.
.
.
[If you want to know what “vampires” is about, skip down to the photo of the vampire. We’ll wait right here.]
This image shows protesters being tortured by my suggestion that, if we do have to keep moving all night, maybe we should bring swivel chairs on rollers. (Proposal was not adopted; one dissenter.)
Occupy Irvine’s Big Kickoff Day
Occupy Irvine has a day and a quarter in the bank so far, with an indefinite number of days to follow. You can read about the march and such — peak number of activists, more than 600; total number of participants over the course of the day, probably more than 1000 — elsewhere. (The Register gave it some good coverage! What is happening to the world?) My interest here is in the City’s response to the protest, with which I’ve been involved in brokering as a Civic Liaison to the Irvine Police Department.
The police response is now clear. Word in the Oasis outside Irvine City Hall last night was that what happened here also happened in sites such as Sacramento, Long Beach, and Phoenix. (Coordination or coincidence? That’s for you to judge.) It’s relatively mild as responses go and is worth a quick review.
Step 1 is to get people off of public property, stating that the municipal ordinances shall not be violated. (If you wonder how many municipal ordinances are violated all of the time, the number is probably huge. While the city imposes a “no tolerance” regime for its “park closure” ordinance, speeding cars abound, ripe for the plucking. But that might upset the citizenry. Some ordinances are more equal than other ordinances.) So they accomplished Step 1, in part — for better or worse — with my help. (More on that later. For now, I’ll just say: “Je ne regrette nien.”)
The way to accomplish Step 1 is to shoo people onto the surrounding sidewalks. Irvine Police Department personnel did not promise that people could sleep on the wide sidewalks, in apparent accord with the Irvine Municipal Code so long as they did not block them, but it was noted that this would fall into a “gray area.” (Again, this is addressed in my letter below.) After negotiating with the I.P.D. over this, I told people assembled there that in my opinion it would be a useful show of good faith to move to the sidewalks overnight. After all, we should still be able to sleep; they would not be anywhere near blocked. I then left for a friend’s long-scheduled 50th birthday party in Torrance. When I got back around 11:30, the area was clear and no one was lying down to rest or sleep. Step 2 had been to tell people that, whaddaya know, you can’t sleep on the sidewalk at all because that is “blocking it.” Irvine taxpayers, remember this moment, because this is where you just got cost some money.
About 15-20 protesters lasted through the entire night, walking around when forced to move by the police, standing or sitting (but never lying down) when the police figured out that that supposed “anti-sidewalk-blocking” measure — which had been explicitly disavowed by the police representative previously — was really not something critical to enforce. No one (that I saw, anyway) slept. Then again, I was away from the assembly between about 1-4 a.m., during 45 minutes of which I composed a letter to the Irvine Police Department, which I present to you below.
My letter to the Irvine P.D.
(I’m using a redacted form of the letter because I don’t hold the lower-ranking people in the Police Department responsible for following an apparently concerted department policy. They don’t need to be shamed, they need to be given different directives — if not from the Police Chief or City Manager, then from City Council.)
October 16, 2011, 2:45 a.m.
Irvine Police Department
c/o Designated Point of Contact ________
SENT BY E-MAIL TO “__________________”Regarding the events of the evening of October 15, 2011 and your document retention policy
______________,I was disappointed to learn, upon returning to the Irvine Civic Center at approximately 11:30 p.m. on October 15, 2011, of the events that followed my departure from the area earlier that evening. Occupy Irvine protesters, in part at my own urging, following my conversation with you today, abandoned their encampment in front of City Hall and carted their equipment away by 10:00 p.m. Afterwards, they were told that they could not sleep on the sidewalk after all, even if they took up less than 1/3 of its width, leaving ample room for others to pass, and were evidently told that they had to keep moving, despite your informing me earlier today (upon my direct questioning on the point) that there was no such municipal requirement. They were also told that they had been the subject of a noise complaint from some unknown source and had to hush their speech, including not singing as a means of staying awake.
As you know, I have recently spent much good faith effort trying to defuse possible conflicts between the police and protesters. While you did not entirely foreclose the possibility that those intending to occupy the Civic Center site could be rousted from sidewalks, you did indicate that it was a “gray area.” Given the strained interpretation presented to me of Irvine Municipal Code Section 4-14-105, reading
Sec. 4-14-105. – Obstructing sidewalks and highways.
It is unlawful for any person to loiter, stand or sit in or upon any public highway, alley, sidewalk or crosswalk so as to in any manner hinder or obstruct the free passage therein or thereon of persons or vehicles passing or attempting to pass along the same, or so as to in any manner accost or molest persons passing along the same. (Emphasis supplied.)
as prohibiting sleeping parallel to the boundaries of the sidewalk even if people can easily get around them and their free passage is not obstructed, I must presume that the Irvine Police Department (I.P.D.), including you, believed that this was not a “gray area” at all, and enticed me to represent it as such to the assembled activists simply to offer them an apparent alternative that, once accepted, was quickly made unavailable to them. This harms the credibility of the Police Department in future discussions.
As I indicated to you earlier, Irvine’s attempts to make it difficult for people to exercise their freedom of speech by such harassing steps as impeding their ability to sleep despite the lack of presence of any overnight travelers whose progress along the sidewalk right-of-way they might conceivably block, simply makes it an attractive target for those who actively seek confrontations with the police. This will inevitably happen on its own accord, as it has elsewhere in the county over the past month, without the prompting or request of anyone involved in Occupy Irvine itself. When the Irvine Police Department tries to get protesters not only to leave a deserted nominal “park” overnight, but also a sidewalk upon which they are not blocking anyone’s free passage, in a patent attempt to make them stand up for an unexpected additional eight hours while they are denied the ability to sleep, this naturally attracts people who despise such police tactics and want to confront police over them. This consequence was avoidable. I and the other Occupy Irvine protesters did what we could to avoid making Irvine a target of such intensified protest. You and the Irvine Police Department did not.
I write in part to request that you clarify your policy on retention of electronic and paper documents with respect to this protest. _________ confirmed to me earlier this evening that calls involving the I.P.D. are routinely recorded and retained. I ask that all records of communications, electronic and otherwise, be retained by I.P.D. given the realistic prospect of legal action against the department.
I am particularly interested in ensuring that the recording of the extended conversation this evening between myself and __________ be retained. In that conversation, __________ explained to me that a person could not lie down on the sidewalk because this would prevent obstruct free passage of others along that portion of the sidewalk. He likened a sidewalk to a public highway, in which a car’s obstructing one lane of traffic would not be permitted even if traffic could pass to the side. As ________ was, to my knowledge, the officer in charge during the portion of the evening when protesters were told not to lie down and sleep, this analogy is apparently the basis for the I.P.D.’s denying the Occupy Irvine protesters the ability to sleep overnight. For reasons that I expect will be obvious in the light of day, I am interested both in a court examining this novel interpretation of the meaning of IMC Sec. 4-14-105 and in the City Council deciding whether this is the sort of reasoning that it really wants the city to defend. The alternative explanation, that the I.P.D. wants the protesters out of the area completely from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. so that there is no continuing “occupation” and is willing to harass protesters trying to vindicate their rights in order to achieve this aim, is far more compelling.
I regret that the show of good faith in the part of Occupy Irvine protesters on Saturday evening was met with bad faith (and specious reasoning to justify harassment) by the Irvine Police Department. I will continue trying to foster cooperation between protesters and police, while I can. I regret that the I.P.D.’s actions today have made my doing so more difficult and my likelihood of success more remote.
I am redacting the copy of this letter that I am providing to Occupy Irvine protesters so as to remove your name and that of the [other member of the I.P.D.] to whom I refer.
Sincerely,
/s/
Gregory A. Diamond, Esq.
Not the most elegant I’ve ever written, but not that bad for 45 minutes of work. I then went back to Irvine City Hall and hung out again with the protesters until 6:00, when (having been up since 5:30 a.m. the previous day) I ventured a full 18 inches onto the lawn, set down a couple of sweaters to separate me from the dew, and spent 150 in twilight sleep, listening to people of various ages and political dispositions argue earnestly about their political perspectives while brandishing signs at appreciative and gently honking cars. When I woke up, the empty lawn was bursting with tents.
As torture techniques go — and yes, it is a torture technique, which we know from the CIA Manual used in Iraq if we couldn’t figure it out already for ourselves — sleep deprivation is among the better ones to endure in small doses. (In large doses, it can kill.) The police strategy is this: keep the most dedicated people from sleeping at night — they did come around repeatedly, asking us how we were doing and weren’t we getting tired, concern for our welfare that everyone found extremely touching — in the hope that (1) people will give up and go home or at least (2) the most dedicated members of the group (we’re “leaderless,” so I won’t use that “L-word”) are debilitated for much of the time. It’s a smart strategy — far preferable, in my view as a protester, to being pepper-sprayed, being beaten with sticks, having a motorcycle parked on one’s foot, or bamboo shoots stuck under one’s fingernails — but it can be beaten.
“Ve Vant to Protect Your Social Velfare!”
How? We need more people. Specifically, we need vampires. At least, we need people who like to keep vampire hours.
That is to say: we need people to come out in the dark and stay until just before sunrise. (Biting people in the neck and stealing their souls is in violation of the Irvine Municipal Code, so feast on your animal blood before you arrive.)
My hope — which may be in vain, but as I said in the letter I don’t think the City will want to defend the “the sidewalk has lanes just like Jamboree Boulevard and none of them may be blocked” analogy that apparently justifies this action — is that the City Council steps in on Monday, once protesters have demonstrated both their good faith and their mettle by staying up for yet another night.
That’s where our vampire squad comes in. Are you a night person? Well, you can help us Occupy Irvine tonight.
I have to say, one protester really put his finger on my feeling when I woke today, and I apologize for being cheesy here. When I woke up at 8:30 (another protester had, during the dawn hours while I snored on the lawn, covered me with a thin Mexican-design blanket that she told me she had found “somewhere,” and a nice touch it was) and looked up to see the tents sprouted like mushrooms, I developed an unaccustomed grin on my face. Another protester mentioned “It’s like the Star-Spangled Banner.”
I was just awake, so this required some explanation. The continuing existence of the tents and the bustling activity around them “gave proof through the night” that the movement “was still there in the laa-aand of the fahh-reeeee and the home of the brave.” I know that “This Land is Your Land” is supposed to be our song, but for me, that moment belonged to Francis Scott Key.
The schedule for today is this:
A march to the Irvine Financial District (Where is it? Look at the big buildings with the names of big financial companies on them for a clue!) starts at 4. Which, I see, is 30 minutes ago. Oops. Well, “for the record,” then.
A General Assembly — where policy decisions, including whether to respond to the betrayal (my opinion only) by the City by engaging in civil disobedience and not striking the camp or whether to repeat our mini-torture march of last night — will be discussed, starts at 7:30. (HEY, DID YOU SEE THAT? BY REFUSING TO SAY, BECAUSE I DON’T ACTUALLY KNOW, THAT PEOPLE WILL AGAIN MOVE FROM THE LAWN TO THE SIDEWALKS, I MAY HAVE JUST COST THE CITY THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN POLICE OVERTIME. SORRY!)
Tonight at 10, people either refuse to obey the order to clear the park, or decide to test the “don’t sleep on the sidewalk, darling” direction, or just stand vigil once again, waiting for the movement to grow as the civic response to it becomes more and more absurd. (Or it could be a combination; we’re a group of people, unable to actually control each other.) And then on Monday, hopefully wiser heads will prevail and the Irvine Police Department can go back to doing what it usually does, which I presume involves preventing and solving actual crimes.
You’re either inspired by all of this or you aren’t. If you are, you’re needed. We’ll be here all week — and longer.
Good job! Rooting for ya.
Good work everyone! I was there with my friend from 2 to 4:30am. I was pretty zombiefied so I am not sure if I had the chance to introduce myself to everyone in the circle. But I am thinking about heading back at 10pm tonight, so perhaps I can introduce myself proper then, Mr. Diamond.
I’ll look forward to it! And you can call me Greg.
(Cue Stanislav saying “or Encino.”)
Esq. Encino!
Did you bring with you that white curly toupee which lawyers get when they pass the bar?
Put it on instead helmet, may be it will impress IPD not to smash flashlight over your head.
Greg Diamond wrote:
> About 15-20 protesters lasted through the entire night,
If 1,000 people suddenly decided to occupy the park overnight, the Irvine Police would not be in any position to harass them as they do now. It would be prohibitively expensive for them to make an effort to enforce any municipal ordinance that exists on the city’s books.
“If 1,000 people suddenly decided to occupy the park overnight, the Irvine Police would not be in any position to harass them as they do now.”…… Hmmmmm
I believe that Tiananmen Square had more than 1,000 occupiers and the socialist government easily handled the situation.
You and Cook jerk off to the same fantasies, don’t you?
Well maybe I and cook have higher IQ than you…… Huh?
Unless you are stupid, you can’t brake wall (st) with your head!
Pleas make note of it!
I should add that in 1968 during the Prague Spring Uprising, as a young air force officer (22), I stud on the Russian tank waving Czechoslovakian flag only to be forced to political exile, learn English and communicate with moron mongoloids.
Well, try to recapture that spirit one of these days.
I would comrade Vern but there is no more place to exile to.
Why did you do that, Stanislav?
It was exile or 15 hard labor in uranium mines near city Jachimov CSSR.
I did elected exile!
No — I meant what possessed you to wave the Czech flag from a Russian tank? Was it some altruistic love for freedom and justice or just that you thought that the revolution would succeed and you wanted to be on the winning side?
Youthful indiscretion.
What are you talking about? I’ve imagined Satanislav as having claws like a lobster.
You are watching to much of liberal Hollywood TV crapola.
And a head like a squid.
I’ve noted that in previous writings here. The Police Department states that this would not affect their position, but that’s certainly questionable.
If 1000 people do show up seeking such an occupation, Occupy Irvine will cross that bridge at the time.
I would note that last night only a few New Yorkers had to be trampled by horses to make a general point to people in Times Square.
Greg Diamond wrote:
> I would note that last night only a few New Yorkers had to be
> trampled by horses to make a general point to people in Times
> Square.
Just to let you know, the only active equestrian unit that I’m aware of that exists here in Orange County is the one that is jointly operated by police in Anaheim, Garden Grove, Santa Ana, and the Orange County Sheriff’s Department.
I know. I’ve dealt with it several times at demonstrations and protests I’ve either organized, helped organize, or participated in. I’m sure it will spring into action if Irvine Police needs a few horses to trample over people.
It is good to die for your country.
Apres vous.
déjà vu?
Well, coming up with amusing rhymes is progress….
It’s nice to see regional cooperation, isn’t it?
Greg Diamond wrote:
> It’s nice to see regional cooperation, isn’t it?
The reason why they do this is because it is way too expensive for local law enforcement agencies here in Orange County to each maintain their own separate equestrian units. Remember that you have to feed and house horses all year long.
Armored cars, on the other hand, are a different matter. You should have seen the types of vehicles Santa Ana Police sent out on city streets in 2006 when the poor people got restless. Quite snazzy. What I saw reminded me of photos taken during the 1973 coup in Chile.
Unfortunately, I couldn’t stay too long to watch them drive around the neighborhoods because a bunch of cops suddenly attacked the crowd of people I was standing with. I guess they didn’t like the fact families with children were “loitering” on a public sidewalk.
And you voted for Pulido anyway, although I was Mayoral candidate too in 2006.
If you would vote for right people you wouldn’t occupy anything.
Stanley Fiala wrote:
> And you voted for Pulido anyway, although I was Mayoral candidate too
> in 2006.
I’ve never lived in Santa Ana.
So may be they kicked you out as non resident!
Stanley Fiala wrote:
> So may be they kicked you out as non resident!
Probably not since they haven’t kicked Paul Walters out of Santa Ana yet.
“Probably not since they haven’t kicked Paul Walters out of Santa Ana yet.”………. Hmmmm
But Walters has guns and you liberal socialist, nonbeliever in second amendment, don’t!
Stanley Fiala wrote:
> But Walters has guns and
… is alleged to have a few dossiers in his possession containing detailed information about the private lives of several Santa Ana politicians.
That reminds me … looking forward to Clint Eastwood’s new J Edgar Hoover movie!
Vern Nelson wrote:
> That reminds me … looking forward to Clint Eastwood’s new J Edgar Hoover
> movie!
That allegation about Paul Walters was made to me long ago from several separate sources in Santa Ana, both very reliable and credible. I don’t know how true it is. All I know is that past experiences I had with Santa Ana Police indicated to me they operated almost as if the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution was never written. But these were encounters I had with SAPD between 2002 and 2006.
It is 2:00 am, here in Santa Ana right now.
Is it could on the sidewalk in the Irvine this morning?
Should I bring you some blankets?
Or coffee with the rum?
I thought that the point of civil disobediance was to make protest in support of a just cause regardless of the consequences. Evidently that has devolved into “protest in favor of an unclear cause as long as we can stay warm and rested without police interference for our violation of law.”
You probably missed most of what was written here, so in brief:
1. These occupiers have opted, for the time being, NOT to violate the law;
2. They are NOT warm and rested, forced as they are to keep moving on the sidewalks all night;
and 3. Greg is just reporting what is happening so far.
What is with you guys and the “you probably didn’t read . . ..” Yes, I did read and I was pointing out the difference between “civil disobediance” of today versus “civil disobediance” for real potilical movements.
Well, no, there’s been plenty of civil disobedience in this movement in other parts of the country – you might have seen some of it on TV! – but the Irvine protestors have opted – FOR THE TIME BEING, and for various reasons – to remain within the law.
And so it isn’t civil disobedience in Irvine, yet. So, what are you saying?
That’s simplistic. Go study some civil rights history. You think that you buy a mature civil disobedience action at Walmart and take it out of the box?
No — you build it. And, union pickets aside, this is already the longest continual round-the-clock demonstration within the memory of anyone I’ve asked about it (which includes some people here with long memories.) That’s pretty thrilling in these early days of the action.
No one’s gotten arrested here yet and I hope that that doesn’t happen (although the longer demonstrators are asked to be reasonable without results the more likely that they choose to be otherwise. They have been remarkably understanding and mature so far.) Irvine’s police force seems prudent and it’s Council seems potentially reasonable, although there are no guarantees of how they’ll respond.
This is great news, in my personal opinion. We’re growing. If you aren’t happy unless someone gets arrested, that’s your problem. We’re going to leave you a different Orange County than the one you’ve known — that’s your other problem.
yeah … our jails are already overcrowded. plus peanut butter sandwiches SUCK
Fair enough Greg. Independent of what your group is doing in Irvine, I have seen so many “protests” stamp their feet in anger when they are asked to either follow the law or be arrested. Generally, with notable exceptions, the civil rights movement started out with legal protests that were unfairly and illegally squashed with violence and hate. Protestors understood what they faced and believed in the justice of their cause enough to stand up and face the consequences.
With much of the “occupy” movement, I see the more modern day protests where APPROPRIATE police action is howled at as if innocents are being shot. Break the law – face the consequence, pretty simple.
Since you are trying to protest without breaking the law, I have no problem with that concept (though we will probably never see eye to eye about the content and purpose of your protest). I will always support the people’s right to peacably and legally protest actions by the government regardless of whether I agree with what they are saying or not.
I’ve been able to convince people not to break the law so far because a modus vivendi along the lines of Los Angeles seems attainable. At some point — if it hasn’t already — my influence will inevitably run out; people don’t like being suckers. If that happens, though, it won’t be for the lack of a good faith effort on the part of demonstrators. And I believe that civil disobedience following lawful protest is, except in extreme circumstances, more effective than civil disobedience as a first resort.
I’ve told my fellow protesters that I simply won’t advise them to break the law because I see that as opposed to my oath as an attorney. (I wish that the Bush Administration’s lawyers had believed likewise.) And, in any event, they aren’t my clients. But, as an individual, I can advise them on the political aspects of things — and I can tell you that, to a person, when I have explained the I.P.D.’s position on 4-14-105 to them, that a sidewalk = Alton Parkway, they have laughed out loud.
I don’t know whether you work in Irvine, but you might want to take a look at it. If Irvine wants to retain any law against blocking sidewalks at all, I think that they’d be ill-advised to pick this particular fight. I’d be interested in your informal and theoretical opinion on the matter.
Yes GW is correct….. where is your liberal martyr in your movement?
Did he opted too.
You seem to be upset that we’re being smart about this, Geoff.
The underlying cause is that the wealthiest among us have broken the social contract and we demand its reformation. The rest is details.
And we’re not warm overnight, denied the ability to rest and sleep while near the corner of Harvard and Alton, and neither are we violating the law. But we’re there — continuously now for over 50 hours. This just doesn’t happen in Orange County. Call it a “rally-plus-vigil” rather than an “occupation” so far, if you want — LA’s occupation started out the same way, and they were allowed to sleep — but it’s a continuing round the clock presence so far and moving towards an occupation. (Ideally, I hope, a lawful one.)
Is the Occupy cattle the new homeless? I say let them practice, cause the economy has yet to reach bottom.
Is your children learning?
Damn right — in a worsening economy, Orange County is less able to keep the homeless off of its streets than it thinks. I had some interesting talks with homeless activists on the streets last night. (Funny thing is: those talks would not have happened had we been allowed to sleep on the street or in tents. They’ve created a great place for cross-pollenization of ideas there — and we’re tired enough to be in an extremely suggestive state. (All Glory to the Hypnotoad!)