Man Faces 13 Year Prison Sentence For Writing On Sidewalk With Chalk

Talk about judges legislating from the bench...
---

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. A judge has barred his attorney from mentioning freedom of speech during trial.

According to the San Diego Reader, which reported on Tuesday that a judge had opted to prevent Olson’s attorney from "mentioning the First Amendment, free speech, free expression, public forum, expressive conduct, or political speech during the trial,” Olson must now stand trial for on 13 counts of vandalism.

In addition to possibly spending years in jail, Olson will also be held liable for fines of up to $13,000 over the anti-big-bank slogans that were left using washable children's chalk on a sidewalk outside of three San Diego, California branches of Bank of America, the massive conglomerate that received $45 billion in interest-free loans from the US government in 2008-2009 in a bid to keep it solvent after bad bets went south.

The Reader reports that Olson’s hearing had gone as poorly as his attorney might have expected, with Judge Howard Shore, who is presiding over the case, granting Deputy City Attorney Paige Hazard's motion to prohibit attorney Tom Tosdal from mentioning the United States' fundamental First Amendment rights.

"The State's Vandalism Statute does not mention First Amendment rights," ruled Judge Shore on Tuesday.

Upon exiting the courtroom Olson seemed to be in disbelief.

"Oh my gosh," he said. "I can't believe this is happening."

Tosdal, who exited the courtroom shortly after his client, seemed equally bewildered.

"I've never heard that before, that a court can prohibit an argument of First Amendment rights," said Tosdal.

Olson, who worked as a former staffer for a US Senator from Washington state, was said to involve himself in political activism in tandem with the growth of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

On October 3, 2011, Olson first appeared outside of a Bank of America branch in San Diego, along with a homemade sign. Eight days later Olson and his partner, Stephen Daniels, during preparations for National Bank Transfer Day, the two were confronted by Darell Freeman, the Vice President of Bank of America’s Global Corporate Security.

A former police officer, Freeman accused Olson and Daniels of “running a business outside of the bank,” evidently in reference to the National Bank Transfer Day activities, which was a consumer activism initiative that sought to promote Americans to switch from commercial banks, like Bank of America, to not-for-profit credit unions.

At the time, Bank of America’s debit card fees were among one of the triggers that led Occupy Wall Street members to promote the transfer day.

"It was just an empty threat," says Olson of Freeman’s accusations. "He was trying to scare me away. To be honest, it did at first. I even called my bank and they said he couldn't do anything like that."

Olson continued to protest outside of Bank of America. In February 2012, he came across a box of chalk at a local pharmacy and decided to begin leaving his mark with written statements.

"I thought it was a perfect way to get my message out there. Much better than handing out leaflets or holding a sign," says Olson.

Over the course of the next six months Olson visited the Bank of America branch a few days per week, leaving behind scribbled slogans such as "Stop big banks" and "Stop Bank Blight.com."

According to Olson, who spoke with local broadcaster KGTV, one Bank of America branch claimed it had cost $6,000 to clean up the chalk writing.

Public records obtained by the Reader show that Freeman continued to pressure members of San Diego’s Gang Unit on behalf of Bank of America until the matter was forwarded to the City Attorney’s office.

On April 15, Deputy City Attorney Paige Hazard contacted Freeman with a response on his persistent queries.

"I wanted to let you know that we will be filing 13 counts of vandalism as a result of the incidents you reported," said Hazard.

Arguments for Olson’s case are set to be heard Wednesday morning, following jury selection.

http://rt.com/usa/california-man-13-prison-banks-237/

 

So if I decide to come to your house and spray messages in water soluble ink on the siding, you're OK with that?

 

The big bankers rape America, get bailed out by tax payers. Never do a day in prison. But you write in chalk on the sidewalk and get 13 years?

Is this the "hope" or "change" Odumbo promised his sheeple?

 

You said it. How about we throw Judge Shore in jail for 13 years for violating this guys Constitutional Rights? See if this fucking cockroach likes the book thrown at him. These guys are royal douches

 

My house is my property. The sidewalk belongs to the city.

 

For the next six months, Olson visited the bank a few days a week in the early morning hours. He scribbled slogans on the sidewalk such as "Stop big banks," and "Stop Bank Blight.com."

One day he drew Octopus arms protruding out from the bank walls. At the ends of the arms, stuck to its tentacles, were wads of cash.

If its was public property, then I agree with you. The article never really says its public or private. I know around here, the banks are on private property, including the sidewalk. Only in a downtown environment would the sidewalks be considered public property.

The above bold looks like he was drawing on the walls of the bank. That's not public property.

 

The courts have (unfortunately, IMO) created two classes of private property - "private" private property like most folk's house and "public" private property like a mall. Mall owners are not allowed to kick people out for distributing leaflets, for instance.

However, even if it *were* public property, it is still vandalism even if it may be trumped by FoS.

On yet another hand, it's freaken' chalk. Defendant's punishment should be something like having to clean up a few sidewalks or something.

But the real issue is, not allowing first amendment statements during trial. That sounds like a swell reason for an appeal, IMO.

 

Then he should be made to scrub his chalk off the walls of the bank where he drew on them. But it sounds like it was a bank where the sidewalk extended up to the building exterior in a downtown setting and he just drew on the sidewalk.

The sidewalk is public property along the sides of the road. If he were on private property they would have charged him with trespass. They didn't.

BTW, why your defense of BAM? They are a pretty slime crew of a bank.

 

I loathe BOA. It just seems there is something missing in this story.

 

Could be. I found a link to a little more complete local news story but it didn't provide any more relevant information.

My experience with news stories that I have 1st hand knowledge about tells me that the press always embellishes the story to make it more interesting.