The civil class action law suit filed by Jason Florez-Williams against the city of Denver regarding the confiscation of personal property of folks experiencing homelessness without due process continues.  The suit was originally filed August 25, 2016  in Federal District Court. 
    The  long process has been alredy through many involved procedural hearings including the lead plaintiffs' depositions in February, six and seven grueling hours worth of questioning by the city's District Attorney's office.  During the procedural hearings, the court made a determination that class action status would b granted. This means that the results of the case will apply not just to the individuals named in the suit but to all who have been affected (a class).  
    The class does not include all homeless individuals in the city, just those whose property was effected by the city's failure to follow its own written procedures.  If your property was illegally taken as a result of one of the sweeps, you would qualify to be included in the class named in the suit. Considering the city's push in conducting these sweeps there are a lot of people who would qualify.   
    The city's District Attorneys office is using delay tactics typical in these kinds of cases.  Those who have power and resources are quite content to draw out the proceedings in hopes that those without power and resources will give up the effort along the way.  But dely tactics are also a sign that the city is at a disadvantage in some manner.   Testimony gathered in the depositions  led the legal team leading the class action lawsuit aginst the city to file  for summary judgment.
    The request for summary judgment means that the legal team that filed the suit feels its case is so overwhelming that a judge could rule on this case in favor of the homeless, without going to trial.  While it is not likely that the presiding judge will make such a summary judgment, he is reviewing the possibility, which means more procedural hearings and more delays.  If the judge does not make a summary judgment, the case will go to trial.  Additionally the case now has the support of  a top rated civil rights attorney in Denver.   David Lane and his law firm Killmer, Lane and Newman joined the case this past summer adding to the support of those homeless folks who were affected by the city's actions.  

    One of the ways in which the homeless community in Denver is organizing is by building coalitions with other grassroots organizations across the US.  This past July, Denver Homeless Out Loud sent a team of organizers to meet with organizers from throughout the western United States in San Francisco.  The Denver team consisting of Rhonda Romero, Jesse Paris, Ben Dunning , Gadabout Steel and Terese Howard.  The plan for the trip was training and a conference.  
    A day-and-a-half stranded in the Nevada desert due to mechanical problems was not enough to keep the determined organizers from Denver from the conference.   But it did cut out the training opportunity for the Denver team. 
    Once in San Francisco, organizers from Denver Homeless Out Loud joined nationally noted groups as Los Angeles Community Action Network (LACAN), Western Regional Advocacy Project  (WRAP) and the San Francisco Coalition for the Homeless.  At the conference, strategy for the next run of the Right to Rest Act was discussed.  Key points included how to work together to get regional momentum for the pieces of statye legislation.  The need to build local coalitions in support of the  legislation.  Also discussed were strategies for advocating for sane housing policy and the need to build coalitions in local areas for homeless advocacy in general.  

    Last  year the Colorado Right to Rest Act failed to pass committee  at the state legislature (local government).  The story of the hearing can be best summed up in this way.   Committee chair Steve Lesbock  (District 34) stopped the
proceedings to discipline other members of the committee for making inappropriate comments while the testimony was being given.  While the hundreds attending the 8 hour proceeding were unaware, Representative Hugh McKean (District 51) was posting pictures of random individuals dozing off in the lengthy proceeding and making fun of them.   McKean voted against the legislation.  The homeless in our cities have a hard enough time being treated with dignity and respect as it is.  . 
    This, however, is not the whole story.  Momentum is growing for the legislation.  Year after year the coalition of organizations and communities who support the legislation keeps growing.  As the visibility of homelessness grows across the nation, people are becoming more aware that communities need a better response than to just “move along” those who are stuck outside.   Cities all across the nation are losing law suits over peoples right to exist in public space.   Until we have better solutions, we need to protect peoples right to survive.   
    Here in Colorado advocacy organizations from cities all across the state have testified on behalf of the legislation for years.    The only opposition to the legislation seems to come from local government and and law enforcement.  Last year of only 5 organizations testified against the legislation while more than 60 testified in favor.  This is common with legislation in regards to the rights of homeless folks.  People and organizations from the seats of power testifying against the poor and the need of the poor to do what they must to survive the elements outside.   Property is either public or private.   Can't be sleeping on someones private property so if you have no place of your own you have  to sleep somewhere. The whole idea of public property is that even the poorest among us will have access.  Everybody sleeps. 
    Locally, Denver Homeless Out Loud, is leading the charge to protect the right of the homeless community to use public space. They have been joined by many other organizations and coalitions.  Including but not limited to the Interfaith Alliance, the Colorado Village Collaborative and the Alternative Solutions Advocacy Project.  Coalitions are building in other cities across the state as well. This is noted by the fact that testimony for the legislation has come from places like Colorado Spring, Fort Collins , Greeley and Grand Junction.  That is testimony from the front range the plains and the Western slope.  Yep, this is a statewide issue.   Poor people are in every community.  And if help is unavailable they need space to exist.
    Coordinating such and effort is a daunting task.  With the use of cellphones to hold conference calls, emails to discuss bill language and other various techniques, even the poorest among us can mount a statewide effort.   
The work continues. The legislature will be back in session in January.  

In a high profile case, Jerry Burton, Terese Howard and Randy Russell were tried for their charges  under Denver’s Unauthorized Camping Ordinance.  This is the first time that anyone charged with Denver’s Unauthorized Camping Ordinance has brought the case to a jury trial. Most defendants ticketed under this ordinance, lacking in resources, choose not to contest these cases ,and settle for the city’s plea deal.   The deal, usually amounts to community service of some sort.   What you have  is poor people, needing work that pays sustainable wages, getting told to work for free as a punishment for sleeping when they have no place else to go.
    The trial started on April 4, 2017.  It was evident early on that things would be unusual in this trial.  For example, during the jury selection, several prospective jurors disqualified themselves expressing opposition to the law’s very existence. One juror responded  “I don’t feel like this is the appropriate case for anyone to judge.”  During the jury's three-hour deliberation, the jurors called the defendants in to ask them, “If we convicted you, could we help you pay your fine?”  When was the last time you heard a jury call defendants in willing to pay the tab?  The jurors were obviously  struggled with their desire to honorably serve our community and their desire not to hinder the defendants' ability to survive in our community.   In the end, the jury rendered a guilty verdict and the judge sentanced all three defendants to probation and mandatory community service.  
        During the proceedings, the city attorney's office requested.  Changes that seemed oddly over-restrictive.  For example, the full ordinance that the defendants were charged with was not allowed to be read to the jurors at the trial.  The defense was not allowed to mention jury nullification.  Jury nullification is an option allowing a jury of your peers to not convict you if they feel the law you are charged with is unjust.  Thus nullifying it.
     Considering how the jury selection process went and the concerns of the jury during deliberation, the jury would have very likely considered jury nullification as an option had they only been informed that it was a possibility.  Yet the judge did not even alow the defence to mention it.  How could  jurors  render proper judgment when they were not allowed to hear the ordinance or be educated as to all the verdict options tavailable to them?  Makes you wonder what was really going on in that trial, doesn't it?  
   There was a lot of effort by the city attorneys' office for a just misdemeanor charge . The defense was restricted to a very narrow legal box before the trial even began due to the plethora of restrictive motions by the city.  This included restricting the defence from being abe to use the “necessity defense” whaich would have allowed the defense to at least argue that homeless people have no choice but to break the law, and thus cannot be convicted of “crimes” such as sleeping and surviving in public. Judge none the less allowed these motions all the same. 
    The city’s legal strategy was to try and frame the case as to having “nothing to do with homelessness.” At a Feb. 16, 2017 motions hearing, Judge Lombardi even stated that the defendants’ being homeless was “irrelevant” to the case. 
    All three defendants rejected the language of “camping” as a distortion of the reality facing homeless people throughout our city.  Instead, they referred to their “surviving,” their not engaging in recreation. Throughout City Attorney Watadaa’s line of questioning, Russell refused to accept the term “camping.”  Eventually leading Watadaa to reluctantly ask him, “You know it’s against the law for you to survive in Denver?”  During her closing remarks, Watadaa included the following outrageous statement referring to Police Sargeant Scutter’s testimony: “The sergeant told Mr. Russell, "You can’t be anywhere!"”
    In imposing her sentence, the judge chose not to impose any area restrictions, stating that they didn’t make any sense; “You live there,” she stated, admitting that the defendants would likely be back on the street tonight. “You could get ticketed,” Judge Lombardi told them, “You’re taking a risk.”   So just what was it that Judge Lombardi meant when she stated that homelessness has nothing to do with the case?
    When Terese Howard gave her sentencing remarks, she reminded the court that this case was not about the three defendants alone. “We have brought this case to the people to find justice,” she stated, “but we have found that the system is not ready for justice at this time.” She specifically called out the judge for her part in trapping the jury into such a narrow definition of the law as to eliminate the possibility of justice.
    “But we continue to fight!” Howard exclaimed.  And fight on we will! The fight continues through the courts in other cases, including a federal lawsuit against the City and County of Denver for its confiscation and destruction of people's personal property during homeless sweeps operations. 
    It continues  on the state level with legislation such as the Right to Rest Act.  If passed this act would stop cities from passing or enforcing laws that criminalize peoples  existence in public space. 
    Finally, the fight continues on the streets where homeless communities organize daily to change a corrupt system, stop its brutal treatment of the homeless community and to respect peoples rights to survive.