About half a dozen friends and supporters spoke today at the county supervisors meeting during the public comment period, addressing their attention to the fact that tad is in the humboldt county jail, 2 weeks into his hunger strike, resulting from his being removed and arrested during a board of supervisors meeting in January. The supervisors were reminded of what happened and asked what they were going to do about it.
After all of the public comments were done, the supervisors made their responses, allowing no more time after their comments forthe public to speak.
They said that they were not responsible for what happened.
Supervisor Mark Lovelace called the report of the arrest “false,” and tried to defuse the idea that tad was physically dragged from the room. Though tad was not dragged from the room, he was indeed escorted out by a bunch of cops when he had every right to be in that meeting.
Lovelace also said that tad’s arrest had nothing to do with anything that happened in the meeting room, but failed to explain why then 6 cops came into the meeting room and told tad that he had to leave the meeting (after he was done talkinig and had left the podium), if it had nothing to do with anything that happened in that meeting.
One of them repeated the fact that tad was convicted of resisting arrest, as if that in any way justifies or explains the arrest that he was accused of resisting, and that he refused probation (2 years), as if refusing probation somehow justifies tad being put in jail or being punished at all for what happened that day.
Supervisor Lovelace claimed that he heard tad saying “arrest me” to the cops outside of the meeting room. Supervisor Jill Duffy summarized her lack of empathy with tad in her statement that “tad made a choice.” She didn’t mention which “choice” tad “made” that resulted in the cops getting called in, or him getting escorted out of the meeting.
The supervisors said nothing about the Bar-O Boys Ranch that was repeatedly brought up by public commentors. None of them offered an explanation for why tad was treated so rudely when he spoke. None of them apologized or made any mention of advocating for tad in any way.
The PLAZOID 
November 3, 2009 at 9:39 pm |
Gather a core group willing to attend every supervisor’s meeting. Have a prepared speech to present during the public comment period at every meeting. Make the speech different for every meeting.
Time the speech to last about as much time as the combined total time your group will be speaking. For example, if you have 3 volunteers and they can each speak 2 minutes, write a 6 minute speech (maybe a little less to assure it’s spoken in under 6 minutes).
Have the volunteers speak one after the other, each picking up the speech where the other left off. If nothing else, it will thoroughly piss off the supervisors and make them think twice before initiating a process that gets a citizen arrested for speaking a few seconds over his allotted time.
Play by their rules and you have power.
November 4, 2009 at 10:38 am |
Let’s face reality here; the board of supervisors consider any public comments that would dare disagree with their corrupt dog and pony show nothing more than an inconvenience.
The real crimes and issues are always dealt with and decided behind closed doors away from public scrutiny. This is just the facts of life in Humbodt County Politics and Policy.
Tad is not in jail for causing a ruckus at a supervisors meetings; he’s there because he speaks out forcefully for those that either can not or are not willing too face these similar consequences.
Tad is sitting in jail because in Humboldt County, the Government (including the DA’s office and courts) walk in lock step not unlike totalitarian and brutal governments recorded throughout history. Just because its done on a smaller scale; does not make them any less revolting or intrusive.
As with all corruption and abuse of powers; it’s the people that must stand up and demand both accountability and transparency. The people deserve to know about all those skeletons the Board of Supervisors kept hidden in their chambers closet.
Next board meeting just ask the supervisors about how much litigation they keep hidden from the people (much involving injured Humboldt County Workers and related activities). I’m pretty sure you will hear those same old nasty cover up words saying “we cannot comment with regards to ongoing legal issues or finances”. (What they are really saying to you; is that they don’t want the public to know the ugly and expensive truth). In their twisted minds the public “CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH”
Then ask them to show the public the real numbers, the incidents, details, and data related to expenditures related to injured workers and other similar issues (example: Bar-O Boys Ranch) that they have kept swept under their corrupt table. Once again they will deflect and go mute.
Tad, as all those that have attended and questioned this supervisors chamber of shame; are what they “the supes” always consider an “inconvenient nuisance”; and the dirty business of Humboldt Government continues on as usual, including all the usual suspects running this grand rigged shell game.
November 4, 2009 at 2:00 pm |
Great ideas! Sometimes it does take more than 3 minutes to get a complex point across, while simple soundbytes can be said in seconds: how many times did Bush say “9-11” in his speeches.
Not all power lies in the hands of Humboldt county’s elite, it’s possible that state auditors really do mean business, after all, Schwartznegger himself ordered an investigation when Chris Burgess was killed by the EPD in 2006. Being bankrupt may make them serious, and the fact that Humboldt has sky high overdose and suicide rates may mean that the state has regulated abuses elsewhere. I heard from an insider that the state is running around with Mental Health auditors elsewhere, they’ll find a bonanza in Humboldt.
The feds have started a 21 YEAR study of several county’s health programs, including Humboldt. If they’re serious, they’ll be taking a serious look at Humboldt’s sky high stats. I suggest passing on info to them would be useful, too. As a state legislator, Obama sponsored legislation to have cops video tape capital crime interrigations and investigations.
There is another group that might not have an interlocking conflict of interest with America’s Military Prison Trauma Recruitment Industrial Complex. Foriegn owned papers, I believe the Chronicle is one. I’d go all 3 routes, at least one may pay off. I doubt they control all avenues.
The Corporate State resembles the Dinosaurs – Powerful, Murderous and Stupid. The dinosaurs’ pea sized brain is exemplified in many of their leaders – Bush, Harpham, Arkley, etc. When the asteriods hit the dinosaurs couldn’t adapt, but more intellegent birds and mammals prospered.
The change in enviornment isn’t going to come from outer space this time, but us. We don’t know exactly which connections they have, but somehow we can outflank them.
November 4, 2009 at 2:27 pm |
THE SUPERVISORS MUST BE AFRAID OF SOMETHING. They’d have no other motive for jailing Tad. We need to think like explorers, not everything will be the right path, but I’m sure there are several.
November 4, 2009 at 9:07 pm |
A few penal codes to study up..
Penal Code § 148(a)(1). Every person who *willfully resists, delays, or obstructs* any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code, *in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other punishment is prescribed*, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
Penal Code § 415. Any of the following persons shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than 90 days, a fine of not more than four hundred dollars ($400), or both such imprisonment and fine:
(2) Any person who *maliciously and willfully disturbs another
person by loud and unreasonable noise*.
Watched the video. Tad replied back in a loud, boisterous manner when he was told that his time was running out. When deputies came to escort Tad out of the meeting, Tad willfully delayed and obstructed officers (by being argumentative and behaving in an aggressive manner) in discharging of their duties (to escort Tad out of a public meeting which he willfully and maliciously disturbed by being loud and unreasonable). The standard of reasonableness is an objective standard by which the person who was affected by the act gets to set. (In this case, the county supervisor who “called” for the deputies)
November 4, 2009 at 9:23 pm |
so what you are saying is that it WAS the supervisors’ call as to whether or not tad should be charged with a crime, because it was they who were “maliciously and willfully” disturbed by tad’s “loud” and “unreasonable” noise – in this case standing up for his right to speak at a public meeting at the appropriate time, and to not be removed from a public meeting that he had every right to be at.
That is interesting, sumguy, because the supervisors deny any responsibility for tad having got arrested, and, at the meeting yesterday (Nov 3 2009), supervisor Mark Lovelace stated that tad’s arrest had “nothing to do with anything that happened in this (meeting room) room.”
But, hey, sumguy, good work on finding a ridiculously vague and overly-broad catch-all law to apply to anyone who stands up or even speaks up for their rights (1st amendment, by the way).
Maybe you should be a lawyer.
November 4, 2009 at 10:22 pm |
Hey, they’re giving away free Tad on the Plaza. I’m not sure what Tad is, but a bunch of gross, dirty people were trying to give it away. They had a sign that read “Free Tad.” But even at no charge, nobody seemed interested in Tad.
November 5, 2009 at 8:52 am |
thanks funnyman, that was great. what a hoot.
why don’t you go run and hide in the jacoby storehouse so that those “gross dirty people” won’t offend your refined sensibilities any longer.
November 5, 2009 at 1:24 pm |
The right wing has nothing to do but make childish putdowns, because the only thing it has to offer is immaturity and destruction. Thank God Bush made such an idiot of himself, that most of the country is waking up.
That the supes reacted over a boy’s camp issue, where death and abuse have become a big issue, may portend some Felony Indictments in the near future. Since the feds got a Special Prosecutor for Cheney, the powerful are no longer above the law. Humboldt scams are about to start crumbling.
November 5, 2009 at 10:03 pm |
I think the whole thing is ridiculous, and not for the same reasons you all seem to. Tad was obviously out of line, raising his voice, calling people nazi’s, and complaining about the board doesn’t get your point across. perhaps if he could have remained calm and spoken to the board like an adult, he wouldn’t be in this situation. Bottom line is he acted like a ten year old kid who just got told he couldn’t play with his favorite toy.
And yes, the people holding the sign are dirty. In order to be taken seriously by others, you should take show that you are a competent individual and can take care of yourself. Sleeping in the words and bumming change and cigarettes on the plaza does not constitute taking care of yourself.
November 6, 2009 at 8:36 am |
what is obvious to one unfunny guy may be obscure to another. It is obvious to me that chairperson Smith was way out of line in trampling tad’s right to speak at a public meeting, as spelled out in the Brown Act (California Government Codes 54950-54954.3), and his constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech. This violation of tad’s rights by chairperson Smith did indeed elicit an angry response from tad, and rightfully so. We should not passively allow ourselves to be silenced, ignored, and trampled on when addressing the injustices of our society. Remember, tad was talking about a labor camp for teenage boys where one boy died during compulsory morning exercises. It’s not like tad was making a bunch of noise about a football game or, as unfunny guy suggests, a toy.
It is funny how all of tad’s internet hecklers won’t talk about the issues, such as the Bar-O Boys camp, and instead keep on saying, “oh, he was so loud” and “if only he would get on his knees and beg the demons of hell to just look into their hearts” and “dirty people are gross.”
Another point: Geronimo, the plaza vigil-ante, doesn’t even smoke cigarettes or bum change, and none of the teenage girls with the “free tad” signs asked me or anyone i saw for cigarettes or change, so i don’t know who unfunny is talking about. MAybe just trying to smear tad’s supporters? Not very funny.
But unfunny does, after all, provide us with just a touch of humor with such phrases as, “you should take show that you are a competent individual,” and “sleeping in the words and bumming change.” Really, unfunny, if you want to be taken seriously, go back to clown school and learn some basic sentence construction and grammar. Thank you for your comments.
November 6, 2009 at 11:51 pm |
I must apoligize for the grammar and misspelled words in my previous post. God forbid I was in a bit of a hurry to get to work and didn’t double check my spelling and the edits I made while typing. By the way, when you write someones name, such as Tad, you capatalize the first letter of his or her name. If you’re going to nit pick someones spelling and grammar, make sure yours is perfect.
I did not mention anything about the Bar-0 Boys ranch because I know nothing about it. I’m not ignorant enough to comment on things I have not had the chance to read about or investigate. But I am willing to bet it was just a tragic accident. He wasn’t beaten to death by guards or other inamtes, he wasn’t starved, kids have died during football practice too, wheres Tad when that happens?
My whole point was that it’s not easy to take someone seriously when they act like Tad did in the video. Bottom line. He seemed ridiculous and out of his mind. I don’t know him and I have never met him before, so how do you expect anyone to take him seriously when we see him act like that?
A question that when answered will help me to bring up another point, is Tad gainfully employed? I know he said he is homeless, but I am curious if he has a job?
November 6, 2009 at 11:54 pm |
Oops, I made a typo on the word “inmates”, and I forgot an apostrophe when I wrote “where’s Tad when that happens?” Be sure to point out any others I might have missed. Thanks.
Maybe you guys should add an edit option.
November 7, 2009 at 9:18 am |
This guy keeps changing his handle……
Tad may not be my fist choice as a figure-head for free speech or alternative lifestyle, but hey, if Tad doesn’t get to be different; then I don’t get to be different.
If LBGT people don’t get to be different, then I don’t get to be different.
Before the Troll speaks:
No, I’m not including the right-wing-tea-bagger/traitors to the constitution in this. These people want assimilation, not individuality.
November 7, 2009 at 11:30 am |
I’d say keeping people from being brutalized is gainful employment. Protecting society from the abuses of those who are manipulative is quite useful. In fact, Schwartenegger has hired high priced auditors to catch silver-tounged administrators from pulling the wool over people’s eyes. Tad is a de-facto auditor, and because he’s a vonluteer it means his heart is into it.
As for the comments of the supes, I think it is up to us to show empathy before we expect them to. Jill Duffy’s comment indicates she is stressed out, and as being a supervisor is a very stressful job, we should, in her interest, help retire her from her job ASAP.
On the other hand, Mark Lovelace’s comments indicate that he has a bright future in military disinformation. Why lie so boldly for such a minor incident, when there is such a huge need to lie about atrocities? Remember when the cops beat up someone, he died 2 hours later, and a doctor said it was an LSD overdose? Or the Fortuna cop who was convicted of perjury? Obviously, they couldn’t find anything on film to prosecute, they most likely made up the rest of the story. Even if Tad did say “Arrest Me”, isn’t that just a 1st Amendment statement?
The obvious explanation is that Jimmy Smith and Tad don’t like each other, and Jimmy Smith had the cops in his pocket. Its time to throw them all out
November 7, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
dear unfunny guy:
Did I read what you wrote right?
You say, “I’m not ignorant enough to comment on things I have not had the chance to read about or investigate,” in reference to the Bar-O Boys Ranch –
and then go on to say:
“I don’t know him and I have never met him before, so how do you expect anyone to take him seriously when we see him act like that?”
So, you can excuse the Bar-O Boys Ranch private youth detention and labor boot-camp for the death of a youth while in their care, but you condemn tad for making loud noises when his right to speak about it (Gov. Code, § 54950 – the Brown Act) was violated, and in both cases you admit to knowing nothing about either one.
Doesn’t make sense. I am not convinced that tad “seemed ridiculous and out of his mind,” although i do think that chairperson Smith was rude and, considering his position of authority and responsibility, neglectful.
I also believe that the board of supervisors should revisit the idea that it is ok to profit off of incarcerating youth, and the likelihood of corruption in such a system (see “U.S. judges admit to jailing children for money” Rueters, Feb 13, 2009, also link on this blog). This is not a “ridiculous” idea. I am not “out of my mind.” And I am also pissed that it has been simply rubber-stamped as okey-dokey and that those with the authority and responsibility to do something about it from within the system are not only unwilling, but aggressively defensive about maintaining business-as-usual, no matter how horrific the reality that they are rubber-stamping for others.
As for nit-picking your grammar: “Bottom line.” is not a complete sentence.
As for tad’s employment, it has nothing to do with the issues at hand.
As far as your whole point, what exactly was it again? You don’t know anything about anything, but think that tad is ridiculous and have no opinion about the Bar-O Boys Ranch private youth detention and labor boot-camp-style facility, the corrupt judges who took payments from a private youth detention and labor boot-camp-style facility, unpaid forced-labor in general, the Brown Act, , or any critique of the county supervisors? Was that about it? Please let me know if i missed something.
November 7, 2009 at 6:58 pm |
Tad, not tad.
November 9, 2009 at 8:36 am |
“so what you are saying is that it WAS the supervisors’ call as to whether or not tad should be charged with a crime, because it was they who were “maliciously and willfully” disturbed by tad’s “loud” and “unreasonable” noise – in this case standing up for his right to speak at a public meeting at the appropriate time, and to not be removed from a public meeting that he had every right to be at.”
-um.. not at all! Look here smarty pants, Tad was in a PUBLIC FORUM.. where there are OTHER people who are present. Sure, Tad has is rights to “free speech” per the 1st amendment; however, he does not have the rights to maliciously and willfully disturb a public forum. Yes, the standard of reasonableness is set by other people who are DISTURBED or ANNOYED by Tad’s constant rambling about nothing.
“But, hey, sumguy, good work on finding a ridiculously vague and overly-broad catch-all law to apply to anyone who stands up or even speaks up for their rights (1st amendment, by the way).”
-Hey it’s the law. If you don’t like it, why don’t you move to some Islamic country where you can: put on some white robes, strap a bomb on yourself, and go blow yourself up to further your political agenda. I’m sure the little virgin boys are waiting for you in “heaven.” BTW, what is Tad’s fascination with young boys at this “Bar-O-Boys” ranch anyways?
-Another point I would like to add is that everyone is guaranteed the rights to PEACEFULLY assemble. Yes the word is PEACEFULLY. You don’t have to YELL, or CURSE, or DEMEAN people to get your words across. Look at Ghandi for example.. he just went and starved himself.
Maybe Tad is starting to see the light. Go towards the light Tad.
“Maybe you should be a lawyer.”
-Maybe I should sir. May I suggest you get a life?
November 9, 2009 at 9:01 am |
dear sumguy,
Have you actually read any of the posts? Have you taken the time to learn the facts about what happened before commenting?
Let me point a few things out to you:
Tad was NOT convicted of disturbing a public forum, disrupting the meeting, disturbing the peace, or anything like that. The disturbance charges did not make it to trial – they were bogus and the DA knew it, so they were dropped without going to trial. You may not like that, but “Hey it’s the law.”
If you want to know more about the Bar-O Boys Ranch, feel free to read the posts about the Bar-O Boys Ranch. I know that you were just about to figure that out on your own, but since you asked, I answered. It’s a child-labor camp.
Your interpretation of our constitutional right to peaceful assembly is hilarious. I can only imagine this country’s founding patriarchal slave-owners writing out our freedom to assemble rights….but what if the people want to yell about something? I know! We’ll just change it to the right to PEACEFUL assembly and then they’ll all have to just sit down and shut up! Here here!
Maybe you shouldn’t be a lawyer…how about AM talk-radio host?
November 9, 2009 at 5:37 pm |
one more response to mr. unfunny:
I find it dishonest that you are willing to just bet that the death of a youth at Bar-O Boys Ranch during forced morning exercises was “just a tragic accident.” Would that be your response if it was your son/brother/friend who died there?
“Oopsie-doopsie! Must have just been an accident. Okey-dokey then.”
You are either dishonest with yourself or just throwing out random nonsense in attempt to be an actually heckler – which you are not. Your sorry excuse for heckling carries no weight what-so-ever. It is kind of fun and entertaining to make fun of you, but you have no points to debate. No argument to explore. Nothing.
Let me see if i can remember all of your points…
1. Tad acted “like a ten year old”
2. The people holding signs on the plaza are “dirty.”
…and that appears to be it, aside from some grammatical complaints. I must have missed the other 10-year-olds exposing child-abuse and corruption at local government meetings, and the teenagers that I did see in Arcata with signs in support of Tad were anything but dirty. But even if Tad did come across as unexpectedly youthful, considering his age, and even if the supporters on the plaza had earth on their clothing or bodies, there is still no justification for child-slave labor or silencing and imprisoning those who speak out against it.
Thank you for your comments, and good luck.
November 9, 2009 at 6:41 pm |
Of course I would be upset if a chil/brother/friend of mine died in custody of law enforcement. Then again, I would make sure my child/brother/friend wasn’t breaking the law either. The bar o boys ranch and similar places are needed and they do a good thing for the community. These kids need guidance, teaching, and values. I for on feel there is alot of value in a hard days work. But I doubt you would know anything about that. The bar o boys ranch is not slave labor, it is not a nazi intererment camp, it’s a place that wants to help people and at the same time teach them.
The whole point I was making, is that Tad was not arrested just to shut him up. He was given three minutes to make his point, he chose to use that time to bitch and moan about how long it took him to get to speak. Smith obviously tired of listening to some idiots attempt at a tirade, and reminded him that he had one minute left to get his point across and say what he first intended to say. If you can’t see that then you are a moron. So continue to pick apart my grammar, and pretend that in the imaginary world of the internet that you are an important person. The point to the question of Tad having a job was simple. He mentioned the amount it cost “us” the taxpayers, to put people in bar o boys ranch. Well if he doesn’t have a job, and it sounds like he doesn’t, I would guess he’s not paying anything for this, nor paying any taxes at all.
How about use all the energy you use sucking up to Tad to try and do some actual good in the community, like clean up all the derelicts and drug addicts around the plaza, unless of course you are one of them.
November 9, 2009 at 7:32 pm |
FWIW, protesting something you feel passionately about in a non threatening way is a very difficult thing to do and Tad just wasn’t up to it on the day he was arrested. He got worked up trying to argue with Smith and when the cops showed up he had no patience left. So it was a bad day(35 days) for him. Yep, the cops could and should have been more understanding. But it was right in front of their bosses and they had gotten a panicy call.
If I were Tad or the cops, I probably would have done what both of them did. When dramas get set in motion, they get a life of their own. No one likes how this played out but no one involved would have done anything differently.
I think everyone knows Tad isn’t violent, but he can and does get “in your face”, just like anyone else can. For those of you who like Tad, I’d say show your support for him by demonstrating, but don’t blow this up in your mind. In the scheme of things, if pursuing social justice is what you’re after, this incident isn’t a big deal.
December 23, 2009 at 1:09 pm |
This is a sick way to look at the world I am a liberal that believes in community but todays homeless are generally people with mental health and drug problem that want no part of working as a community. As compassionate liberals we need to offer mental health and drug addiction help and if they still want no part of real community they should be told to move on. Peace can only be obtained wen we work together in a fair just manner.