Michael J. Vandeman going to trial.

On 28/10/10 1:01 PM, y_p_w wrote:
On Oct 28, 12:04 pm, Bill wrote:
Mark your calendar.

"Lynn Valley B&B encounters the wrath of Vandeman"
http://www.bclocalnews.com/community/105357658.html

The following is referencing a letter Vandeman wrote to a little known
bed& breakfast owner decrying his marketing towards mountain bike
riders.

**quote**
For a laugh, Knowles decided to forward the letter to a couple friends
at local mountain bike shops, and posted it to the blog on his
business’ website. On Oct. 3, the day before Vandeman’s letter
arrived, the Lynn Valley Bed and Breakfast website had four visits. On
Oct. 4, they had 552 hits. And on Oct. 5, 675. In total, their website
has received 3,300 hits from 54 countries.

“He hasn’t done his cause any good or bad, but he’s done my cause a
lot of good,” said Knowles.

“I offered him free accommodation as a thank you. I doubt he’ll take
me up on it but the offer stands.”
**unquote**

I sent the owner this image "http://i51.tinypic.com/x5ccjt.jpg" and he
got a big kick out of it.

"SMS" wrote in message
...
On 04/11/10 9:25 PM, y_p_w wrote:

Yeah - it's a wide fire road with signage and enforcement that's been
spotty at best as to whether or not it was actually against the rules
to ride a bicycle there. It's wide enough for large maintenance
vehicles, and hardly singletrack. I've never heard of UCPD arresting
or even citing anyone for riding a bike there.

Often a property owner will put signs up to limit their liability in case
of an accident. If a cyclist got injured on a road that's signed "No
Bicycles" then the property owner isn't responsible for maintaining the
road in a condition safe for cyclists. In this case, clearly the property
owner was fine with bicycles using that road since they did not enforce
the ban. In any case, the fact that the bicyclists were breaking UC rules
has no bearing on the facts of the attack.

The last time I looked UC was a governmental entity.

The question I'd like to know is why Vandeman was on University of
California property with a handsaw - likely carried in order to do
unauthorized trail maintenance?

There are signs all over campus stating that the right to pass on
University property can be revoked. I could imagine staying off of UC
property could be a condition of a sentence.

With or without a conviction, UC has the right to ban him from their
property.

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

Regards,

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

"SMS" wrote in message
...
[...]
I checked the minimum sentence requirements for his alleged crime, and
jail is not required even for a felony conviction. He could get a fine and
probation if convicted.

Or how about a bottle of champagne from the hiking community to celebrate a
couple of rogue criminal asshole mountain bikers being given a proper
comeuppance. I only regret that their heads were not taken off! I think an
ax would work better for that though.

Regards,

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

On Nov 5, 9:44*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"SMS" wrote in message

...

On 04/11/10 9:25 PM, y_p_w wrote:

Yeah - it's a wide fire road with signage and enforcement that's been
spotty at best as to whether or not it was actually against the rules
to ride a bicycle there. *It's wide enough for large maintenance
vehicles, and hardly singletrack. *I've never heard of UCPD arresting
or even citing anyone for riding a bike there.

Often a property owner will put signs up to limit their liability in case
of an accident. If a cyclist got injured on a road that's signed "No
Bicycles" then the property owner isn't responsible for maintaining the
road in a condition safe for cyclists. In this case, clearly the property
owner was fine with bicycles using that road since they did not enforce
the ban. In any case, the fact that the bicyclists were breaking UC rules
has no bearing on the facts of the attack.

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 question I'd like to know is why Vandeman was on University of
California property with a handsaw - likely carried in order to do
unauthorized trail maintenance?

There are signs all over campus stating that the right to pass on
University property can be revoked. *I could imagine staying off of UC
property could be a condition of a sentence.

With or without a conviction, UC has the right to ban him from their
property.

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.

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

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."