- Home
- News
- Forum
- Sports
- Features
- Arts
- Business
- Obituaries
- Comics
- Gallery
- Classifieds
- Advertisers
- Contact Us
3,663
931
Bank protesters plead not guilty
WOODLAND — The so-called “Banker’s Dozen” crowded into Yolo County Superior Court on Thursday with five attorneys in tow — well-known San Francisco defense attorney J. Tony Serra among them — then pleaded not guilty to misdemeanor charges stemming from their blockade of a bank branch.
The 11 UC Davis students and one professor will next appear before Judge David Reed for a pre-trial conference on June 1, with the case likely to receive a July trial date.
The protesters face 20 counts each of obstructing movement on a street or in a public place and one count each of conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor. The conspiracy charge carries a maximum penalty of one year in jail. Obstruction, also a misdemeanor, carries a penalty of up to six months in jail.
They also could be ordered to pay more than $1 million to compensate U.S. Bank for its losses.
Michael Cabral, Yolo County assistant chief deputy district attorney, had said he would offer a plea deal of 80 hours of community service. On Friday, however, the defendants made it clear they wanted the matter set for trial.
Tim Kreiner, a spokesman for the protesters, said they would have rejected any deal “on the grounds that any continuance of prosecution is a wrongful attempt to prosecute political speech on campus.”
“The fact that there are charges at all is a bit of a sham,” Kreiner said. “It’s unfortunate that the university administration feels compelled to try to … refer its own students for prosecution for political dissent on campus.”
UCD spokesman Barry Shiller said in an email message that “the last thing in the world you want to see is 11 students and a faculty member facing charges.”
“It’s vital to remember that the charges were filed only after campus police received multiple complaints from students and others alleging that they had been prevented from entering or leaving the campus U.S. Bank branch,” Shiller said.
“And the blockades continued despite 12 attempts — six in writing — by campus staff to educate protesters about the risks of continuing their actions.”
The ponytail-wearing Serra is an intriguing addition to the case. He has represented the likes of Black Panther Huey Newton, as well as Hells Angels and members of the environmental group Earth First! More recently, he defended Greg Anderson, trainer for baseball slugger Barry Bonds, during the BALCO steroids conspiracy case.
Serra declined comment after the arraignment.
Among the protesters he is representing is Thomas Matzat. He has separately been charged with five felony counts of vandalism over $400 — which carries a maximum of three years in prison — as well as 14 misdemeanor counts of vandalism under $400, and possession of tools with intent to commit vandalism, a misdemeanor, for graffiti painted on campus.
Matzat appeared briefly in court on Tuesday. He is due back for arraignment on June 6.
The protesters began blocking the bank branch daily on Jan. 2, singling it out as a symbol of the privatization of the university and corporate greed.
On March 1, U.S. Bank, having complained repeatedly that UCD wasn’t doing enough to end the protest, halted its 10-year deal with the campus. (UCD has since filed suit, alleging breach of contract.)
The DA’s Office announced on March 30 that it would file charges against the protesters, who have been active with Occupy UC Davis but who chose to take the bank action on their own.
More than 5,300 people have signed a petition at http://davisdozen.org, calling for the charges to be dropped, and more than 80 faculty members have signed letters asking the UCD administration to urge the same.
— Reach Cory Golden at cgolden@davisenterprise.net. Follow him on Twitter at @cory_golden
Cory Golden
Discussion | 39 comments
The Davis Enterprise does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy
Recent Posts
Greg KuperbergMay 10, 2012 - 11:40 pm
Many of the statements in support of this protest associate banks in general or US Bank in particular with student loans. But this association no longer makes sense. The market for private student loans has substantially collapsed, and President Obama removed banks from the administration of federal student loans. Meanwhile US Bank recently stopped issuing new student loans. On top of all of that, US Bank issues Visa cards, and you can't use Visa to pay UC Davis tuition. http://www.theaggie.org/2012/05/10/guest-opinion-the-collapse-of-private-student-loans/
Reply |DinaMay 11, 2012 - 11:27 am
A lot doesn't make sense Mr. Kuperberg. Wall Street ripped off the US taxpayers to the tune of trillions and totally is getting away with it. Which is why there is no money now for the education of the US taxpayers' children. Corporations continue to rip off Us taxpayers to the tune of trillions through tax loopholes, tax subsidies, price gouging and shipping jobs offshore. Hence the protest at the US bank which to you I guess makes no sense. Any and all protests in an environment such as the one we have today in the US makes perfect sense to me. In fact it it just the beginning I am pretty sure, in spite of your best efforts to refocus the problem as being anyone who squeaks a little about these massive injustices.
Reply |common senseMay 11, 2012 - 5:52 am
The protesters allegedly prevented people from leaving the bank as well as entering it. Isn't that false imprisonment? What is their defense? I hope the truth comes out in court and justice prevails.
Reply |Aaron CurtinMay 11, 2012 - 10:21 am
They are guilty and punished accordingly. I know that on a number of occasions, I went to the branch and was unable to conduct any business due to these "protestors"... some of which are customers of mine. Very confrontational towards me as a customer of US Bank.
Reply |casperMay 11, 2012 - 11:41 am
is tresspassing more than a misdemeanor?
Reply |Rich RifkinMay 11, 2012 - 12:47 pm
It can be. Here is what amounts to felony trespass: "If you commit a California 'aggravated' criminal trespass, you face a possible felony charge. This takes place if you threaten to injure another person seriously and…within 30 days of making that threat…unlawfully enter that person’s home or workplace intending to carry out your threat. "Penal Code 459 PC, California’s burglary law, penalizes entering someone’s property with the intent of committing a felony or petty theft once inside. If, for example…at the time you enter another person’s property…you intend to commit aggravated trespass, you could be charged with both aggravated trespass and burglary." Source: http://www.shouselaw.com/trespass.html Aggravated trespass is what’s known as a wobbler, which means that prosecutors can charge the offense as a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on 1.the circumstances of the offense, and 2.your criminal history.
Reply |Greg KuperbergMay 11, 2012 - 12:21 pm
In my piece in the Aggie, I explained how US Bank does not profit from high tuition at UC Davis; if anything, it would make more money if students had more money to spend after paying tuition. Here is another point. Some of the faculty on campus have argued that the bank is a legitimate political target of civil disobedience, and that the protests were legitimate civil disobedience because they were non-violent. But if that's all it takes to be legitimate, then why stop at blockading the bank? They could have robbed the bank with electronic identity theft, then spent the money on financial aid for other students. I don't think that that's legitimate and I doubt that the DA would think so either. However, it's equally non-violent and I do not see how people draw the line between that and a blockade.
Reply |DinaMay 11, 2012 - 4:14 pm
You say you don't see the difference between theft of the bank's (customers' ) money and a civil disobedience blockade? Why are you feigning such monumental stupidity?
Reply |Greg KuperbergMay 11, 2012 - 5:33 pm
Once the bank figures out that it's identity theft, the customer doesn't have to pay. Then it really is stealing from the bank instead.
Reply |DinaMay 11, 2012 - 7:00 pm
So you are purposefully trying to conflate civil disobedience with actual hard core crime--just because neither is violent--and I would say that is irresponsible and reprehensible indeed.
Reply |Greg KuperbergMay 11, 2012 - 7:32 pm
Look, I always took the California Code to be the authoritative explanation of what is and is not a crime. But, according to some people, I'm supposed to morph the legal code using some doctrine of civil disobedience. I haven't seen any explanation of why a bank blockade qualifies other than (a) banks are evil, and (b) it's not violent. I'm not saying necessarily that anyone would endorse electronic bank robbery as legitimate civil disobedience. But if not, then why isn't it?
Reply |AJTMay 11, 2012 - 9:33 pm
In my opinion, the protesters are worse than some identity thieves. Think about how much money that UCD and students lost from the deal. Think about the people who lost their jobs at the branch. Those self-centered protesters have done much more damage than a typical identity thief, and they deserve to be prosecuted.
Reply |Mark PhilipMay 11, 2012 - 10:36 pm
Totally agree AJT..UCD lost huge amount of money from the bank's sponsorship that could have been used for the exact reason they were protesting for - lower tuition (and other things) and the people be it students or adults that lost their jobs? I hope these kids pay for that and that THEY are out of work for months...
Reply |DinaMay 11, 2012 - 10:57 pm
The tone of some of you posters is a wonder to me. The intense parceling and doling of rules and penalties and punishments for these protesters--while you turn a blind eye to the total lawlessness and treason of the 1% represented by US Bank and some elements of the University, among others. Either you do not have a clue as to what is really happening to our constitutional rights in this country and why these protesters felt they had to take the stand that they did, or you welcome the end of rule "by the people and for the people" in favor of rule by and for the corporations.
Reply |casperMay 11, 2012 - 11:05 pm
people who accuse protesters, OWS etc., are traitors. They suck up to Wall Street and scorn their fellow man for protesting. Shame on them.
Reply |AJTMay 11, 2012 - 11:32 pm
If the protesters and some of their supporters here really think US Bank is the evil greedy Wall Street monsters whose business deserves to suffer by illegal blockade, why don't they go to the downtown branch and do the same thing? The protesters are just a bunch of cowards who took advantage of the UCD police whose hands were tied after the pepper spray debacle.
Reply |Mark PhilipMay 11, 2012 - 3:19 pm
Its amazes me first of all that UCD is filing suit against the bank because after repeated attempts by the bank asking the college to remove the students for blocking its branch and getting no where, they terminated their agreement with the school and now UCD is suing the bank for breach of contract? Give me a break ! They have a business to run..they asked the school to do something about it...It now cost the school millions of dollars for loosing them. What did it gain the school by not doing anything for fear of the few students who committed the act? Would have you removed the kids from your office if they did the same thing in the administration building? Since when does the tail wag the dog? As a business owner, it offends me that these kids think it necessary to block a business that 1) is there to make it easier for the kids to handle their money rather than going down town and 2) believe it or not, business are entitled to make money..it's called jobs for the people that work there, and these kids should have been in school rather than protesting, I'm sure their parents are pleased that they were paying alot of money for their kids NOT to attend class. UCD, get some balls and do not let this go..you should do everything you can to get the bank back, and appologize to us parents who pay good money for our childrens education and as for the teachers - they should not bend the way student opinion directs them.
Reply |Greg KuperbergMay 11, 2012 - 8:52 pm
I agree with you that US Bank is a legitimate business and that blockading it is out of bounds. I do not make any value judgment on the bank as a good business or a bad business, but that is a completely different question from legitimacy. Otherwise for all I know the university is following the right strategy, although it has admitted that it could have acted sooner. The fact is that there is a measure of support for the protesters among some students and some faculty, and not because anyone is bending towards anyone else's opinion. Some fraction of the campus community thinks that it was a legitimate form of protest, probably not a majority of either faculty or students, but still a significant number of people. Especially with the backdrop of the pepper spray incident, it would have been extremely questionable for campus police to drag away the protesters. I don't think that the university owes any apology to parents, especially not the parents of the protesters. The protesters are legal adults and they made their own choices. The university warned them many times. The one thing that I would say in the other direction is that it is highly unprofessional for a faculty member to encourage students to break the law. But it has little to do with whether any students listen to such advice. I take them to be two separate lapses in judgment.
Reply |Mark PhilipMay 11, 2012 - 9:01 pm
The bottom line is - were they breaking the law? If they were, the should go with the outcome from the police. The bank (good or bad) has a right to conduct business and I agree with you, for a faculty member to encourage kids to break the law, then he / she should no longer be teaching at that school (or any where) ..Bottom Line - they broke the law and should pay for their "lapse of judgement" (and I am being kind with that response)
Reply |Greg KuperbergMay 11, 2012 - 9:17 pm
Well, yes, I basically agree. All I'm saying is that there is no reason to demand public arrests if the authorities can achieve their goals with ink on paper.
Reply |Mark PhilipMay 11, 2012 - 3:21 pm
If you don't like what the banks are doing - don't be idiots and block their entrances and obstruct people - withdrawl your money from the bank..hurt them where it counts..common sense, ya think?
Reply |AlanMay 11, 2012 - 4:20 pm
People. Citizens. Folks. This is just the beginning. Our Democracy has been gutted over the past 20 years. Your rights as a citizen of the US of A are pretty much nearing zilch. You may not feel it yet, but when you do, you will be lining up right next to, in front of and behind these students. Yes, you. It's just a matter of time.
Reply |ml1999May 11, 2012 - 10:53 pm
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Don't do it! (Baretta) Even MLK said that if you engage in 'peaceful disobedience', you have to accept and serve any punishment.
Reply |casperMay 11, 2012 - 11:08 pm
how glib you are to jump on the bandwagon to prosecute bank protesters. guess you don't know anyone effected by the recession, or you have no balls, figuratively speaking. Its BS these good people are being put through this. If you don't think we live in a police state, prove it.
Reply |ml1999May 12, 2012 - 10:52 am
Did MLK *prevent* people from going into an established business for months on end? His moral argument swayed African Americans to stay off of buses... but he didn't baracade a business for 4 months or 12 months. Did he? P.S. You argument is silly.
Reply |DinaMay 12, 2012 - 4:26 pm
Rosa Parks stopped the bus by refusing to stand up and move to another seat. I get the feeling several of you posting here would have liked to have thrown her under the bus. You show your true colors so smugly. Don't use Martin Luther King this way. He would be appalled and taking action against the tyranny that is taking over our country right now.
Reply |From a criminal attorneyMay 12, 2012 - 8:06 am
The DA wouldn't file unless they thought they could win. And by the way, if they get a hung jury, they will keep retrying you! I think this will be a good lesson for those who think their 1st amendment rights trump everyone else's to do business with their bank and conduct business with their customers. I'd plead if I were you. Not worth having this on your record. That said, I will thoroughly enjoy all these punks getting their butts handed to them by the DA. This will teach you a good lesson. And give you a great criminal record.
Reply |Mark PhilipMay 12, 2012 - 8:54 am
totally agree ! The bottom line to all this is if you want to protest - that's great - as long as you do it with some sense of "Common sense"..meaning do it where people who are NOT a part of it are not involved, harmed, etc. If you do protest, understand that if you break the law, you deal with the outcome. Question here for you protesters: If you are speeding, when you get pulled over, why don't you NOT do what the cop asks you to do, why not protest that it's your right to go fast if you want, and just not give him your license, not get out of the car and just tell him to buzz off? Or if you are standing on the side walk downtown on a Saturday night, drunk on your ass and the cop tells you to move along and go home, why don't you just sit down and tell him no and then block people from getting into the bar and start being an idiot with people who want to go in? Get the picture? Probably not cause that's your mentality.
Reply |Mark PhilipMay 12, 2012 - 8:59 am
because that bar owner is part of the 1% - is making a better income - more than you, so that should mean you are entitled? Sure he makes more than you, so go protest to every pizza restaurant, bar, club, food store (Safeway), CVS, and the others that you spend money at to MAKE them the 1% above you all..if you're gonna do it with a bank branch on campus, why not go to the silo and block everyone there, or the bike shop and even Panda Express where you eat - all contributing to the 1% - why stop with wall street or the bank?
Reply |DinaMay 12, 2012 - 4:31 pm
Mark Philip, you make Police State arguments--all. Don't conflate taking a moral stand against tyranny with being drunk on your ass on the sidewalk in front of a bar. Your "mentality" is lazy and willfully ignorant.
Reply |Dave FMay 12, 2012 - 8:28 am
11... Eleven years each protestor? Really!? 3rd paragraph quickly reads as 1 year, 6 mos. 20 counts Obstruction x 6 mos. per count = 10 years jail. 1 count Consiracy = 1 year jail. Big Picture? If DavisDozen are convicted, is this a Watershed moment for national #OWS? What impact will this trial have on future protests?
Reply |Cory GoldenMay 12, 2012 - 9:14 am
Michael Cabral, Yolo County assistant chief deputy district attorney, has said his office does not routinely seek to “stack” consecutive penalties to misdemeanors: “That 11 years (jail time) that’s been floating around out there is not a realistic maximum,” Cabral told The Enterprise in April.
Reply |JaneMay 12, 2012 - 9:56 am
Ah, but Cory, I'm sure you're aware that the DA doesn't do the sentencing, the judge does. And is free to sentence according to the maximum rather than the DA's purported interest. And so Mike Cabral can posture all he wants in his struggle not to look like a creepy henchman for a vengeful and panicked administration. But those who think this is somehow relevant to what's happening are dupes.
Reply |Cory GoldenMay 12, 2012 - 12:36 pm
Simply clarifying the DA's stated position, is all. You're quite right about sentencing.
Reply |ml1999May 12, 2012 - 10:54 am
Doesn't Prof Clover look smug?
Reply |common senseMay 12, 2012 - 1:30 pm
Yes he does, and very arrogant as well. I’m sure he could care less about duping these young naive students into this mess. UCD needs to fire him!
Reply |xmarxMay 12, 2012 - 12:05 pm
Um....no, he doesn't. Sounds like you've got an acxe to grind, though.
Reply |common senseMay 12, 2012 - 1:15 pm
Here’s how I think it will play out. They will be found guilty because of all the credible witnesses and evidence the DA will have against the 12 protesters. They will do little to no jail time due to jail overcrowding, severity of the crime, and mercy of the court. And because of their youth, in just a few years, most of them will be able to expunge their records clean and get on with their lives. If I were them, I’d be more worried about a hefty civil monetary judgment that will ruin their credit and stick with them for years to come. They will all have to deal with the devil in the form of collection agencies. Then again I could be wrong. It will be interesting to see what happens.
Reply |Dude where's my carMay 12, 2012 - 6:04 pm
This is mostly the fault of the admissions committee because they are clearly not getting the best and brightest to come to UCD. If these students really want to cause something to change they need to study harder and join the 1%. Then they will be invited to Hollywood fundraisers where they can rub elbows with other sympathetic rich people who feel the angst of the 99% and jet around the country making money by telling everyone it's all the fault of the 1%.
Reply |