Trees being cut down
(Written by kencraw)
Well, apparently all it took for the trees to be cut down is for me to leave the state. They started cutting down the trees today, getting somewhere between 4 and 10 of them down as well as pruning more thoroughly the trees around the redwood the tree-sitters are in to further isolate them in that tree. Looks like the goal is to get all of the trees, minus the one that the tree-sitters have been isolated to, down over the weekend. The hope is that by that point, the remaining 4 tree-sitters will be demoralized enough to finally come down and the final tree can be cut down.
If not, I’m sure the University will do the forcible removal sometime shortly thereafter.
A couple notes about the new lies being spread by the tree-sitters and their supporters:
I saw the raw video of the UC Spokeman Dan Mogulof’s press conference this morning. He in no way was deceptive about what was going to be done today. Some of the reporting on that press conference may not have been the best, but he clearly stated that they were starting the project now and they would not be waiting to do anything, including cutting the trees down. He said the first thing they were going to do is prune around the redwood but that the rest of the steps to start the project as soon as possible. Particularly since he used the phrase “this morning” in regards to the pruning there was no indication that the only activity today would be pruning as the tree-sitters have accused.
The other thing they’ve been saying is that the University would give three-days warning before starting. Those who’ve been following my posts on the subject know that’s not true, but what they’re trying to manipulate was a two-day promise (and it cracks me up that they turned it into three) and that two-day promise was that they would wait two days after the trial hearing ended for the other side to be able to file an appeal. There was no promise that they’d wait any further after the appellate junction.
But the lies are no surprise. They’ve been using any lie they can for the last two years to try and win some public support, which has been few and far between outside of a small radical community in Berkeley.
September 6th, 2008 at 12:39 am
Actually in a TV news statement Thursday after the appeals court ruling, Mogulof said that the tree-sitters would be given 72 hour notice to vacate before being forcibly removed.
You are correct, however, that no such warning (or notice of any kind) was promised before starting the tree removal.
They are desperate and it shows.
September 6th, 2008 at 7:29 am
Yes, CAL is giving the four tree sitters 72 hours. I am quite sure that they will have to be pulled from that tree and arrested. This should happen Monday. After watching the other idiots on the ground, some getting arrested, it reminded me of the 60’s protests, where most were there to smoke pot and have a party atmosphere. We shall overcome!! CAL Sports that is!!!
September 6th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Huh, I must have missed that interview. Nevertheless, it’s comforting to know that their accusation was still false, albeit for different reasons.
September 7th, 2008 at 8:17 am
it is not false. The university promised it earlier in exchange for not attempting resupplies, not stockpiling human waste etc. Go google it.
September 7th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Timote, if you’re going to try and rebut a point, you’re going to both have to be more specific about what “it” is since there were a number of things I accused to be false AND you’re going to have to do the homework yourself. You google it and post a link to a reputable source defending your position.
September 7th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Please use Ask.com… google is for hipsters who went to Stanford. This is a Cal blog…