University of California, Berkeley oak grove controversy

[18] He also has said that the Illuminati and the Masons are conspiring to build the center because "the grove is at the intersection of compass lines connecting the Haas School of Business (money) with Alcatraz (state violence) and the Lawrence Berkeley lab that gave America nukes".

[4][8] A San Francisco Examiner article from 1925 was included with the survey document that indicated that Leslie Spier, an assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Washington, had unearthed three bodies in the area and believed the remains were part of an American Indian burial site.

[4][17] Although RunningWolf claimed that California Senate Bill 18 would prevent further construction on the site, the University stated that the presence of remains would not stop them from building the athletic center.

[17] Larry Myers, executive secretary of the Native American Heritage Commission confirmed that California law does not outlaw construction on burial grounds.

[1] The fence was erected to prevent confrontation between the protesters and the sellout crowd of 72,516 people (17,000 of them from Tennessee, the opposing team) that were expected to attend the opening game of the California Golden Bears' football season.

[1] Some have drawn comparisons between the building of the fence, and the attempted take back of People's Park in 1969, in which the California National Guard was called in to remove protesters.

In a letter to Alameda County Superior Court Judge Barbara Miller the University stated that the new fence was the first step in removing the tree-sitters "without unnecessary risk" to either the protesters or UCPD.

[34] Although the new fence was constructed to allow the UCPD to control entry into and out of the grove, protesters were still able to access their platforms by climbing a nearby telephone pole on city property.

[33] On November 15, 2007, gaps in the fence that had been left to allow access to Memorial Stadium for California's final home game were filled in, and barbed wire was mounted around the top.

[36] Supporters of the tree-sitters said the university intentionally chose to remove the supplies on a day on which rain was forecast in order to leave the protesters exposed to the elements.

[43] Later that same day Mayor Tom Bates and City Manager Phil Kamlarz met with university officials to discuss the health of the tree-sitters.

[44] Judge Keller ruled on June 30, 2008, that while his previous restraining order against the tree-sitters remained in force, the university would need to take precautions to prevent endangering the protesters.

[44] Judge Keller also ruled that the university did not have to provide food or water for the protesters as they were free to obey his previous order and come down at any time.

[45] On June 27, 2008, the university began providing the tree sitters with 1,200 kilocalories (5,000 kJ) of energy bars per protester and 10 U.S. gallons (38 L; 8 imp gal) of water daily.

[46][48] At 11:00 pm three of the tree-sitters were seen on the ground, at which point the UCPD arrested one of them for trespassing and violating a court order, causing the other two to take refuge in a nearby tree.

[46] On July 6, 2008, new protester Jeff Muskrat, carrying a pack with supplies, scaled the fences surrounding the grove and joined the three remaining tree-sitters.

[52] The university however stated that they had told the people holding the protester that they had no objection to him being released once charged, which was expected to happen later that day.

[57] The contractors removed all the branches below 35 feet (11 m) in an attempt to make it difficult for more protesters to ascend the tree,[58] and to free up some UCPD officers ahead of the beginning of the fall semester.

[2] The California Oak Foundation amended their lawsuit to reflect the presence of the possible American Indian remains at the site in June 2007.

[67] On September 4, 2007, the University offered a settlement proposal to the Berkeley City Council, under which all trees in the grove would still be chopped down and which would decrease parking in the stadium area even further.

[71] Golden Gate Fields was suggested as an alternate site for the football program in the environmental impact report the university filed.

[71] On June 18, 2008, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Barbara Miller released her ruling in the lawsuit brought by the California Oak Foundation, the City of Berkeley.

[13][34][72] Judge Miller found that the proposed center did not "as a whole" violate the Alquist Priolo Special Studies Zone Act because it would not be built on a fault line.

[42] They argued that the plans for an athletic center should be canceled if the university could not show that they could retrofit the stadium while complying with the Alquist Priolo Special Studies Zone Act.

[42] The plaintiffs also stated that the university should drop plans to hold non-football events at the stadium, as this would be the only way to prevent excessive noise and traffic congestion.

[76][77][78][79][80][81] Judge Miller ruled that the plaintiffs would have to pay 85% of the university's court costs, split evenly among the three parties,[65][77][78][81] not including attorney fees.

[84] Mayor Tom Bates said he was encouraged by the university's assurances that they would move forward with seismically retrofitting Memorial Stadium soon.

[86] The Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Berkeley Association both cited the high cost of the lawsuit as a reason not to appeal the ruling during their arguments in front of the City Council.

[60] Both the California Oak Foundation and the Panoramic Hill Association filed notices to appeal on July 24, 2008, which extended the injunction for twenty days, until August 13, 2008.

[94] They blamed the university for not communicating with the city and citizens, the California Oak Foundation for ignoring the larger issues of deforestation while focusing on just a few trees, the Panoramic Hill Association for reverting too quickly to lawsuits, and the tree-sitters for needlessly prolonging the protest once a court-ordered injunction was delivered.