Vandeman helps British Columbia business

On 11/5/2010 11:06 PM, y_p_w wrote:

They haven't actually done that from a practical standpoint. If they
were truly interested in banning cyclists, they could easily patrol
the area and ask people to leave. The thing about UC is that they
exist in this strange legal realm. It's like a private business - for
example a shopping mall. Generally the public is allowed to pass.
However - if a "house rule" is broken that doesn't violate any
particular law, the management can ask someone to leave, then have
them arrested for trespassing if they refuse to do so.

That's the bottom line. The entity can tell someone to leave if they
break a rule, and have them arrested if they refuse to leave. But they
can't arrest them for breaking a house rule because the rule is not a law.

In article ,
SMS wrote:

On 11/5/2010 11:06 PM, y_p_w wrote:

They haven't actually done that from a practical standpoint. If they
were truly interested in banning cyclists, they could easily patrol
the area and ask people to leave. The thing about UC is that they
exist in this strange legal realm. It's like a private business - for
example a shopping mall. Generally the public is allowed to pass.
However - if a "house rule" is broken that doesn't violate any
particular law, the management can ask someone to leave, then have
them arrested for trespassing if they refuse to do so.

That's the bottom line. The entity can tell someone to leave if they
break a rule, and have them arrested if they refuse to leave. But they
can't arrest them for breaking a house rule because the rule is not a law.

Exactly, A Land Owner can enforce his own standards, by asking any
"violator" to "Leave the premises". If the violator refuses, he/she are
then committing Criminal Trespass, and can be arrested by a Peace
Officer, OR a Citizen, under the Citizens Arrest Statute, if the state
has one. This is true, even in Public Places, that are on Private Land,
like Malls, and Private Parks, or Stores. As a Watchman, for a Remote
Site, I have used this avenue of the Law, to remove unwanted folks, a
time of two.

On 11/6/2010 10:46 AM, you wrote:
In ,
wrote:

On 11/5/2010 11:06 PM, y_p_w wrote:

They haven't actually done that from a practical standpoint. If they
were truly interested in banning cyclists, they could easily patrol
the area and ask people to leave. The thing about UC is that they
exist in this strange legal realm. It's like a private business - for
example a shopping mall. Generally the public is allowed to pass.
However - if a "house rule" is broken that doesn't violate any
particular law, the management can ask someone to leave, then have
them arrested for trespassing if they refuse to do so.

That's the bottom line. The entity can tell someone to leave if they
break a rule, and have them arrested if they refuse to leave. But they
can't arrest them for breaking a house rule because the rule is not a law.

Exactly, A Land Owner can enforce his own standards, by asking any
"violator" to "Leave the premises".

I recall a Costco spokesperson explaining that if someone failed to stop
for the exit check then they would not do anything other than cancel
their membership. The receipt checking is a Costco policy and there is
no law that says you have to stop for it.

At Fry's, the exit checkers are well trained and say and do nothing if
you fail to submit to the exit check.

On Nov 6, 10:46*am, you wrote:
In article ,

*SMS wrote:
On 11/5/2010 11:06 PM, y_p_w wrote:

They haven't actually done that from a practical standpoint. *If they
were truly interested in banning cyclists, they could easily patrol
the area and ask people to leave. *The thing about UC is that they
exist in this strange legal realm. *It's like a private business - for
example a shopping mall. *Generally the public is allowed to pass.
However - if a "house rule" is broken that doesn't violate any
particular law, the management can ask someone to leave, then have
them arrested for trespassing if they refuse to do so.

That's the bottom line. The entity can tell someone to leave if they
break a rule, and have them arrested if they refuse to leave. But they
can't arrest them for breaking a house rule because the rule is not a law.

Exactly, A Land Owner can enforce his own standards, by asking any
"violator" to "Leave the premises". If the violator refuses, he/she are
then committing Criminal Trespass, and can be arrested by a Peace
Officer, OR a Citizen, under the Citizens Arrest Statute, if the state
has one. This is true, even in Public Places, that are on Private Land,
like Malls, and Private Parks, or Stores. As a Watchman, for a Remote
Site, I have used this avenue of the Law, to remove unwanted folks, a
time of two.

A lot of people get confused because it's assumed that the University
of California is a governmental entity. It is in some respects, where
they have a Board of Regents primarily appointed by the state
government. They also get special exception to local requirements,
such as no obligation to pay local/state taxes. It's been somewhat of
an issue in Berkeley, where the University receives services paid for
by the City of Berkeley. However - the primary UC funding is now from
non-governmental sources, and they pretty much operate as a private
landowner would. They're probably more generous than a typical
"private" landowner, but they tend to exercise their rights as a
private university might.

"y_p_w" wrote in message
...
On Nov 5, 9:44 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]
The last time I looked UC was a governmental entity.

No - the University of California is a quasi-governmental entity.
They maintain rights to pass similar to private landowners. They do
happen to have a special status however, which includes being subject
to public records requests including public salary information.

The key word is governmental, not quasi.
[...]

Just as UC has the right to ban cyclists from using that particular trail.

They haven't actually done that from a practical standpoint. If they
were truly interested in banning cyclists, they could easily patrol
the area and ask people to leave. The thing about UC is that they
exist in this strange legal realm. It's like a private business - for
example a shopping mall. Generally the public is allowed to pass.
However - if a "house rule" is broken that doesn't violate any
particular law, the management can ask someone to leave, then have
them arrested for trespassing if they refuse to do so.

Granted, there are some laws that define specific criminal acts on UC
property, but I've never heard of anyone arrested for simply breaking
a rule set by the University if they simply left.

Obviously you do not know much of anything about how a public university
acts in conjunction with the local police forces. Most large public
universities even have their own police force and they make arrests of their
own all the time.

I can't believe I'm arguing with him. However - I just wanted to make
a point of clarification.

You are great at muddying the waters. But I remain unmuddled.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

On Nov 7, 12:16*am, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"y_p_w" wrote in message
Obviously you do not know much of anything about how a public university
acts in conjunction with the local police forces. Most large public
universities even have their own police force and they make arrests of their
own all the time.

UCPD actually took the police report on Vandeman. I'm quite familiar
with them, having been a student there and witnessing their crowd
control duties at various campus events.

They certainly have the authority to make arrests - both on campus and
the area of Berkeley surrounding the campus. They also patrol area
such as the Richmond Field Station and UC Village in Albany.
Occasionally they'll get supplemented by UCPD from UCSF; there was
also a proposal to merge the departments that didn't work out.

I have heard of UCPD giving campus citations to students for breaking
campus rules. The punishment was via the University (such as holding
back registration) but wouldn't apply to members of the general public
on UC property. What they can do is arrest people for things that are
clearly within typical police powers to do so, such as shoplifting,
assault, trespassing, etc. I've also seen them pull over people for
traffic violations on Berkeley city streets.

Any sign they have about bicycles on their fire trail doesn't carry
the force of law. If that rule is broken, their only recourse is to
revoke someone's right to pass, and then arrest for trespassing if
they don't comply. I've never heard of the University really caring
one way or the other about bicycles on that particular fire road.

I would note that if Mr Vandeman did in fact have that saw in hand to
attempt unauthorized trail maintenance, he could be in violation of
California Penal code 384a:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/10/s384a

"Every person who within the State of California willfully or
negligently cuts, destroys, mutilates, or removes any tree or shrub,
or fern or herb or bulb or cactus or flower, or huckleberry or redwood
greens, or portion of any tree or shrub, or fern or herb or bulb or
cactus or flower, or huckleberry or redwood greens, growing upon state
or county highway rights-of-way, or who removes leaf mold thereon,
except that the provisions of this section shall not be construed to
apply to any employee of the state or of any political subdivision
thereof engaged in work upon any state, county, or public road or
highway while performing work under the supervision of the state or of
any political subdivision thereof, and every person who willfully or
negligently cuts, destroys, mutilates, or removes any tree or shrub,
or fern or herb or bulb or cactus or flower, or huckleberry or redwood
greens, or portions of any tree or shrub, or fern or herb or bulb or
cactus or flower, or huckleberry or redwood greens, growing upon
public land or upon land not his or her own, or leaf mold on the
surface of public land, or upon land not his or her own, without a
written permit from the owner of the land signed by the owner or the
owner's authorized agent, and every person who knowingly sells,
offers, or exposes for sale, or transports for sale, any tree or
shrub, or fern or herb or bulb or cactus or flower, or huckleberry or
redwood greens, or portion of any tree or shrub, or fern or herb or
bulb or cactus or flower, or huckleberry or redwood greens, or leaf
mold, so cut or removed from state or county highway rights-of-way, or
removed from public land or from land not owned by the person who cut
or removed the same without the written permit from the owner of the
land, signed by the owner or the owner's authorized agent, is guilty
of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a
fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), by imprisonment
in a county jail for not more than six months, or by both fine and
imprisonment."

"y_p_w" wrote in message
...
On Nov 7, 12:16 am, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"y_p_w" wrote in message
Obviously you do not know much of anything about how a public university
acts in conjunction with the local police forces. Most large public
universities even have their own police force and they make arrests of
their
own all the time.

UCPD actually took the police report on Vandeman. I'm quite familiar
with them, having been a student there and witnessing their crowd
control duties at various campus events.

They certainly have the authority to make arrests - both on campus and
the area of Berkeley surrounding the campus. They also patrol area
such as the Richmond Field Station and UC Village in Albany.
Occasionally they'll get supplemented by UCPD from UCSF; there was
also a proposal to merge the departments that didn't work out.

I have heard of UCPD giving campus citations to students for breaking
campus rules. The punishment was via the University (such as holding
back registration) but wouldn't apply to members of the general public
on UC property. What they can do is arrest people for things that are
clearly within typical police powers to do so, such as shoplifting,
assault, trespassing, etc. I've also seen them pull over people for
traffic violations on Berkeley city streets.

Any sign they have about bicycles on their fire trail doesn't carry
the force of law. If that rule is broken, their only recourse is to
revoke someone's right to pass, and then arrest for trespassing if
they don't comply. I've never heard of the University really caring
one way or the other about bicycles on that particular fire road.

I would note that if Mr Vandeman did in fact have that saw in hand to
attempt unauthorized trail maintenance, he could be in violation of
California Penal code 384a:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/10/s384a

"Every person who within the State of California willfully or
negligently cuts, destroys, mutilates, or removes any tree or shrub,
or fern or herb or bulb or cactus or flower, or huckleberry or redwood
greens, or portion of any tree or shrub, or fern or herb or bulb or
cactus or flower, or huckleberry or redwood greens, growing upon state
or county highway rights-of-way, or who removes leaf mold thereon,
except that the provisions of this section shall not be construed to
apply to any employee of the state or of any political subdivision
thereof engaged in work upon any state, county, or public road or
highway while performing work under the supervision of the state or of
any political subdivision thereof, and every person who willfully or
negligently cuts, destroys, mutilates, or removes any tree or shrub,
or fern or herb or bulb or cactus or flower, or huckleberry or redwood
greens, or portions of any tree or shrub, or fern or herb or bulb or
cactus or flower, or huckleberry or redwood greens, growing upon
public land or upon land not his or her own, or leaf mold on the
surface of public land, or upon land not his or her own, without a
written permit from the owner of the land signed by the owner or the
owner's authorized agent, and every person who knowingly sells,
offers, or exposes for sale, or transports for sale, any tree or
shrub, or fern or herb or bulb or cactus or flower, or huckleberry or
redwood greens, or portion of any tree or shrub, or fern or herb or
bulb or cactus or flower, or huckleberry or redwood greens, or leaf
mold, so cut or removed from state or county highway rights-of-way, or
removed from public land or from land not owned by the person who cut
or removed the same without the written permit from the owner of the
land, signed by the owner or the owner's authorized agent, is guilty
of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a
fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), by imprisonment
in a county jail for not more than six months, or by both fine and
imprisonment."

My God, the above activities are what mountain bikers do all the time.
They even construct their own trails on public lands. Eventually such
illegal trails are discovered and are removed at public expense. In the
grand scheme of things, hikers do little if any damage to trails whereas
mountain bikers do major damage. Try to get your priorities in order.

Mr. Vandeman and I are lovers of nature and wilderness. Mountain bikers
do not give a damn about either. All they care about is their god damn
rotten sport. A proper place for it would be urban industrial waste land
that has already been ruined.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

On Nov 7, 4:32*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"y_p_w" wrote in message
My God, the above activities are what mountain bikers do all the time.
They even construct their own trails on public lands. Eventually such
illegal trails are discovered and are removed at public expense. In the
grand scheme of things, hikers do little if any damage to trails whereas
mountain bikers do major damage. Try to get your priorities in order.
Mr. Vandeman and I are lovers of nature and wilderness. Mountain bikers
do not give a damn about either. All they care about is their god damn
rotten sport. A proper place for it would be urban industrial waste land
that has already been ruined.

Those activities are also done by hikers building "social trails".
However - I haven't heard of any such activity by the people accosted
by Vandeman. There would be no need to do so on this fire road. It's
maintained as a fire break by the University and they've taken a
lazzez faire attitude regarding the public's use of the trail.

Again - those cyclists in this case hadn't done anything illegal.
They might have been in violation of an unenforced UC policy, but they
hasn't done anything that they could be arrested for. Now Vandeman on
the other hand has been witnessed as carrying the tools to perform a
clearly illegal activity (violation of California Penal Code 384a).

On 11/7/2010 6:32 PM, Edward Dolan wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Nov 7, 12:16 am, "Edward wrote:
wrote in message
Obviously you do not know much of anything about how a public university
acts in conjunction with the local police forces. Most large public
universities even have their own police force and they make arrests of
their
own all the time.

UCPD actually took the police report on Vandeman. I'm quite familiar
with them, having been a student there and witnessing their crowd
control duties at various campus events.

They certainly have the authority to make arrests - both on campus and
the area of Berkeley surrounding the campus. They also patrol area
such as the Richmond Field Station and UC Village in Albany.
Occasionally they'll get supplemented by UCPD from UCSF; there was
also a proposal to merge the departments that didn't work out.

I have heard of UCPD giving campus citations to students for breaking
campus rules. The punishment was via the University (such as holding
back registration) but wouldn't apply to members of the general public
on UC property. What they can do is arrest people for things that are
clearly within typical police powers to do so, such as shoplifting,
assault, trespassing, etc. I've also seen them pull over people for
traffic violations on Berkeley city streets.

Any sign they have about bicycles on their fire trail doesn't carry
the force of law. If that rule is broken, their only recourse is to
revoke someone's right to pass, and then arrest for trespassing if
they don't comply. I've never heard of the University really caring
one way or the other about bicycles on that particular fire road.

I would note that if Mr Vandeman did in fact have that saw in hand to
attempt unauthorized trail maintenance, he could be in violation of
California Penal code 384a:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/10/s384a

"Every person who within the State of California willfully or
negligently cuts, destroys, mutilates, or removes any tree or shrub,
or fern or herb or bulb or cactus or flower, or huckleberry or redwood
greens, or portion of any tree or shrub, or fern or herb or bulb or
cactus or flower, or huckleberry or redwood greens, growing upon state
or county highway rights-of-way, or who removes leaf mold thereon,
except that the provisions of this section shall not be construed to
apply to any employee of the state or of any political subdivision
thereof engaged in work upon any state, county, or public road or
highway while performing work under the supervision of the state or of
any political subdivision thereof, and every person who willfully or
negligently cuts, destroys, mutilates, or removes any tree or shrub,
or fern or herb or bulb or cactus or flower, or huckleberry or redwood
greens, or portions of any tree or shrub, or fern or herb or bulb or
cactus or flower, or huckleberry or redwood greens, growing upon
public land or upon land not his or her own, or leaf mold on the
surface of public land, or upon land not his or her own, without a
written permit from the owner of the land signed by the owner or the
owner's authorized agent, and every person who knowingly sells,
offers, or exposes for sale, or transports for sale, any tree or
shrub, or fern or herb or bulb or cactus or flower, or huckleberry or
redwood greens, or portion of any tree or shrub, or fern or herb or
bulb or cactus or flower, or huckleberry or redwood greens, or leaf
mold, so cut or removed from state or county highway rights-of-way, or
removed from public land or from land not owned by the person who cut
or removed the same without the written permit from the owner of the
land, signed by the owner or the owner's authorized agent, is guilty
of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a
fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), by imprisonment
in a county jail for not more than six months, or by both fine and
imprisonment."

My God, the above activities are what mountain bikers do all the time.
They even construct their own trails on public lands. Eventually such
illegal trails are discovered and are removed at public expense. In the
grand scheme of things, hikers do little if any damage to trails whereas
mountain bikers do major damage. Try to get your priorities in order.

Mr. Vandeman and I are lovers of nature and wilderness. Mountain bikers
do not give a damn about either. All they care about is their god damn
rotten sport. A proper place for it would be urban industrial waste land
that has already been ruined.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Hey Ed,

Your quoting hierarchy is all fouled up again.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

"y_p_w" wrote in message
...
On Nov 7, 4:32 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"y_p_w" wrote in message
My God, the above activities are what mountain bikers do all the time.
They even construct their own trails on public lands. Eventually such
illegal trails are discovered and are removed at public expense. In the
grand scheme of things, hikers do little if any damage to trails
whereas
mountain bikers do major damage. Try to get your priorities in order.

Mr. Vandeman and I are lovers of nature and wilderness. Mountain bikers
do not give a damn about either. All they care about is their god damn
rotten sport. A proper place for it would be urban industrial waste
land
that has already been ruined.

Those activities are also done by hikers building "social trails".

Never heard of it! Just how ****ed-up is California?

However - I haven't heard of any such activity by the people accosted
by Vandeman. There would be no need to do so on this fire road. It's
maintained as a fire break by the University and they've taken a
lazzez faire attitude regarding the public's use of the trail.

Then why bother to post a no bicycles allowed for that trail. Laws or rules
that are not enforced just breeds contempt for them.

Again - those cyclists in this case hadn't done anything illegal.
They might have been in violation of an unenforced UC policy, but they
hasn't done anything that they could be arrested for. Now Vandeman on
the other hand has been witnessed as carrying the tools to perform a
clearly illegal activity (violation of California Penal Code 384a).

It is not CLEARLY illegal at all. Rules or laws that are not enforced are
contemptible and therefore ignorable. Ever heard the expression ... the law
is an ass? It is the criminal idiot-asshole mountain bikers who are ruining
hiking trails and not hikers, who are as pure as the driven snow.

I seriously doubt that Mr. Vandeman did anything illegal. Anyone can get
arrested upon a complaint being filed. A complaint in and of itself doesn't
mean ****. What I know to be a fact is that Mr. Vandeman is a gentleman and
a scholar. Another fact that I know to be true is that ALL mountian bikers
who ride their bikes on hiking trails are the scum of the earth. I say
****'em!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota