Two officers charged with murder, manslaughter in death of homeless man

By Abby Sewell and Richard Winton Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

September 21, 2011, 11:22 a.m.

Two Fullerton police officers have been criminally charged in the violent confrontation that left a homeless man dead, Orange County Dist. Atty. Tony Rackauckas announced Wednesday.

Officer Manuel Ramos [left] has been charged with second-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter in connection with the beating of 37-year-old Kelly Thomas, a homeless schizophrenic man. Officer Jay Cicinelli [right] has been charged with involuntary manslaughter and excessive use of force.

Rackauckas said the department reviewed 151 witness statements, videos of the beating, medical reports and police statements.

The district attorney's office had been awaiting the coroner's determination on the cause of death before deciding whether to file charges.

Officers approached Kelly Thomas on July 5 at the bus depot in downtown Fullerton while responding to a report of someone trying to break into cars. According to witness accounts, Thomas ran when officers attempted to search his bag. Exactly what happened next is unclear, but witnesses said they saw multiple officers hitting Kelly and shooting him with a Taser while he was on the ground.

Officials from the district attorney's office have said they were awaiting toxicology and other test results from the coroner before making a decision on the case. That report was handed over to the district attorney's office Tuesday, but the findings were not made public.

Thomas, a 37-year-old homeless man with schizophrenia, was a regular presence in downtown Fullerton. He died five days after the confrontation, after being removed from life support.

Earlier this month, an attorney representing the Thomas family released hospital records that showed Thomas had tested negative for drugs and alcohol and that the immediate cause of death was "brain death" due to "head trauma" from the incident.

The hospital records released showed that he suffered brain injuries, a shattered nose, a smashed cheekbone, broken ribs and severe internal bleeding. Thomas also had been shocked with a stun gun "multiple" times, including in the left chest near the heart, the records showed.

Thomas' father, Ron, has been pushing the district attorney's office to file charges against the officers, and the case has sparked a furious reaction, including weekly protests outside the police station and a recall campaign against three City Council members.

Redwoods versus red wine

The redwood tree and the wine grapevine are both iconic in Northern California. Two wineries are petitioning the state to let them clear redwoods and Douglas firs to make room for new Pinot Noir vineyards. Environmentalists want the trees protected.

Chris Poehlmann, right, with fellow environmentalist Peter Baye, says: "We are not going to let them rip these trees out by their roots, change the soil chemistry with amendments and develop neighborhoods so that these forests will never grow back." (Louis Sahagun / Los Angeles Times)

By Louis Sahagun and P.J. Huffstutter, Los Angeles Times

August 25, 2011

Reporting from Annapolis, Calif., and Los Angeles—

Two plants have long been iconic to Northern California: the soaring redwood tree and the lush wine grapevine. But should one be sacrificed for the other?

That question is being raised in Sonoma County a few miles from the Pacific and above the fog line, where two large wineries are petitioning the state to allow them to clear 2,000 acres of redwoods and Douglas firs to make room for new Pinot Noir vineyards.

Sonoma County planners say it would be the largest woodland-to-vineyard conversion in California's history and, not surprisingly, it's touched off a debate between fans of the majestic trees and aficionados of the grapes.

On one side are vintners eager to satisfy the public's growing taste for California Pinot Noir, a varietal that has a growing fan base and is part of the post-recession rebound of the state's wine industry.

On the other are environmentalists who want to protect the ecosystem of second-growth forests still recovering from earlier logging and even some winemakers, who are uneasy with the idea of cutting down redwoods to expand their industry's reach.

Codorniu, based in Spain and one of the world's largest wine producers, wants to use the land to expand the grape production of its winery in Napa, called Artesa. Another Napa winery, Premier Pacific Vineyards, wants to cultivate more Pinot Noir grapes and build 60 high-end estates on adjacent lands it already owns, called Preservation Ranch.

In exchange, the developers promise to restore streams, add more than 200 acres to a county park, plant 1 million redwoods and Douglas firs and make other environmental improvements.

Passions are running high among the opposition, though. One environmentalist critical of the project has taken to carrying a giant plywood replica of a chain saw to public meetings of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors. Chris Poehlmann, a 61-year-old specialist in designing interactive museum exhibits, has also appeared at the meetings dressed as a 7-foot-tall, 40-pound wine bottle.

"We are not going to let them rip these trees out by their roots," Poehlmann said, "change the soil chemistry with amendments and develop neighborhoods so that these forests will never grow back."

Countered Nick Fry, president of the Sonoma County Wine Grape Commission: "This is not a plan to build a mall," he said. "They're talking about growing grapes."

The project is slated for Annapolis, a remote coastal outpost known for its grazing sheep and wildlife, including the endangered steelhead trout, a symbol of the nearby Gualala River, one of the cleanest waterways in California.

The land where developers envision future vineyards is ideal for redwoods and firs but also for the finicky Pinot Noir grape. The days are bright and warm and the nights cool; excellent conditions for growing the thin-skinned grape.

There is an economic draw to the area too. Just as "Napa Valley" on a wine label can command a higher price for a bottle of Cabernet, there is a certain amount of cachet to Pinot Noirs made along the Sonoma Coast.

Tom Adams, a Preservation Ranch official, contends that the project's opponents are exaggerating the effect of converting the land to vineyards and downplaying the benefits. These forests can be cleared and preserved at the same time, he said, to serve the needs of the land and its residents — as well as the corporations' financial interests.

"We are here, first and foremost, because this is a premier location with potential to produce world-class wine," Adams said.

The effort comes just as the state's wine industry is emerging from a slump. After two years of sluggish wine sales and a glut of inventory, consumers are starting to reach for — and spend more on — their favorite varietals.

Domestic wine sales grew 7% in 2010 over the previous year, according to the Wine Institute in San Francisco. And for the first time, American consumers in 2010 bought more wine than the French (though the French still drink far more wine per capita than Americans).

Not surprisingly, U.S. winemakers are seeking to capitalize on the public's renewed interest and hedge their bets by diversifying what they produce. One wine getting attention, particularly among restaurant sommeliers, is Pinot Noir.

A high-end Pinot Noir from Sonoma may not be cheap — but it's often less expensive than a bottle of Cabernet from Napa.

"People want something to drink in a restaurant that they can enjoy and yet still afford. More often, that's a Pinot Noir," said Merry Edwards, owner of a winery in the Sonoma County town of Sebastopol.

But the idea of turning these forest lands into grape farms chills some conservationists.

"I don't see a need for more deforestation to have a great wine economy, because there is a lot of cleared land already available," said Adina Merelender, a UC Berkeley conservation biologist.

"The big issue for us," added Jay Holcomb of the Sierra Club, "is that redwoods-to-vineyards conversions are worse than clear-cutting because they are permanent."

Opponents organized under the banner Friends of the Gualala River have enlisted allies among the Kashia Band of Pomo Indians, who worry that the project would destroy sacred remains scattered throughout the targeted groves.

"I get mad just thinking about the people from far away who can't wait to buy wine from vineyards that would destroy our forests and ancestral lands," said Violet Parrish, a Pomo tribal elder who lives near Annapolis. "We don't want those vineyards, or the fertilizer and pesticides that would pollute water supplies our children will depend upon."

One thing everyone seems to agree on, though, is that Sonoma County, the lead regulatory agency considering the land deal, faces some tough choices when planners take up the issue later this year.

Sonoma County planner David Schiltgen says the project is "controversial from beginning to end."

"They are proposing to completely remove the forest and replace it with vineyards," he said, "at a time when political winds are howling with global deforestation and carbon-sequestration concerns."

louis.sahagun@latimes.com

p.j.huffstutter@latimes.com

Temecula quarry plan meets resistance from neighbors, tribe

The Pechanga Band of Indians and other neighbors object to a plan to dynamite a Temecula mountain and create a massive rock quarry worth billions.

Mark Macarro, tribal chairman of the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, is trying to prevent a quarry proposed for a site that his people consider sacred. The quarry would be about 500 yards from the Pechanga reservation. (Gina Ferazzi, Los Angeles Times / August 11, 2011)

August 15, 2011

By Phil Willon, Los Angeles Times

A boulder-strewn mountain west of the Temecula Valley, created by violent mashing of tectonic plates during the Jurassic Period, holds more than 270 million tons of granite that's become as politically explosive as the dynamite that may eventually blow it to bits.

The ridge is an anonymous landmark for most drivers speeding south on the 15 Freeway toward Escondido, but to the Granite Construction Co., those gray rocks look like money.

The company plans to build a gargantuan rock quarry on the mountain that could supply concrete and asphalt to fast-growing northern San Diego County for the next 75 years.

But the proposed project has riled many in the community, who see it more as a threat to the area's future than an economic boon.

Among others, the project has stirred the ire of the influential Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, whose reservation and four-star resort casino lie near the foot of the peak. The proposed quarry is on private, non-reservation land on Pu`éska Mountain, tucked within a series of peaks that the Pechanga Band and other Luiseño people believe is the cradle of creation and place of origin for all Luiseño.

"We're kind of demanding here that our value system is not going to be trod on any longer," said Tribal Chairman Mark Macarro, lamenting that many of the Luiseño's sacred sites outside of tribal lands already have been lost to development.

And the Pechanga Band — which has contributed $351,000 to state politicians and California's Democratic and Republican parties in 2011 alone — is pushing legislation in Sacramento that would, in essence, outlaw rock mines near reservations.

The Pechanga Band's presence adds a twist to usual David-versus-Goliath disputes that play out in many far-flung towns over proposed mines, landfills and prisons, providing a counterweight to the political muscle of Granite Construction, a multimillion-dollar Northern California construction company that contributes generously to local and state politicians.

Adding to the intrigue has been the response by Temecula, one of the most conservative, pro-business nooks of the Inland Empire. The city has spent more than a half a million dollars to nix the project, and even mounted an unsuccessful attempt to annex the quarry site into the city limits.

The quarry's five-year march through Riverside County's permitting process has unleashed furious PR campaigns and counter-campaigns, trumpeting the project as an economic savior or black plague to the recession-flattened region.

The county's planning commission on Monday will hold its fifth hearing on the project, the first of which drew more than 1,000 people. No matter the vote, the 414-acre quarry site will end up with the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, where its fate remains a mystery. And the project will probably end up in court.

Officials with Granite Construction say the rock mine will produce 99 high-paying jobs and twice that number at outside firms that offer support to the mining operation. Company pamphlets also boast that the new rock mine will improve air quality: The local supply of aggregate rock will eliminate the need to haul concrete and asphalt from mines in Corona, Irwindale, Lake Elsinore and the Coachella Valley.

"The emissions and wear and tear on the roads will be lessened significantly," said Granite Co. spokeswoman Karie Reuther. "You'll eliminate 16 million truck miles every year and all the greenhouse gas emissions that go along with that.''

The mining company signed a pact with the South Coast Air Quality Management District to use low-emissions trucks to haul the gravel and sand from the quarry, and to provide constant air monitoring to ensure that hazardous contaminates or particulates don't drift into nearby neighborhoods. The mine will be hidden by a ridge, out of view of both Temecula and traffic on the interstate below, Reuther said.

Temecula City Councilman Jeff Comerchero, who boasts of being pro-business and a developer, dismisses Granite's assertions about the benefits to the local economy and environment.

He said having a mine perched over the city, with dynamite blasting away all day, will cripple Temecula's tourism industry. A study commissioned by the city estimated that the mine would reduce property values by $540 million and cause construction, tourism and retail sales to plummet, costing the region $80 million a year.

Two-thirds of the aggregate mined from the site — which will carve a 1,000-foot-deep hole in the mountain — is expected to be used in San Diego County, adding to Temecula's disenchantment.

"This is critical to the future quality of life to our citizens," Comerchero said. "I have a big problem with them coming in and saying they are doing this to make life better for everybody. It will generate $5 billion during the life of the quarry. That's a lot of incentive to get their project done at all costs."

The Temecula Valley's wineries, school board, homeowners groups and tourism council are opposed.

More than 169 doctors in the region also joined forces against the quarry, concerned that particulates from the continuous blasting would be carried by coastal winds that blow west into the valley every afternoon.

Their gravest concern is crystalline silica dust, a carcinogen that's a common byproduct of granite and other materials. Those fears have not been muted by assurances from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the company's environmental review that assert that the rock mine would not produce crystalline silica or other hazardous particulates that would endanger nearby neighborhoods.

"We feel it's a chance that we don't want to take," said Temecula pediatrician Daniel Robbins, leader of Physicians Against the Quarry. "We know with some of our patients, even a slight decrease in air quality can cause a problem."

Representatives with Granite Construction say they are trying everything possible to assuage community concerns, including offering to install air monitors at schools and at Temecula City Hall. Reuther said the company will take extraordinary measures to reduce dust from the mine.

Reuther said Granite wasn't aware of the Pechanga Band's objections until about five years into the permitting process. The company was working to address those concerns until a few weeks ago, when it says it learned the tribe was pushing legislation to kill the project.

Pechanga band officials said the tribe raised concerns with county planning officials in 2005, specifically warning about sacred places in the area.

According to the Luiseño story of creation, it was within those mountains where the earth and the sky came together to form the world, and they still are home to the spirits of the first people. The proposed quarry would be on the peak that was the cremation site for the first death, which brought death into the world.

"We're not anti-development. We're not anti-mine, but it's a problem with that particular site," Macarro said. "It's really hard to overstate how important this is in how we view the world."

phil.willon@latimes.com

Leonard Peltier in the Hole 'They are torturing me'

Leonard Peltier Imprisoned in Small Cell - Dangerously Hot

Wednesday, 27 July 2011
By Leonard Peltier

Dear Friends,

For over 35 years I have been in federal prison for crimes I did not commit. Since June 27 the guards have had me in the hole, a small miserable cell with little air that is dangerously hot. They are torturing me by keeping me in solitary confinement this is an effort to break and kill me. However, the public pressure being generated by my many supporters and counsel is making a real difference.

The government wants me to die in here, but I'm not going to. A dynamic new legal team with lead attorney Robert R. Bryan of San Francisco has brought an innovative approach to the case. He is not going to let them continue to slowly execute me. Robert has launched a complex investigation spanning the entire country. The team also includes Nicole Gibier, my International Legal Liaison, and Cheryl J. Cotterill, associate legal counsel. With the leadership of Dorothy Ninham from the Oneida Reservation, Wisconsin, who I knew long before being arrested, and dedicated volunteers, we are rekindling the movement.

I am innocent. A racist jury tried me. A biased judge would not let me have a fair trial and the prosecution manufactured evidence including a supposed murder weapon. Later on October 15, 1985, the government admitted that it "can't prove who shot those agents." The judge would not even let me prove that the FBI intimidated and tortured witnesses and was engaged in a Reign of Terror a war against the people on the Pine Ridge Reservation.

Robert's experience, tenacity, and unbridled approach can once and for all win my freedom. He has won countless murder cases and has represented members of the American Indian Movement. Robert successfully defended Jimmy Eagle, indicted for the murder of the two FBI agents in the case for which I was wrongly convicted. He understands the struggle.

To succeed we must have money for my defense. We desperately need your help. Please make a contribution (and indicate that your donation is for the "Legal Defense") to:

Leonard Peltier Defense Offense Committee
PO Box 7488
Fargo, ND 58106


You can also contact my attorney directly:RobertRBryan@gmail.com (Law Offices of Robert R. Bryan, 2107 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 203, San Francisco, California 94109-2572).

I believe in the Spirit of Crazy Horse. They have imprisoned my body, but my spirit soars like an eagle. I will never give up, despite the threats to my health and life from this long imprisonment. I am an innocent man and will continue fighting against the genocide of my people.

In the Spirit of Crazy Horse,

Doksha,

Leonard Peltier

O'odham: Not Guilty in Border Patrol Lockdown Protest

DATE: Thursday June 29, 2011
Contact: Alex Soto
Phone: 602-881-6027
Email: stopbordermilitarization@gmail.com

Border Patrol Headquarters Occupation Protesters Found Not Guilty
Reaffirms Call to End Border Militarization

Chuckson (Tucson), AZ - The six protesters who locked-down and occupied the United States Border Patrol (BP) – Tucson Headquarters on May 21, 2010 were found not guilty on the remaining count of a disorderly conduct "with serious disruptive behavior” charge.

The legal defense, William G. Walker and Jeffrey J. Rogers, argued that the remaining charge of disorderly conduct did not apply because it did not meet any of the statutes of the charge. After three hours of deliberation, the judge found the six not guilty.

The city prosecutor had attempted to re-introduce the previously misfiled criminal trespassing as a misdemeanor charge, but this charge was dismissed after the first trial date for the occupiers in February. After an objection by the defense, the state’s motion was denied.

“Today’s not guilty verdict shows that we, as O’odham, are not the ones who are disorderly. It is the Border Patrol, the Department of Homeland Security, and the various levels of government that perpetrate the violence in our communities,” stated Alex Soto, Tohono O’odham, one of the protesters and member of O’odham Solidarity Across Borders Collective. “When will the institutions, whose conduct continues for more than 500 years of trespassing, that terrorize indigenous and migrants communities, be held accountable?”

“No state entity can deny peoples’ inherent right to freedom of movement," said Marisa Duarte, one of the protesters standing trial. "Borders are a colonial weapon used to continue the genocide of indigenous people and their culture. Through trade they exploit natural resources and use the profits to further the progress of neo-liberal infrastructure projects such as CANAMEX and NAFTA. This results in the criminalization of those who defy borders through living their lives traditionally. You see the forced relocation of families from borders all around the world. Today we say no more to this criminalization of people.”

O’odham Elders and community members attended the court proceedings to demonstrate their support.

“Today we celebrate our victory in court, but understand this is just one step in ending border militarization. We took action last May in order to directly confront the issues in our communities by physically intervening and occupying the Border Patrol station. Since that time, many have answered the call to end border militarization, and victories like today have inspired more action,” said Franco Habre.

As the six waited for the state’s decision, 16 angry community members targeted the prison firm G4S (formally Wackenhut) and were cited criminal trespassing charges. The16 declared in no uncertain terms their opposition to the company’s profiteering at the expense of immigrant communities in Tucson, across the nation and throughout the world. Their action, which was organized autonomously by Tucson community members, was carried out under the banner of Direct Action for Freedom of Movement.

The six still stand firmly with their commitment and demands to end border militarization and their initial demands are listed below:

- Immediately withdraw National Guard Troops from the US/Mexico border
- Immediately halt development of the border wall
- Immediately remove drones and checkpoints
- Decommission all detention camps and release all presently held undocumented migrants
- Immediately honor Indigenous Peoples rights of self-determination
- Fully comply with the recently signed UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples
- Respect Indigenous People's inherent right of migration
- End NAFTA, FTAA and other trade agreements
- Immediately end all CANAMEX/NAFTA Highway projects (such as the South
Mountain Freeway)
- Immediately repeal SB1070 and 287g
- End all racial profiling
- No BP encroachment/sweeps on sovereign Native land
- No raids and deportations
- Immediate and unconditional regularization (“legalization”) of all people
- Uphold human freedom and rights
- Uphold the rights of ALL Indigenous People - repeal HB 2281, support the UN
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People
- Support dignity and respect
- Support and ensure freedom of movement for all people

Soto concluded, “This action was a prayer. We’d like to thank those who stood with us during this process and to all who firmly stand with us to end border militarization. The occupation of the Border Patrol station was never about any group/organization, or us, it was about directly confronting the terror that the state unleashes upon indigenous and migrant communities, so we can critically challenge border militarization. As an O’odham, I always think back to my grandparents’ teachings: We as O’odham people have always traveled freely, regardless of the border. It’s our land, who we are, and we will defend it.”


To view the occupation video and for additional resources please visit:
http://www.oodhamsolidarity.blogspot.com/
http://www.survivalsolidarity.wordpress.com/