Davis Dozen arraignment set for this Friday

Nearly three months after U.S. Bank announced its withdrawal from the university campus, 12 protesters have been ordered to court for an arraignment on Friday at  8:30 a.m.

The 11 students and one professor face up to 11 years in prison on the charges of the obstruction of movement in a public place and conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor by Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig.

While protesters were allegedly blocking the entrance to the bank, several citations were issued that notified them of California Penal Code Section 647C, for public passage obstruction. No arrests were made during that time.

If convicted, the protesters, dubbed the “Davis Dozen” or the “Banker’s Dozen,” could pay up to $1 million in damages. The bank cited the university responsible for terminating the agreement, while stating they were “constructively evicted” in the termination letter to school officials.

According to a press release from the Occupy UC Davis Antirepression Crew, supporters argue that the University targeted the group of demonstrators in an attempt to limit its liability to U.S. Bank.

UC Davis spokesperson Barry Shiller said that the prosecutions are only directed toward alleged crimes despite claims that it was due to  the University’s liability to the bank.

“This subjected the participants to possible penalties both criminal and student judicial and the protests did not stop until the bank closed its doors on Feb. 28 … The last thing that the Chancellor wants is to see anybody saddled with a bill for restitution,” Shiller said.

The Yolo County District Attorney was involved when several complaints were made from students to University administration about accessing the bank, according to Shiller.

“The District Attorney did make the decision after studying the information that 12 of the people merited having these misdemeanor complaints filed against them,” he said. “It wasn’t just difficult – it was not just a matter of stepping over somebody who was sitting there peacefully – they reported that they were being physically obstructed from being able to enter by people who were literally blocking their access.”

Some students involved in the pepper spraying incident last November are also among the Davis Dozen. Occupiers are claiming that while pepper sprayed occupiers were not charged for events in fall, this prosecution is an attempt to punish protesters.

“… This less publicized prosecution seems to be an attempt to punish the dissenting students, perhaps in retaliation for their pending ACLU [the American Civil Liberties Union] lawsuit against the University,” the press release stated.

A Facebook event page has been created to assist students in finding carpools to Yolo County Superior Court, where the arraignment is to take place. Ninety-one people have confirmed their attendance, as of Wednesday.
On Monday, student protesters held a demonstration on the Quad in support of the Davis Dozen. More than 40 protesters were present.

UC Berkeley student protesters also received similar letters four months after demonstrations last November, when police officers engaged in violence to remove students for protesting the state of public education. Supporters are claiming that retroactively prosecuting students is a tactic the administration is employing to avoid negative media attention.

“We might not think of this as violence, because there aren’t broken bones or pepper spray or guns – it’s not as explicit – but sending someone to jail, holding them for a day, let alone 11 years, is violence,” said Andrew Higgins, representative of the UC graduate student union and history graduate student, in the press release.

Supporters of the Davis Dozen are urging members of the public to contact the Yolo County District Attorney and to attend the arraignment to demonstrate opposition toward the prosecution.

Both the UC Davis Faculty Association and UAW 2865, the union representing UC Davis graduate students, have passed resolutions in support of the Davis Dozen, Higgins said.

“No one is happy  about these cases having been filed,” Shiller said. “That is the reason the campus was so patient about trying to convince the protesters to move just a foot to either side and just let people though. That alone would have turned these into expressive constitutionally-protected protests.”

More details can be found at davisdozen.org.

MUNA SADEK can be reached at campus@theaggie.org.

 

5 Comments

  • kfir
    April 29, 2012

    According to a couple minutes of legal research, California Penal Code § 647C states that “Every person who willfully and maliciously obstructs the free movement of any person on any street, sidewalk, or other public place or on or in any place open to the public is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

    In turn, § 19 states that “Except in cases where a different punishment is prescribed by any law of this state, every offense declared to be a misdemeanor is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both.”

    So I don’t see where “11 years in prison” or “$1 million in damages” can come from. The article also seems to confuse criminal fines, which are paid to state, with civil damages which would be paid to the plaintiff, US Bank, in the context of its lawsuit against the university. Neither US Bank nor the university has filed a civil suit against the protesters, nor could the university shift civil liability in a criminal proceeding given the law.

    I’m going to give The Aggie the benefit of the doubt and assume that they made a good faith mistake regarding these facts about the law. Nevertheless, people should be reminded that the duty to speak truthfully requires that one refrain from intentionally misrepresenting the truth or recklessly putting out facts that one fails to verify. Even if one’s cause is just, I don’t believe that that provides an excuse to put out incorrect facts designed to garner sympathy for that cause. I personally agree that big business can have too much power in America, but a social movement only harms itself by discrediting itself in the eyes of others.

    You can check out the penal code yourself at this ca.gov website:
    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=pen

    • Lukacs
      May 3, 2012

      It’s basic math: each protester is facing 21 counts of the 647c misdemeanor, plus the conspiracy charge. It adds up to about 11 years.

      If this sounds unreasonable, instead of assuming that the Aggie has made some kind of mistake, you should call the DA and request that the charges be dropped.

  • abbynormal
    April 28, 2012

    “allegedly blocking”…there is not allegedly about it! They cut off entrance into a place of business for two months!!! There are first hand accounts, photos, youtube clips, and their own boasting on the matter on their FB page. I agree, had they stood a few inches away from the door, we would not be wasting time and money on these guys. These people like to blame everyone else, but themselves for their run-ins with the law. I’m so sick of hearing these people and silly rallies! If they cannot change it, and don’t like, they should consider another university, and stop messing up the college experience of everyone else!

  • Yutaka Yamamoto
    April 26, 2012

    Send them all to court and punish them with maximum sentence. These occupy protesters are nothing but nuisance. Protesting comes with its legal consequences. The law is the law, and just like James Madison said above, it’s part of the due process and the justice system.

  • James Madison
    April 26, 2012

    Dear Andrew Higgins -

    Please explain to me how jailing someone is ‘violent’ when they have broken the law. This is in reference to your quote here in this article: “We might not think of this as violence, because there aren’t broken bones or pepper spray or guns – it’s not as explicit – but sending someone to jail, holding them for a day, let alone 11 years, is violence.” This comment implies that you believe everyone who protests against something they disagree with or dislike should not be held accountable to the justice system of the US. In this country, if you break the law, you must face the consequences of your actions. In this case, those consequences involve jail time if convicted. This is not violence, this is due process and the justice system.

    JM

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment. Login »