Man faces 13 years in prison for writing in chalk outside bank!

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

Yes you do need permission to do what he did. While it is chalk that he used, he still defaced public property, that the city and the bank has to keep clean and upkeep. As the bank called the city to come clean it up, then the city has to pay for the people, machinery, the insurance to come out and clean it up. Should the people of San Diego be expected to clean up after another person, costing thousands of dollars to do such? After all in this day and age of lawsuits, they have to block off the area, clean it, make sure it is environmentally sound, and then turn around and open it back up. They have to pay for the transportation of the people and the equipment, and that comes from the cities budget.

While it may seem like a case of Freedom of Speech, the question still remains, why could he not have used a poster board and held it up? Why did he have to use chalk on a sidewalk? What was the ultimate purpose?

But lets say he wins the case, then Bank of America can sue him for millions of dollars worth of damages all on the grounds of Tortious interference, and chances are they would win, cause all they have to prove is that his actions caused damage to their business, but the lose of 1 customer or potential customer, or that a customer felt intimidated by him.

reply to post by sdcigarpig


... Please explain. What machinery do you need outside a water hose to clean up chalk. How many people are required to handle this at once? Are you dense?

They said 13 counts of vandalism totalling up to 13 years imprisonment. Its not just one count, there are multiple counts of vandalism. Just because its chalk doesn't mean much, technically its still vandalism. But the $6000 cost claimed by one branch to remove the graffiti is quite outrageous by any measure.

Technically the law is correct here. Of course if you spray paint metro buses or trains you get away with it because public property does not count much for those enforcing the law. its the classic double standard. If you mess with banks they drop the whole enchilada on you. They want teach people a lesson.

This makes more sense than the 10 year sentence passed by canada for wearing a skimask.

This is an absolute f king banana republic. You expect this type of bullshi from 3rd world dictatorships like robert mugabe or from the old USSR. There is no more free neither democratic left in the USA. Viva dictatorship Viva. I really hope all of you in usa are happy with the farse you allowed your country to become by sitting on your arses and doing nothing. Take a good hard look at places like North Korea, Zimbabwe as that is how you gonna be governed and gaged in your private lives sooner than later. If things keep going the way they do now you might have 1 more undemocratic election left before that also disapear.
So sad that you allow 1% to rule 99%.

Just recently, Elizabeth Warren highlighted how some common folks are seeing their days in court sometimes on a very thin ground while some banks are just too big for trials for real crimes. Here, a too-big-for-trial bank is helping illustrate her point.

Originally posted by Stealthwatch
This is an absolute f king banana republic. You expect this type of bullshi from 3rd world dictatorships like robert mugabe or from the old USSR. There is no more free neither democratic left in the USA. Viva dictatorship Viva. I really hope all of you in usa are happy with the farse you allowed your country to become by sitting on your arses and doing nothing. Take a good hard look at places like North Korea, Zimbabwe as that is how you gonna be governed and gaged in your private lives sooner than later. If things keep going the way they do now you might have 1 more undemocratic election left before that also disapear.
So sad that you allow 1% to rule 99%.

Indeed all we hear about is blue collar crime like sticking up a convience store with a gun or even a fake gun.

Its like white collar crime such as embezzlement, racketering, usury, extortion, money laundering, tax evasion, etc do not exist. They might as well abandon the securities exchange commission since it perverts justice, abandon the justice department since it obstructs justice, and lock up half of washington.

He wont serve a minute even if he loses. This trial will not pass constitutional muster if the judge violates his first amendment rights. Judges don't have the authority to disregard the Constitution, like the anti-American president thinks he does.

Originally posted by Isittruee
reply to post by StrangeTimez

 

Wait. How does a judge bar your from using freedom of speech in a... fair trial? Times are changing. Chalk. 13 years. You get less then that for your first bank robbery...

That is true. If its a first time offense 5-10 is your sentence.

edit on 26-6-2013 by Isittruee because: (no reason given)

If only he had written "give me your money" with the chalk.

reply to post by StrangeTimez


Ought to be punishable offense to run a bank advertisement on television. Cost me $75,000 to turn the channel.

reply to post by StrangeTimez


Is State law superseding the Constitution here??

reply to post by Isittruee

Well there is the truck to transport the 3 people there, then you have to set up the barrier, followed by putting down the machinery, and followed by one person to turn it on, then use it, followed by the clean up. About 3 to 4 people to do such.

This is California, and as most public sector jobs are union controlled, and the laws are written in favor of the employee, it is not just as simple as going out with a water hose and just hosing down the area. And if someone were to get wet or their clothing damaged, then there is the liability to ensure that they are ok and their clothing is safe, and that no one slips. It is an entire operation in itself.

reply to post by sdcigarpig


That's poor mismanagement of the city and its employees. That has nothing to do with chalk. All do I do get what your saying. If only It would've rained before the city got the call.

Hopefully these charges will be thrown out and he won't have to pay the 6000. 5000 and up is above civil court so if he has a half decent lawyer I'm sure he'll be ok.

If there is anyway this could go to a jury trial I have no doubt he will come out with no problems.

reply to post by Isittruee


As a SD county resident I've been following this story a bit so I asked our in-house attorney and he pointed me to some resources. Most of you aren't going to like it.

First, the law specifically says that you maliciously "defaced with graffiti or other inscribed material," damaged, or destroyed property" and "that you did not own the property or owned it with someone else"

The term "inscribed" means the following under California code: "any unauthorized inscription, word, figure, mark, or design that is written, marked, etched, scratched, drawn or painted on real or personal property."

There is no requirement that the "defacement with graffiti or other inscribed material" be permanent.

"Real" property includes land and anything attached to it (a building, a home, etc.). "Personal" property is anything else (the furniture inside your house, your car, etc.).

If the alleged vandalism appears on "public" property (like a park bench), the jury is allowed to presume that you did not own the property...and did not have permission to deface, damage, or destroy it. Uh oh.

Therefore, our guy is in deep doodoo. Obviously, it's ridiculous but he DID violate the law by committing vandalism.

One piece of good news for him. BoA had no requirement to clean the sidewalk so the cleaning charges probably won't stick.

reply to post by wills120


Thanks for bringing this to my attention and everyone else who didn't know.
Your last part about how BoA didn't have to clean it up. I hope it does get dropped because of that. I mean sidewalks are state property. So if anything the case should be against him and the state. Not BoA.

Actually the vandalism should be against the state as well. Did he touch the building at all?
Can't own a sidewalk.

Jeff Olson, the 40-year-old man who is being prosecuted for scrawling anti-megabank messages on sidewalks in water-soluble chalk last year now faces a 13-year jail sentence.

From OP link. He didn't.

I don't want to live here anymore.

reply to post by Isittruee

As the judge in the case has ruled that the use of it being a case for the freedom of speech is not applicable in this case, his lawyer is going to have to figure out a good defense for his client. While it is ridiculous that he is being charged with vandalism, and that they used chalk, the facts are still the same no matter how you cut it.

And if he is found not guilty, as he did such in front of only Bank of America, then BOA can then go after him in a civil court on the grounds that he prevented their business. Lets just say of the 2, the criminal charge and being found guilty is going to be a lot less painful on him, than having to face BOA's lawyers and litigation from a civil trial.

Sides if it does go to a jury trial, then there will be a point where a jury has to be selected and both sides are going to try to find jurors that are going to be more inclined to rule in favor of their side. And believe me, that in the trial, the cost to clean up his mess, is going to come up, and it will be hammered home that the tax payers are going to have to foot the bill. And anyone living in San Diego, who owns property, that is going to be a good argument to sway them to vote to convict him, and find him guilty.

reply to post by wills120


Thanks for taking the time (and resource!) to clarify that. I would hope that the restitution bit doesn't stick as well as the length of the proposed sentence. Honestly, it'd be absolutely ridiculous for him to serve a greater sentence than far more serious criminal offenses such as rape. Comparatively, former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skillings just had his own sentence for fraud, conspiracy, and god knows what else reduced to 14 years this year so this guy would be serving nearly the same length of sentence as Skillings who had a hand in untold amounts of loss and damages via the Enron scandal and the California Rolling Blackouts. That would be really messed up in my book or a sharp indicator that, unless you can afford a fleet of top attorneys, you're going to be facing seriously bizarre sentences--which sometimes seems to be the ultimate truth these days.

reply to post by sdcigarpig


Regardless. How is BoA sueing for a sidewalk that is not theirs? Even if in front of their building it isn't their sidewalk.
I can see if the state wants to take everything up with him. BoA has no right..as in not their property. Can't own a sidewalk and wasn't their responsibility to clean it..

There's eventually going to come a tipping point, we can only take so much BS.

So how about the following as it seems usa legal system is now off their rocker completely or a judge was bought by a banker or blackmailed by an abc government office. Can we also now start from tomorrow and sentence all the teachers to 13 years in prison for writing with chalk on a public wall humm blackboard/ whiteboard. We can also do the same with the people who paint the lines on the public roads, they can go for 20 as that is paint and do not wash off,