggle at the Save the Oaks website, as well as to find directions to the easily accessable grove.
What? You can't make it? But you still want to help! You can help them by calling UCPD Police Chief Victoria Harrison at (510) 642-1133 or email this cold and heartless extension of UC corruption at vlh@berkeley.edu. The UC seems to think they are above the law. Help the Oaks Defenders by showing the UC that they are accountable for their actions.
For more information:
http://www.saveoaks.com/SaveOaks/Main.html
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
"The UC seems to think they are above the law."
What is the legal status of the tree sit? I am not asking about the opinion of the civil disobedience, but the actual legal problems or rights that the tree sitters have. This may not be the right website to ask for an objective take on it, but it is worth knowing what rights both sides have, in remaining or in extracting.
What is the legal status of the tree sit? I am not asking about the opinion of the civil disobedience, but the actual legal problems or rights that the tree sitters have. This may not be the right website to ask for an objective take on it, but it is worth knowing what rights both sides have, in remaining or in extracting.
Ok, if the treesitters are considered trespassers, the landowner can use reasonable force to remove someone from their land. The degree of force used must not be more than appears reasonably necessary. So, it ultimately would come down to the question, is physically removing a treesitter from a tree reasonable?
That'd be a question for jury to decide if it was presented with the question in say a civil context to deliberate on. Barring having someone like John Yoo interpret the question, that's where it'd go. Yoo's the guy who will spin any law for the bush whitehouse to allow the government to do as they please. Since he works for UCB, it wouldn't surprise me if they have him figuring out how to side step this issue of what is considered reasonable.
But in all reality, reasonable force is allowed in removing someone who is trespassing. In one instance years ago, a Superior Court Judge in Santa Cruz county ruled in an injunction hearing that the benefit to removing the tree sitters on the land of the lumber company, did not outweigh the risk involved. The judge in that scenario did not allow the lumber company to remove the sitters from their perches. So, one might say its interpretation of the law and since UCB employs people who spin the law, anything is possible.
That'd be a question for jury to decide if it was presented with the question in say a civil context to deliberate on. Barring having someone like John Yoo interpret the question, that's where it'd go. Yoo's the guy who will spin any law for the bush whitehouse to allow the government to do as they please. Since he works for UCB, it wouldn't surprise me if they have him figuring out how to side step this issue of what is considered reasonable.
But in all reality, reasonable force is allowed in removing someone who is trespassing. In one instance years ago, a Superior Court Judge in Santa Cruz county ruled in an injunction hearing that the benefit to removing the tree sitters on the land of the lumber company, did not outweigh the risk involved. The judge in that scenario did not allow the lumber company to remove the sitters from their perches. So, one might say its interpretation of the law and since UCB employs people who spin the law, anything is possible.
Despite the mis-information being spread around the court ruled long ago that UCB could evict the tree sitters. Dumpster Muffin is putting herself at risk willingly. She and the other sitters accept the risks associated with living in a tree and the risk associsted with potential removal from the tree. If the tree sitters resist removal when they are high above the ground they put themselves at risk.
He's way off on the legal aspects, as are many of the protestors. It was sad to see lawyers and organizers distorting the judge's ruling so badly, thus making the people at the site think they had actually "won" something.
The reality is this:
-the ruling stops CONSTRUCTION at the site until the university makes a few minor adjustments to it's plan. It does not stop the tear-down of the trees or removal of the treesitters.
-the ruling means that the UC must prove that the cost of a support beam required for earthquake safety will not be more than half the value of the property. Since the beam only costs $500K, the value of the site would have to be less than $1 million. For anyone familiar with Berkeley real estate, the total value of that site just in terms of property, and not the building HAS to be in the tens of millions. The reporting by Jones of SF Gate has been pathetic and has given our side false hope that is not realistic.
The reality is this:
-the ruling stops CONSTRUCTION at the site until the university makes a few minor adjustments to it's plan. It does not stop the tear-down of the trees or removal of the treesitters.
-the ruling means that the UC must prove that the cost of a support beam required for earthquake safety will not be more than half the value of the property. Since the beam only costs $500K, the value of the site would have to be less than $1 million. For anyone familiar with Berkeley real estate, the total value of that site just in terms of property, and not the building HAS to be in the tens of millions. The reporting by Jones of SF Gate has been pathetic and has given our side false hope that is not realistic.
Re: the legality of the tree-sitters:
Alameda County Superior Court Judge Richard Keller ruled in October 2007, in response to request by the University for a temporary restraining order on the grounds that the tree protesters are trespassing, creating a nuisance and posing a health and safety danger, that protestors who remained in the trees were in violation of the law. They are trespassing.
The University is not allowed to start construction or remove any trees yet, but they can remove the protesters whenever they like.
http://www.dailycal.org/article/26635/new_ruling_tree-sitters_must_go
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21100460/
http://www.ebdailynews.com/article/2007-10-31-eb-tree
Seems to me it's not the University that "has turned a blind eye to the court system, as well as the law and common decency."
Alameda County Superior Court Judge Richard Keller ruled in October 2007, in response to request by the University for a temporary restraining order on the grounds that the tree protesters are trespassing, creating a nuisance and posing a health and safety danger, that protestors who remained in the trees were in violation of the law. They are trespassing.
The University is not allowed to start construction or remove any trees yet, but they can remove the protesters whenever they like.
http://www.dailycal.org/article/26635/new_ruling_tree-sitters_must_go
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21100460/
http://www.ebdailynews.com/article/2007-10-31-eb-tree
Seems to me it's not the University that "has turned a blind eye to the court system, as well as the law and common decency."
The entire corrupt exploitative system of money, power, ego and self-interest is laid bare by the Berkeley Memorial Oak Grove tree-sit protest against the alignment of many other destructive profit-oriented industries including the sports industry, the construction industry, the automobile industry, the security industry, the chain link fence industry, the diesel generator and floodlight industries. All of these industries are shamefully participating in the destruction of more nature, more living beings, to the personal benefit of themselves.
More details here: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/06/20/18509514.php
More details here: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/06/20/18509514.php
For more information:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/06/2...
I just wanted to asy that I for one will be sad to see such a grove go. I do not really believe in the tree sitters tactics and I am also very disturb by their diregard for legalalities unless it suits their purposes. But I do feel that way too much is spent on sports especially in this climate of budget cuts. I wish more people would lament about the sports budget as a way to get the service workers a raise instead of the handful of regents and chacellors.
the real question here should be, how can residents of the state of California be considered trespassers? The UC is state property which makes it public land much like a public park. If i am a resident of California (which i am), i should be able to protest and treesit on the UC campus as I please.
Firstly, this IS an illegal protest. just because UC is a state organization doesn't mean you can just move onto the land and live there. Otherwise, I'd 'protest' and move into the governor's mansion (it's state property afterall) and shack up with Maria Shriver. Your argument makes no sense, man. You can't just live on any state property because it is state property.
Second, doesn't anyone have better things to do with their protestation? Protest the war. Protest guantanamo bay. Help the homeless. If you have your heart set on saving trees, save the amazon. But saving this little grove isn't worth all this time and effort (and since UC will plant more trees than will be cut down, this will yield more trees in the end.)
what a waste.
Second, doesn't anyone have better things to do with their protestation? Protest the war. Protest guantanamo bay. Help the homeless. If you have your heart set on saving trees, save the amazon. But saving this little grove isn't worth all this time and effort (and since UC will plant more trees than will be cut down, this will yield more trees in the end.)
what a waste.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$190.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network