Monday, August 20, 2012

"The People Versus The Activists" A New Dragon Comes With Santa Cruz Eleven

Santa Cruz Eleven Being Held Captive because "SOMEBODY" Has To Pay
by lighthouseLinda for Linda's Hearth

Monday Aug 20th, 2012 2:10 PM
(Psst!  Preface ~~)
By "Captive" in this title, I simply mean, these defendants' lives are "on call" for California's Superior Court. The indefinite nature of this makes it seem unusual and for some, even cruel, to me. The courtroom was packed this morning!

Well, This morning's Courtroom five with Honorable Judge Paul Burdick proved neither prediction I had heard ventured since Friday:  first, that the case was NOT dismissed, nor would it be -- nor would all their attorneys nor District Attorney Young with her defenders, nor the growing-tight peanut gallery --  coming back in a month, closing-in finally on a prelim hearing.

Instead, it turned out:
More delays for Defendants. And coming soon - Sanctions for Assistant District Attorney Young and/or the District's Attorney's "office" for delays in providing evidence (or consistency) to the attorneys of defendants, nicknamed the Santa Cruz Eleven. Also a possibility of Judge reviewing the two defendants who have been twice charged in there somewhere. The Judge listened to a litany of concerns from counsel for defendants but ignored or dismissed most particulars.

Judge Paul Burdick, even today, seems generally even-handed and calm yet attentive. Yet in one of his more emphatic, dynamic expressions during the morning's proceedings, Judge Burdick said, "...serious crimes were permitted here! ... And someone is responsible."

This, he explained, is the reason he is reluctant to dismiss the Santa Cruz Eleven case in response to evidence missteps and tech delays, and his order to show cause. 
Since D.A. Young and her two allies today HAD brought all the requested (still missing Friday) evidentiary DISCOVERY to court; and despite the irregularities and her twice or thrice disregard for Burdick's court orders about this stuff; the trial of the Santa Cruz Eleven *WILL* be continued.

Finally, the Judge facilitated a handful of court dates, from a special check-in for two "re-charged" defendants slated for Sept 24th, until a "someday"  Preliminary Hearing January 7th, with a few more dates in between. While there was some discussion of public needs, the court was unmoved by lawyers pointing out many defendants' lives becoming fragmented, even destroyed, among the accused. 
santa-cruz-eleven_5_8-20-... streaming from the courtroom

My viewpoint:  
This Judge ultimately expressed an even higher standard of protecting the People, or "the public" as people in the larger community were referred to in court, than did District Attorney Bob Lee.

Lee recently said to defendants that if they'd pay the (inflated, imho) $30,000 damages/vandalism costs, from cleaning up the scene of 75 River Street "takeover", the charges would "go away." 

Judge Burdick, it seemed to me this morning, does not want to settle for anything less than a "responsible party." Overheard just outside the courtroom door as all were leaving: "is he (Judge Burdick) asking somebody off the street to come to his office and say, 'I did it'?"

Despite the Judge's repeated demands of the Assistant DA's work quality issues, it was apparent Burdick can imagine somebody among the Eleven-Transmuting-To-Seven Defendants will surely be proven 'responsible.' For emphasis, he repeated his expectation for future evidence that is clear to him.
See Santa Cruz Indymedia for reporting that includes defense attorney comments and complete court dates. And more great photos.

To this Judge's credit, many of the SCEleven Defendants could be heard in the Atrium after court: they were saying they feel the Judge is, still, attempting to be fair. I agree Judge Burdick has a difficult balance to sustain in this politicized case.What I saw triggered memories of the Chicago Seven.

1 comment:

  1. For a more critical view of Judge Burdick's decision, go to and read the lead article as well.


Please leave a comment. Comments which are abusive, libelous, threatening, or otherwise objectionable may be removed by the editor. Comments which remain posted may or may not reflect the views of the editor. I welcome your comments, suggestions, critiques, and updates.