Is it important to you that the 38 acre Woodstock site be left free where people from all over the world can continue to come together, to meet and share with one another? We have submitted to arrest for trespassing on the Woodstock festival site in Bethel to defend your right of easement as a member of the public to visit there day or night.? Will you join us in defense of that right? Will you defend the Bill of Rights of? The Constitution of the United States as the Supreme Law of the Land?
More than 5 million people from over 30 countries
have visited this web site in the last 5 years.
WHY? Because Woodstock? Evokes an attractive and challenging? Dream of a large free assembly of people, mostly strangers, gathering together in the spirit of caring and sharing, called love.
That dream is strong enough that every year for 30 years, thousands of people have? Returned to Bethel in Sullivan County, New York to visit the site of the? Historic 1969 Woodstock Festival.
What is so valuable that people would keep returning?
Its the people you meet there. For 30 years people have been coming to Bethel to discover new friends and renew inspiration.
The historic Woodstock? Siteis 38 acres located at the corner of Hurd Road and West Shore Drive in Bethel, New York, 60 miles west of the Catskill Hamlet of Woodstock from which the festival gets its name.
Two miles west of the festival site on 17B? Is Max Yasgur's Barn and Homestead where, for several years, thousands of the annual pilgrims have assembled when turned away from the original site by state police because of a false claim of ownership by a local business man who has never produced any evidence of ownership.
Is the 38 acre Woodstock site exclusive private property?
By the laws of the State of New York and The United States of America it is not exclusive private property because for 30 years it was open, unfenced and used openly, obviously and exclusively by the public as a place of assembly and recreation. New York State Law is that such use for ten continuos years without interruption from a deeded owner establishes an easement by prescription or right of way.
In? July 0f 1997 six people submitted to arrest, prosecution and fines for trespass in order to force the alleged owner to present any evidence of ownership, which he could not and did not do. But the Bethel town magistrate ruled against the defendants anyway. There is now a fence around the site and during the reunion dates of August 15,16, and 17 visitors are discouraged by the State Police from peacefully assembling at the site. We continue to question their authority to threaten, remove or arrest
&CASE FACTS&
WHO OWNS THE WOODSTOCK SITE!?
The question of who owns the Woodstock site is alive and well in the Sullivan County Court of Appeals, as you read the following transcript of the trial, September 29,1997, in the Bethel Town Justice Court, of the six defendants who were falsely arrested for trespassing at the historic Woodstock site in July, 1997, while defending your rights to be there.
"class action"
part 1
This is the 1st part of a 7 part series. You can go to any of the other parts from the next line.
Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7
Presiding is Judge Albert Fimognari
Lawyer for the defendants (Abigail Storm, Daniel Eggink, Cynthis Jewel Eggink, Joe Anderson, Jay and Joy Debberman) is Richard Newberg.
Lawyer representing the plaintiffs (Alan Gerry and Gelish Realty, LLC) is Joey Drillings, Assistant District Attorney, Sullivan County, New York.
Judge - I would like all parties to know, that this is going to be taped. These tapes are for my purpose only and will not be available to anyone.
The people verses Abigail Storm, Daniel Eggink, Joseph Anderson, Joy Debberman, Cynthia Eggink, Jay Debberman. Are they all present Council?
Newburgh - Yes, your honor. Your honor, just to clarify one thing, that tape that you are making of this proceeding will be part of the court record, will it not? I would ask that it be.
Judge - Well, if I didn't tape it, all we would have would be my notes.
Tape Change
Newburg - That's correct.
Judge - I usually tape these things just for my own benefit, for review. So, it will not be part of the record, because it's only for my use. If you have a tape recorder or you wanna tape it, or any of your people.
Newburgh - Well I would request your honor that, for what it's worth, since we don't have a stenographer here, this is just a violation, that the tape be made part of the court record.
Judge - Well you could have had a stenographer if you wished.
Newburg - I realize that, but just the fact that you're taping it. Does the court have any objection?
Judge - I'll reserve decision on that.
Newburgh - Thank you.
Judge - You're Welcome.
Newburg - Your Honor, if I could just have a minute. I've been handed some documents by the district attorney.
Judge - Okay.
Newburgh - Your honor, I assume we're ready to proceed. Before we do I would just ask your honor if I could see copies of the information... I have copies, I wanna make sure they're the same ones... The ones that I've been supplied with, your honor, have no dates or times... See if it's the same one... Okay, I've been waiting for that your honor... Your honor, I would, via to starting, I would ask that all witnesses who the people intend to call, be sequestered, so that they are not privy to the testimony of any other witnesses.
Judge - Any witnesses, Mr. Drillings?
Drillings - Yes Judge.
Judge - Can you ask him to wait outside please?
Drillings - Judge, I would, if I could have him wait in the Clerk's office, instead of outside?
Judge - I think they may overhear everything.
Drillings - Judge, I would ask the same for Defense Council, other than the statements of the defendants.
Newburgh - Your honor, we don't have any witnesses other than the defendants.
Judge - Other than the defendants?
Drillings - Just I think you should know that I did turn over all the People's [? ] material, consisting of arrest reports, I believe, title, a certificate of disposition. That's the people's only [? ] material, other than the information, which they have now made copies of for Defense Council, as well.
Judge - Are we ready to proceed?
Drillings - Yes, your Honor.
Judge - Do you wish to make any opening statements?
Drillings - Briefly, your Honor... Judge...
Judge - Please speak up so I get it on the tape.
Drillings - Okay... Judge, what the people must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that Abigail Storm, Daniel Eggink, Joseph Anderson, Cynthia Eggink, Joy and Jay Debberman, were tresspassing. Now what exactly is trespassing? Basicly, being on land which they have no lawful possession of, that they have no lawful right to be on, that they have no lawful right to be there at the present time that they are there. What the people will prove through their witnesses is that they received notice to leave the property, that they received notice from an authorized person, who was authorized by the owner of the property, told to leave the property, and that when they did not leave they were violating the tresspass statute. Now, the people need not prove ownership to prove tresspass. What the people must prove under the statute is that their possessory interest, the person who told them to leave, the person who has a claim on the land, is more of a possessory interest than the people who were tresspassing. Now, how the people are gonna do that, is in effect, in this case, showing ownership. Showing that through a deed. Showing that through evidence of, that has happened since this incident, that perfected that deed, but that they did not do that, that they simply just have to show possessory interest. Now, by showing the deed, and by showing that that deed has been perfected, in effect, that has to be outdone by the defendants, to show that their possessory interests, was more so than the deed that Mr. Gerry possessed, as being owner of the property. So, in order to prove that the defendants were guilty of trespass, they must show that the defendants received notice to withdraw from the property, which the people will show through Bill Ruth, that they received written notice to leave the property, that Bill Ruth had authority to give them that notice to leave the property. And we'll have testimony from Darrel Supak, that Bill Ruth had authority from Gerry and Associates to tell these people to leave the property because they were violating what rights and rules that Gerry and Associates had set for the land, and that these defendants were tresspassing. Now, we'll also show that after given the warning, they were given ample opportunity to leave the property, and that's even after they violated the rule which said, you can stay there but you can't camp there. Bill Ruth will testify that three nights, three nights I believe, July 29th, July 30th, and August 4th, he went by the property and saw people camping. He then went by the next day, and gave them each warning, telling them you can't camp here, the rule is you can stay here, but you can't camp here. You can stay here during day hours, you can observe, have silence, silent meditation, however you wanna enjoy the land during the day, but you can't camp here. They camped there, they were then given notice to leave the property because they violated that rule, and after giving notice, given notice that they were to leave the property, they still didn't leave. So, not only were they camping there in violation of the rules set by both the town of Bethel and Mr. Gerry, but they didn't leave when told to leave, again violating the tresspass. Now the tresspass law itself is a sort of an interesting law in the fact that, rules can be set however the owner would like them to be set for his property. If he wants you, if he says you can be there from nine to ten then you can be there from nine to ten, after ten o'clock, you can be found to be guilty of tresspassing, in violation of that rule. Mr. Gerry said, or Mr. Gerry and Associates said that the property, you can stay there during the daylight hours, you just can't camp there. They camped there. You, then they were told to leave by an authorized personel of Mr., of Gerry and Associates and they still didn't leave. Judge, it's my belief that, after you hear the testimony from Bill Ruth, after you hear the testimony from Darrel Supac, that you'll find that they were given notice, they were given notice by an, by authorized personel, that he was authorized by a person who had legal right to the land, who even, regardless of arguments that are going on outside of this court, that they had more of a possessory interest then these defendants do. And the people will show during the testimony, that they not only have a possessory interest, but that they have ownership of the land. And that these defendants violated the rights of the use of that land, and in effect, trespassed on that land. Thank you Judge.
Judge - Mr. Newburgh.
Newburgh - Your honor, the District Attorney would have you believe this is a simple tresspass case. And it certainly isn't. It's a very complicated case. The trespass statute, which the district attorney has referred to, that statute must be looked at in relation to the facts of the case.in this particular case, the evidence will show, that this is an open, unposted, vacant field. And in order for someone to tresspass on that type of property, they must have been given actual notice by the owner, or an authorized agent of the owner, so ownership must be proved. Without going into it on the opening statement, your honor, I will during the trial and certainly during summation, I will have law for your honor in the conclusion of this case. But every valid defense to a tresspass action, exists in this case. Each one of those defenses is enough to aquit the defendants. So I, for my opening, I only ask your honor, and I know you will, consider all the facts when they're in, and all the applicable law, and I am sure, I am confident your honor, when you do that, you will find not one reasonable doubt, but many reasonable doubts, and, therefore, just have to aquit the... Have no choice but to aquit the defendants. Thank you.
Judge - Call your first witness.
Drillings - Yes your honor, I 'd like to speak to him for a brief instant.
Judge - Raise your right hand, please. Do you swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Ruth - Yes I do.
Judge - State your full name.
Ruth - William Ruth, R-u-t-h Judge - Your address Mr. Ruth?
Ruth - It is 130 Bedford Hollow Road, Liberty.
Drillings - Could you please state your name and occupation, for the record please?
Ruth - William Ruth, security for Granite.
Drillings - And how long have you worked for Granite?
Ruth - Approximately four months.
Drillings - And were you working there, were you working for Granite in July of this past year?
Ruth - Yes I was. Drillings - And did you have any other specific duties in reference to that job at the end of July of that, of this year?
Ruth - Yes
Drillings - And were one of those duties to be a security guard, or be head of security, or watching over specific parts of the land?
Ruth - Yes
Drillings - And where is that land located?
Ruth - The former Woodstock site, West Shore and Hurd Roads, Town of Bethel.
Drillings - And that's commonly known as the, as the Woodstock, as the Woodstock site?
Ruth - Yes
Drillings - And who did you speak to, or who told you that you were head of security to watch over that?
Ruth - Mr. Darrel Supak.
Drillings - And do you know what his title is?
Ruth - Chief of Operations, Senior Vice President of Granite.
Drillings - And do you know who owned that land?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - And who is that?
Ruth - Gelish Realty.
Drillings - And do you know how Granite and Gelish are associated with one, with one another?
Ruth - No, I do not.
Drillings - Okay, and that land is located in the township of Bethel?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - In the County of Sullivan, state of New York?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - And were you working there, or when did you start working or start watching that land?
Ruth - Approximately... About the 20th of July.
Drillings - And what were you watching for? What were, do you know what the rules were in reference to people being allowed on the land?
Ruth - Yes, there was no one permitted to camp overnight, they were permitted to remain on the grounds during the day, no camp fires, no campsites.
Drillings - And was there any notice, and signs, anything that advised of these rules?
Ruth - Why, yes.
Drillings - Okay, and where were those signs located?
Ruth - They were located at three, four different locations on the property.
Drillings - Specificly, dating to, or specificly looking at the date of July 24th of 1997, were you watching over the property on that date?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - And did you notice any specific individuals?
Ruth - What's that date?
Drillings - July 24th. Did you notice any specific individuals in violation of any of the rules on that date?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - And what, specificly, did you notice?
Ruth - I noticed a campsite, there was a tent erected and there was a campfire.
Drillings - Okay, and was that during the day or night?
Ruth - Both.
Drillings - And what, if anything, did you do at that point?
Ruth - On that particular date, I went and advised the people in writing, of the hand out, with a piece of paper, with a handout that we had prepared, that they were in violation of the rules of the grounds.
Drillings - Okay, Judge, can I have this marked as exhibit one, for identification?
Judge - What do you want?
Drillings - People's exhibit one, for identification. Thank you, Judge... I'm showing you people's exhibit one, for identification. Do you recognize what that document is?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - What do you recognize that document to be?
Ruth - That is a copy of the, of the handout that I gave.
Drillings - Okay, and warning that they are in violation of the rules and regulations of that land?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - Okay, and who gave you that warning, who wrote up that warning?
Newburg - Objection, unless he knows who wrote it up.
Drillings - That's what I'm asking him.
Ruth - I do not know.
Drillings - Okay... Who gave you that warning?
Ruth - I believe it was picked up that day in one of the offices at Granite, I can't remember.
Drillings - And do you see the signature on the bottom?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - And what does that say?
Ruth - That's Mike DiTullo's.
Drillings - And do you know who that, who that individual is?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - Who is that individual?
Ruth - An employee of Granite.
Drillings - So, on the 24th, you handed how many individuals that notice?
Ruth - It was given to at least two.
Drillings - Did anything happen on the 25th in reference to that meeting that you had with these individuals?
Ruth - They were advised that they, they were given a specific period of time to pick up the tent and leave the property.
Drillings - Okay, that was on the 24th.
Ruth - Correct.
Drillings - Okay.
Newburg - Objection, did he advise them? I object to it as hearsay.
Drillings - Judge I'll clarify, hopefully... Did you advise them specificly?
Ruth - Not personally.
Newburg - Then, your honor, I would object to the question and the answer be stricken as hearsay... He's testifying as to maybe what somebody else said, that other person's not here for me...
Drillings - Judge, I'll withdraw the answer, I'll ask that the answer be withdrawn, I'll ask it a different way... Were you there after the warnings were handed out?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - Okay, did you see the tents removed at any point?
Ruth - No.
Drillings - Okay, the tents remained?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - Do you, were you there when, was any notice given that you are aware of that you are personally aware of, was any notice given to these individuals to leave the property?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - Was it by you?
Ruth - No.
Drillings - Did anything happen in reference to that specificly, the next day, was there a meeting set up?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - And who was that meeting between?
Ruth - It was set up at Granite Headquarters.
Drillings - Okay, between who?
Newburgh - Objection, unless he knows this of his own knowledge.
Drillings - Judge that's what the question is.
Judge - Knowledge... Personally?
Newburgh - Well, if there was a meeting and who was there? I would object to the form of the question.
Drillings - I'll re-ask the question. Do you know who was present at that meeting personally?
Ruth - You're refering to the meeting at Granite Headquarters?
Drillings - Yes.
Ruth - Yes.
Judge - On the 25th?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - Okay, were you present?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - Okay, who else was present?
Ruth - The Egginks were there and I don't remember the names of the two other people
Drillings - Okay, was anybody...
Judge - Do you see them in court here?
Ruth - No.
Drillings - Was anybody from Granite Associates present?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - And were you present, and obviously you stated you were present at that meeting.
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - What if anything took place at that meeting?
Ruth - An agreement was made that the tent would not be used on the grounds, until some specific requirements were met. That really wasn't agreed upon at that meeting.
Drillings - So there were rules and regulations discussed rather then use of the land?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - And that was specificly by Granite Associates?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - An individual, a representative of Granite Associates?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - In fact, Mr. Gerry was there personally?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - And you were present at that meeting, too, as being head of security?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - Okay, I'm calling your attention now to the evening of July 29th, 1997. What, if anything, caught your attention at that time, on that day at approximately eleven P.M.?
Newburgh - Excuse me, I'm sorry, what was that date?
Drillings - July 29th, 11P.M.
Ruth - I was, I went past the property and I noted that there was a tent on the property
Drillings - And you could see that from where?
Ruth - West Shore Rd.
Drillings - Okay, and what, did you notice anything else, about the, was anybody present at the tent?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - What, if anything, did you do at that point?
Ruth - I just made a mental note of it and I left.
Drillings - And why didn't you go down to the tent on that night?
Ruth - Due to the hour...
Drillings - And what was specificly due to the hour?
Ruth - It was dark... I was alone.
Drillings - Did you feel it was not the safest thing in the world to do at that point?
Newburgh - Objection, as to what he felt.
Judge - Sustained.
Drillings - Judge, I'll withdraw that... What, if anything, happened the next morning?
Ruth - The State Police were notified, and...
Newburgh - Objection, personal knowledge.
Drillings - Did you notify them...?
Ruth - I notified the State Police.
Drillings - And what happened at that time?
Ruth - They responded and, with some troopers, and an arrest was made.
Drillings - Okay, now, were you present when the arrest was made?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - Okay, what, if any, what time did the state police show up? Do you recall?
Ruth - I believe it was around, approximately eight thirty A.M.
Drillings - And were you present when these people were placed under arrest?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - And were these the people who had been given the warnings?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - Previously?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - And that was the written warning that you discussed about the July 24th thing?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - Okay, were they given any other warning on that morning to leave?
Ruth - Yes, they were given an opportunity to leave at that time, so an arrest wouldn't be effective.
Drillings - Okay, and what kind of warning were they given? Ruth - A verbal warning.
Drillings - And by whom were they given that?
Ruth - I believe... The State Police.
Drillings - Okay, and you were present when that was given?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - And how long of a chance were they given to leave, orally?
Ruth - About two hours.
Drillings - And did they leave?
Ruth - No.
Drillings - And was the tent taken down?
Ruth - No.
Drillings - And what happened at that point?
Ruth-... Arrest... They were arrested.
Drillings - And did they make any statements that you heard, those two individuals?
Ruth - No.
Drillings - Okay, do you see those individuals in the courtroom today?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - And, generally, where are they?
Ruth - In front of me.
Drillings - And can you state an article of clothing that they're wearing, the two individuals that you discussed?
Ruth - Yes. Daniel has a brown jacket on and Abigail has a dark blue...
Drillings - Judge I would just ask for the record that Mr. Ruth has identified the defendants in question... What happened to the tent?
Ruth - It was taken down by the State Police and secured as evidence.
Drillings - I'm calling your attention now to the night of July 30th, approximately eleven-thirty P.M., what if anything did you notice at that time?
Ruth - Tents on the property of the Woodstock site.
Drillings - Okay, generally in the same area of last night?
... Tape change...
Ruth-... When the State Police arrived.
Drillings - And what notice were they given?
Ruth - The same.
Drillings - Oral or written?
Ruth - Both.
Drillings - And how long of an opportunity were they given to leave?
Ruth - Two hours.
Drillings - Now, showing you people's exhibit one, they were handed this letter again?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - And what happened to those individuals? Did they take down the tent?
Ruth - Yes, the State Police removed the tent.
Drillings - Okay, but did those individuals themselves remove the tent?
Ruth - No.
Drillings - Did they leave the property?
Ruth - No.
Drillings - They were placed under arrest?
Ruth - Correct.
Drillings - And were you present when they were placed under arrest?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - And did they, did those individuals say anything to you at that point?
Ruth - That they would not leave the property.
Drillings - Now those individuals, do you see them in the courtroom today?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - Could you state who they are?
Ruth - The gentlemen in the blue jacket in the front row, and in the back row the lady with the green hat on.
Drillings - Now do you know them by name or just by sight?
Ruth - Just by sight.
Drillings - Okay... Referring to August 4th 1997, were you working again on that night?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - And did you notice anything on that evening?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - At around midnight of that night, what did you notice?
Ruth - Another tent on the property.
Drillings - Okay, did you notice any individuals at that point?
Ruth - Yes, there were several individuals around the tent.
Drillings - Did you go down there again to see what was going on?
Ruth - No, I did not.
Drillings - Referring to July 5th of, excuse me, August 5th, 1997, the next morning, did you then go down there to the site?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - And where was that tent located, was it in any of the same spots as the previous two?
Ruth - It was close to the monument.
Drillings - And what, if anything, happened on that morning?
Ruth - The State Police arrived, a notice was given, they were requested to leave.
Newburgh - Objections, unless he has personal knowledge.
Drillings - Were you personally there when that was given?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - Did they leave?
Ruth - No.
Drillings - What kind of notice were they given, oral or written.
Ruth - Both.
Drillings - Okay do you see those individuals in the courtroom today?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - Could you point to them, point them out?
Ruth - In the second row, the lady with the baby, and the gentleman with the purple jacket.
Drillings - Judge, in both cases I ask to note for the record that he has identified the defendants involved... What happened to the tent at that point?
Ruth - The tent was removed.
Drillings - Okay, by whom?
Ruth - The State Police.
Drillings - Okay, so again it wasn't removed by the deffendants?
Ruth - No.
Drilling - Did they leave the property?
Ruth - No.
Drillings - And that was after.in all six, in all six cases, in all six cases they were both given, written and oral notice?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - And in all six cases they still, even after that warning, refused to leave the property?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - And in fact the night before, had been camping at the site anyway?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - And do you know if that's in violation of any rules the owner of that property had set?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - Specificly referring to each of these incidences, did you have conversations with each of the six people, at certain points of times during those dates?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - And now specificly referring to July 30th, Abigail Storm and Daniel Eggink, did you have any conversations with them?
Ruth - I, along with another individual, asked them if they would please leave.
Drillings - Now, specificly referring to the fact that, had you, did you at any point ask them if they were the individuals who were on the land the previous night?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - And what did they respond to that?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - And what was their response?
Ruth - They stated that they had been there all night?
Newburgh - Your honor, I'm gonna object... Statements... Note my objection your honor
Judge - I didn't hear your full objection.
Newburgh - He's offering statements made by my clients and I wasn't provided with any disclosure from the district attorney's office... Attention. Offering statements.
Drillings - Judge, as the court's aware, under it's own residual law set 1030, if this person isn't a police officer involved in making an unlawful arrest, taking admissions from the defendant, he need not give them any notice. Mr. Ruth is working for a corporation, he wasn't involved in the arrest nor was he involved in taking admissions, these were all conversations prior to arrest, the people would object to turning over those statements prior to trial.
Judge - Objection overruled.
Drillings - Specificly, now, referring to July 31st, and Joseph Anderson and Cynthia Eggink, I believe. Did you have that same conversation with those two individuals?
Ruth - Yes I did.
Drillings - And what was their response to that question?
Ruth - That they had remained all night, and that they were not going to leave.
Drillings - And August 5th, with Joy and Jay Debberman, did you have a conversation with them involving the same question?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - And what was their response?
Ruth - The same.
Drillings - So each individual had responded, that they had been there the previous night, overnight?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - And the property that you stated, which is on West Shore Road, is that the property that you stated is, Gelish and Assoc, excuse me, Gelish Realty has title to?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - And that's the site that has the monument and is commonly known as the Woodstock site?
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - Judge, if I could just have a moment... Yes, Judge, have no further questions at this time.
Judge - Newburgh.
Newburgh - Mr. Ruth, I believe you said you were employed by Granite?
Ruth - Yes.
Newburgh - And you've been employed for four months?
Ruth - Yes.
Newburgh - Did you have any employment prior to those four months?
Ruth - Yes.
Newburgh - And what was your last employment prior to those four months?
Ruth - Private Investigator.
Newburgh - For how long were you a private investigator?
Ruth - About ten years.
Newburgh - And did you have any employment prior to that?
Ruth - Yes.
Newburgh - And what was that?
Ruth - State Police.
Newburgh - You were a state police officer?
Ruth - Yes.
Newburgh - Were you a trooper?
Ruth - Investigator.
Ruth - Yes.
Newburgh - And for how long were you working with the State Police? How many years?
Uth - Almost twenty-five.
Newburgh - So, you've been a State Police officer for twenty five years, is that correct?
Ruth - yes.
Newburg - And a private investigator for ten years?
Ruth - Yes.
Newburg - Any other employment other than for Granite, other than the other two you mentioned?
Ruth - Part-time.
Newburg - So, as a state police officer you're familiar with the statutes of the penal law of the state of New York?
Ruth - Yes.
Newburg - Are you employed at all by Gelish Realty, LLC?
Ruth - I'm employed by Granite.
Newburg - And only Granite.
Ruth - Yes.
Newburg - You're not an employee of Alan Gerry?
Ruth - Granite is the one that signs my paycheck.
Newburg - And you are the head of security for Granite?
Ruth - Yes.
Newburg - Now, does, is that Granite Associates? Granite Associates. Is that a corporartion?
Ruth - I believe so.
Newburg - And you're not an officer of that corporation?
Ruth - I am not.
Newburg - You're not a stockholder in that corporation?
Ruth - I am not.
Newburg - You're not a board of director of that corporation?
Ruth - No.
Newburg - You're an employee.
Ruth - Yes.
Newburg - Do you claim that Granite Associates owns what would be referred to as the Woodstock site? I'm just gonna use the word site.
Ruth - Yes.
Newburg - That Granite Associates is the owner of the Woodstock site?
Ruth - I am told, yes.
Drillings - Objection, Judge.
Judge - What grounds?
Drillings - This statement is not based on personal knowledge.
Newburg - It's his witness, your Honor. He believes that Granite is the owner.
Drillings - Exactly, belief.
Newburg - He can't object to his own witness. I'm not objecting to the answer, to the response, it's his witness.
Judge - Overruled.
Newburg - You signed the informations that were filed against all of these defendants in regard to this charge, did you not?
Ruth - Yes.
Newburg - Your Honor, you have those handy? All of them or?
Judge - I have all of them. You want them all, they're all the same. I'll show you one.
Newburg - Yeah, Okay... I'm going to show you the information. This is the one that was filed against Abigail Storm and Daniel Eggink, is that your signature?
Ruth - Yes.
Newburg - Can you read the names, the printed names under your signature?
Ruth - Yes.
Newburg - Could you read those please?
Ruth - Alan Gerry, Granite Associates.
Newburg - Now, you signed this as an employee of Granite Associates?
Ruth - That's correct.
Newburg - Can you show me where on the information, it states the owner of the property?
Ruth-... Bottom, under my name.
Newburg - Where does it say the owner of the property?
Ruth - It's Alan Gerry, Granite Associates.
Newburg - Those names appear, but it doesn't state that they are the owner on that document, does it?
Ruth - No.
Newburg - Does it state anywhere who the owner of the property is on that document? Is there any allegations who the owner of the property is on that document?
Ruth - No.
Newburg - Is there any allegation as to who the authorized agent of the owner is on that document?
Ruth - It's assumed.
Newburg - I ask that that be stricken as non-responsive... Where, it doesn't... If I asked you those questions, with regard to the other informations, your answer would be the same?
Ruth - Yes.
Newburg - Mr. Ruth, other than being an employee of Granite Associates, were you given any specific authorization to represent the owner of the property with regard to this information?
Ruth - Yes.
Newburg - And, who gave you that...?
Ruth - Darrel Supak.
Newburg - And, who is Darrel Supak, with regard to either Alan Gerry or Granite Associates, or Gelish Realty, LLC?
Ruth - He's the Vice President.
Newburg - Vice President of what?
Ruth - Of Granite.
Newburg - And specificly, what did he tell you, did he authorize you, to do?
Ruth - To enforce the rules set forth on the handouts that were given, as far as tresspassing goes.
Newburg - So, you were enforcing rules that were given in the, is that the handout that council had shown you on your... I have a copy... I'll show you that marked people's exhibit one, for identification, and ask you to read me the rules... That are, that are on that document.
Ruth - The rules are that Gelish Realty, through it's duly authorized representative, hereby advises you that any license that you may have upon entering the Woodstock property, being the thirty-seven acre site of the 1969 Woodstock Music Festival in the town of Bethel, Sullivan County, New York, is hereby revoked. If you remain on the property, please be advised that you will be deemed trespassing, and appropriate law enforcement officers will be contacted to request and assist you in removal from the property and any other relief. We are working toward improving the property for greater enjoyment and benefit for the public and hope that you understand that that time is needed in order to accomplish this task. We are looking forward to your cooperation and patience during the transition period and trust that you will promptly leave the property.
Newburg - Are these all the rules that you were given to enforce?
Ruth - Yes, plus approval.
Newburg - Approval...
Ruth - And, also, there were posters that were put up on the property.
Newburg - Were there any posters on that property before Abigail and Daniel were arrested?
Ruth - Yes.
Newburg - There were?
Ruth - I believe so.
Newburgh - Not what you believe, were there?
Ruth - I don't remember.
Newburg - Let me try and refresh your recollection... Can I have a moment your honor, I don't mean to turn my back on the court... Can I have this marked? Let me show you what his honor has marked as defendant's exhibit one, it is a page of the Times Herald Record, dated August 1st, 1997. Let me ask you, if you would just read the paragraphs that are highlighted in yellow.
Ruth "After the arrests, workmen for the site owner, Granite Associates, came by to install signs at the main entrances explaining that camping and vehicular traffic were prohibited."
Drillings - Judge, now I'm gonna object. First of all, unless Mr. Newburg's gonna bring in the person who published that article, that's hearsay. He's bringing another person's words into the court record. This is not evidence before the court. As far as I know, there is no sworn testimony by somebody who can say that those words are true. Mr. Ruth stated that he doesn't know when the signs were posted and that the person lied, so I ask the court to leave this out, I was waiting to see what it was being brought in for, but now my objection is it's hearsay.
Newburg - Your Honor, I haven't marked it, I'm just having Mr. Ruth read this to refresh his recollection, then I'm gonna ask him a question.
Judge - I'll let him read it, but it's not going to have any effect on my decision. As to when the signs were posted, whether Mr. Ruth was aware of it before or after. I realize that it's someone else's writing, someone else's thoughts, but you're reading for the benefit of everybody.
Newburg - Having read that, Mr. Ruth, I'll ask you the question again. I assume your testimony is that the signs were put up prior to the arrest?
Ruth - I don't remember.
Newburg - With regard to the defendants, other then what you call the rules, the notice, the page you call the rules, that you read, were there any other, was there any other document, publication, that made the public, specificly the defendants, aware, aware of what the rules were?
Ruth - Well, they were verbally advised of the rules.
Newburg - That, after they were on... The property?
Ruth - Yes.
Newburg - Can you show me where on this document that you read, in any other publication, that it says tents are prohibited?
Judge - Is that the same as this, counselor?
Newburg - Yes, your Honor... Can you show me where on any other publication or any other document, it says that overnight camping is prohibited?
Ruth - There is no documents.
Newburg - Mr. Ruth, people were invited to be.
Drillings - Objection, Judge... People were invited, is not the beginning of a question. It's a statement, I just ask that it be rephrased as a question.
Newburg - Your Honor, can I finish asking the question before it's objected to?
Drillings - Judge, as long...
Newburg - It'll be a question.
Judge - I'll hear it.
Newburg - People were...
Judge - [to Ruth] Don't answer him until I tell you whether you can or not, Okay?
Newburg - People were invited during the times that we're talking about, to come on the site, isn't that so?
Judge - [to Ruth] Don't answer that. [to Drillings] Do you object to that question?
Drillings - Judge, I object only to Mr. Ruth knowing if they had personal invitations to enter the site.
Judge - Question stands, objection is sustained, If you can rephrase it another way, get some personal knowledge, or whatever, try.
Newburg - Did your organization publicly invite the public to come to this site during the time we're talking about?
Judge - [to Ruth] Is that to your knowledge or not?
Ruth - With rules, yes.
Newburg - So, they are invited?
Ruth - Yes.
Newburg - And are the rules documented anywhere?
Ruth - I don't know.
Newburgh - And... You stated who you believe is the owner of the site. You said it was Granite Associates. Do you have any personal knowledge of the purchase of the site by Granite Associates?
Ruth - No.
Newburg - Do you have any personal knowledge of the purchase of this site by anyone? Ruth - No.
Newburg - Why did you... The answer to my question answered, Granite Associates owns the site, what is your basis for that?
Ruth - Because I, working for Mr. Supak, as being that he represents...
Drillings - Objection, Judge, Mr. Supak can't testify. This is hearsay.
Newburg - It's his witness, your Honor. I'm the only one that can object to hearsay
Drillings - Judge, you know that is incorrect. However, Mr. Newburg is aware of the law. Hearsay is hearsay, and I can object to it just as much as he can... And this is another person's testimony, he is about to give, and that's hearsay.
Newburg - Your Honor, this is his witness, he can't object to statements of his own witness.
Drillings - Judge, I believe I can.
Judge - He can, in this particular case... Objection sustained.
Newburg - Do you have any personal knowledge as to who the owner of the site is?
Ruth - No.
Newburg - Now... The Woodstock site is an open vacant field, isn't it?
Drillings - Objection, Judge...
Judge - What grounds?
Drillings - I believe that characterization... Mr. Ruth himself... I don't think it's up to Mr. Newburg to characterize it for him.
Judge... Overruled.
Newburg - Your Honor, this is cross-examination, cross examination... I'm allowed to ask...
Judge - I overruled it.
Newburg - I realize that, but just for future questions, I'm allowed to ask leading questions.
Judge - And he can object anytime he wishes.
Newburg - That's true... I just wanna point out one thing. Can he answer the question?
Judge - You can answer the question, if you remember it.
Newburg - Is this an open vacant field. The site?
Ruth - Yes.
Newburg - And, other than the signs you said were put up, and you're not sure when they were put up, they may have been put up after the arrest. Was the field posted in any way?
Ruth - No.
Newburg - Were there any fences enclosing the field?
Ruth - No.
Newburg - Are there any structfield, buildings?
Ruth - No.
Newburg - No one lives there, isn't that correct?
Ruth - That's correct.
Newburg - There is a monument there, isn't there?
Ruth - Yes.
Newburg - And do you know why there's a monument there?
Ruth - No.
Newburg - Do you know what the monument says?
Ruth - I don't remember.
Newburg - Do you remember any part of it?
Drillings - Objection, Judge... The third time he's gonna say he doesn't remember, he can't be asked and answer that.
Judge - Objection sustained, I think the question's been asked and answered.
Newburg - I just asked if he remembers any part of it.
Judge - I've been there a thousand times, and I don't even know one word of it. I read it maybe a hundred times.
Newburg - Do you know if the wording on the monument has anything to do with the Woodstock Festival, that happened in 1969?
Ruth - I believe it does.
Newburg - Are you aware of your own personal knowledge whether or not people, the public, was permitted to visit that monument?
Drillings - Objection, Judge, a specific time.
Newburg - Any?
Drillings - Anytime from 1969...
Newburg - Anytime from now back to when God created the Earth?
Drillings - Judge, then I'm gonna object to relevancy to this specific date.
Judge - I'm gonna sustain, because I don't see where the revelence is either. Are you getting to something?
Newburg - Yes, your Honor. I wanna... Did people. Did you, did your organization, permit people to visit this monument during the times we are talking about? And prior thereto?
Ruth - Yes.
Newburg - Now... You testified that you were at the site during the times that counsel had mentioned. Evenings, during the daytime, is that correct?
Ruth - Yes.
Newburg - Were you there... About how many hours a day were you there?
Ruth - It varied day to day.
Judge - Roughly... Three hours a day, four hours a day, two hours a day?
Ruth - Probably three hours a day... At different times throughout the day and night.
Newburg-. And, at the times you were there, did you observe the defendants on various occasions?
Ruth - Yes sir.
Newburg - Did you observe them destroying anything on the property?
Ruth - No
Newburg - Did they act in any kind of a threat, that you took as a threatening manner or threatenig at all?
Drillings - Judge, now I'm gonna object, this is a tresspass case, not criminal mischief, not aggravated harassment, not anything...
Judge - Objection sustained. One of the questions was, is this a vacant piece of land? The answer was yes. So, I don't know what they could possibly destroy.
Newburg - Your Honor, in order for them to be guilty of tresspassing... I'm trying to establish their intent was anything but criminal.
Drillings - Being on the property Judge, not destroying the property, not threatening the property, although, I don't know how you could threaten the property, none of the above...
Newburg - Somebody dug big trenches and put all kinds of barricades.
Drillings - Judge, we're not getting anywhere with this.
Judge - Your objection is sustained.
Newburg - Would you say they acted in a peaceful manner?
Ruth - Yes.
Newburg - Now, in observing the defendants, did you observe them protesting anything?
Ruth - No.
Newburg - They didn't have any placards or signs or march around the property or anything?
Ruth - At which time?
Newburg - Prior to their arrest.
Ruth - No.
Newburg - So, they weren't demonstrating as far as you were concerned. Is that correct?
Ruth - Prior to their arrest, no.
Newburg - Do you have with you, in your posession, any document to show ownership of this site?
Drillings - Objection, Judge, as to Mr. Ruth's ownership of the site?
Newburg - To show the owner of the site, do you have any document with you?
Drillings - I object, he's not the owner of the site, why would he have personal...
Newburg - He works for the owner of the site, I'm asking him if he has any document that could show ownership of the site?
Judge - Any document to show ownership of the site... I really don't understand the question
End Tape #1
Newburg - Now, when was the first time that you had a conversation with Abigail Storm or Daniel Eggink after you say they entered the site?
Ruth - The day the paper, the day the document was given to them. The 24th of July.
Newburg - And you handed that to them?
Ruth - I was present. I don't remember if I personally gave it to them.
Newburg - Do you know who gave it to them?
Ruth - It was either myself or Mike DiTullo.
Newburg - He was with you?
Ruth - Yes.
Newburg - This document says, if I could just read: "Gelish Realty, LLC, through it's duly authorized representative, hereby advises you that any license or privilege you may have to enter or remain upon the Woodstock property, being the 37 acre site of the 1969 Woodstock Music Festival, town of Bethel, Sullivan County, New York, is hereby revoked" Now what license or privilege were you referring to?
Ruth - The privilege to visit the property during daylight hours. To reflect... And they were told there was no overnight camping or campfires.
Newburg - When were they told that?
Ruth - Prior to that.
Newburg - You didn't tell them that?
Ruth - I was present when they were told, it was I, myself, Mike DiTullo, and Robyn Gerry.
Newburg - Where did that take place? Where was that?
Ruth - At their campsite.
Newburg - When, would you say?
Ruth - About... On the 23rd of July.
Newburg - So, on the 23rd of July they were on the campsite.
Ruth - Yes.
Newburg - I asked you when your first conversation with them was after they entered the site, and you said it was when you gave them this document.
Ruth - I suppose.
Newburg - Now, you had a conversation with them the day before?
Ruth - I guess so.
Newburg - Okay. And the day before, did you give them this notice?
Ruth - No, that was on the 24th.
Newburg - So, did you tell them on the day before that... Did you tell them on the day before that any of their privileges had been revoked?
Ruth - Yes... Well I was present when it was related to them, I don't remember who exactly...
Newburg - But, you didn't tell them that?
Ruth - No.
Newburg - Did you... Now, I'm talking about, now, on the 23rd, did you say anything to them on the 23rd regarding revoking their...
Ruth - I don't remember.
Newburg - Your honor, I would ask that any part of the answer, in regard to what somebody else said to them, be stricken as hearsay... I have nothing further to say, Judge.
Drillings - Yes, Judge... If I could just have a moment... Thank you, Judge... Mr. Ruth, are you aware, or did you ever sign a complaint against an individual for taking the signs from the property? The signs were posted...
Ruth - Yes.
Drillings - Okay, and when was that? Do you recall if it was before or after these individuals were arrested?
Ruth - It was after... I believe.
Drillings - Okay, but you're not positive about that?
Ruth - No.
Drillings - If I told you that was actually before a couple of these individuals were arrested, would you have any dispute with that?
Ruth - No.
Drillings - Did you personally put these signs into the ground?
Ruth - I was present when they were installed.
Drillings - Okay, do you recall the exact date they were put into...?
Ruth - No, I don't.
Continue to next page...
Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7
Back to our Home Page
0 comments