Occupy Wall Street Sept 17 2011

[charter.rights]

What part of you can't camp in city parks don't you people understand?

Actually Shady is wrong, again.

There are some city parks that DO allow camping. I know a few.

Right now camping is allowed in St James Park by order of the Court, which over rules any by-law.

[charter.rights]

The Precedent has been set. There's nothing to stop the City of New York to do the exact same thing they did today.

I'm sure they'd be far less patient with people squatting in one of the city's tourist attractions.

It is a big park.

And I'm sure once they get evicted from Central Park they can look to another.

However, I have a good suspicion that some rich dude who supports the occupy movement will have an empty apartment building for they to move in. The key is that the protest is not moving and will continue to be a voice in the face of big money.

[Shady]

There are some city parks that DO allow camping. I know a few.

It's not this park. And it's not central park. And it's not in most cities. So again, what part of you can't camp in these city parks don't you understand?

[Guest Derek L]

Wall Street Protesters Evicted From Camp

After a hearing, another judge denied the request, agreeing with the city's contention that camping in a park wasn't free speech protected by the First Amendment. As a result, city officials said, protesters will be allowed back in the park, but won't be allowed to set up camp.

Where’s the revolution?

[jacee]

I think Wall Street should find them a building to continue the conversations ...

Wall Street can do talks about 'financial literacy' or whatever they want to call it when they're explaining themselves to the rest of us.

Edited November 16, 2011 by jacee

[GostHacked]

Evenuallty these cops are going to be the tool for their own oppression. Once the powers that be screw us all over (like that's not happening as it is) they are doing to screw them over.

[cybercoma]

Begin the Occupation rotating shifts.

[Shady]

Evenuallty these cops are going to be the tool for their own oppression. Once the powers that be screw us all over (like that's not happening as it is) they are doing to screw them over.

Complete and utter nonsense.

[GostHacked]

Begin the Occupation rotating shifts.

That will take leadership and direction for that to happen. This movement is going to die because many don't really understand what they are protesting against. They need to get more organized. I know most are saying that the fact they are there are making the elite nervous. In a way yes, but more pressure needs to be put on them and these protests need to get bigger.

The system is broken and needs fixing.

[blueblood]

I think Wall Street should find them a building to continue the conversations ...

Wall Street can do talks about 'financial literacy' or whatever they want to call it when they're explaining themselves to the rest of us.

They tried at the first month. Once again Peter schiff talking to OWS and a meeting of the minds...

[dre]

That will take leadership and direction for that to happen. This movement is going to die because many don't really understand what they are protesting against. They need to get more organized. I know most are saying that the fact they are there are making the elite nervous. In a way yes, but more pressure needs to be put on them and these protests need to get bigger.

The system is broken and needs fixing.

From that standpoint it might be a good thing if the camps end. If the movement wants to last it has to move beyond that.

[GostHacked]

From that standpoint it might be a good thing if the camps end. If the movement wants to last it has to move beyond that.

Occupy senate grounds and parliment grounds .... then you'll see the powers that be get nervous.

[jacee]

More reason to OCCUPY !!!

Banks add sneaky fees

Consumers may have won a battle when the big banks dropped their proposed debit-card fees earlier this year, but the war is far from over.

Think consumers won the war when the last of the big banks dropped their proposed debit-card fees at the beginning of November? Guess again. Many banks have found "under the radar" ways to charge customers for holding their accounts, and to make up the income they lost when the Federal Reserve capped debit card fees in June. Some of the fees are new, and others are increases of existing fees ...

[blueblood]

More reason to OCCUPY !!!

Banks add sneaky fees

Consumers may have won a battle when the big banks dropped their proposed debit-card fees earlier this year, but the war is far from over.

Think consumers won the war when the last of the big banks dropped their proposed debit-card fees at the beginning of November? Guess again. Many banks have found "under the radar" ways to charge customers for holding their accounts, and to make up the income they lost when the Federal Reserve capped debit card fees in June. Some of the fees are new, and others are increases of existing fees ...

How about drop the expensive regulations on those banks and let the fees drop on their own. The bondholders and depositors have to get paid.

[GostHacked]

How about drop the expensive regulations on those banks and let the fees drop on their own. The bondholders and depositors have to get paid.

Dropping regulations are what allowed the financial institutions to get into this situation in the first place.

[blueblood]

Dropping regulations are what allowed the financial institutions to get into this situation in the first place.

Nope, that would be an increase in the money supply, caused by stupid govt policy. Regulations favor the larger institutions because they can afford to pay for them. The security of a gov't bailout allowed them to be reckless in the first place.

[jbg]

The Court order says a by-law restricting camping does not over-rule their right to peaceful assembly.

That would make your opinion...wrong.... as usual.

Here's the text of the decision (link to source, public document, not copyrighted):

Upon the foregoing papers and after oral argument in open court by the parties' counsel and intervenors (see Transcript, Robert Portas, Court Reporter), it is hereby ORDERED that petitioner's application for an extension ofthe temporary restraining order granted by Justice Lucy Billings on

November 15, 2011 at 6:30 a.m. is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that respondents are directed to answer the petition within 30 days; and it is further

ORDERED that petitioner may submit a reply to the petition within 15 days of service of the answer; and it is further

ORDERED that respondents shall serve answering papers to the request for "preliminary relief' and the application to intervene on or before November 23, 2011, and petitioners shall serve reply papers on or before November 30, 2011;

ORDEREDthatthis petition is ADJOURNED and RECALENDARED in the Motion Submissions Part (60 Centre St Room 130) to December 1, 2011 at 9:30 a.m., for submission only of the respondents' answering papers, petitioners' reply papers, and the intervenors' papers.

This special proceeding arises out of demonstrations known worldwide as Occupy Wall Street, occurring in a privately-owned public space known as Zuccotti Park, following removal of the participants by the New York City Police Department earlier today at approximately 1 :00 a.m. The verified petition is brought against the City, Mayor Bloomberg, the NYPD and its Commissioner, the FDNY and its commissioner, and Brookfield Properties, Inc. and its chief executive officer.

It would appear that Zuccotti Park is a privately owned public-access plaza, created in 1968 by a City Planning special permit issued pursuant to then existing authority of the New York City Zoning Resolution (Holloway Affirm. 119), which encouraged the creation of space for public use in exchange for additional or "bonus" development rights given to the owners of adjoining properties. Brookfield Properties, Inc. is the alleged owner ofZuccotti Park. It is undisputed that the special permit requires that Zuccotti Park be open to the public and maintained for public use 365 days per year.

It is undisputed that, since its inception on about September 17, 2011, Occupy Wall Street began occupying Zuccotti Park on a 24-hour basis forthe demonstrations. Occupy Wall Street brought attention to the increasing disparity of wealth and power in the United States, largely because of the unorthodox tactic of occupying the subject public space on a 24-hour basis, and constructing an encampment there. It is undisputed that, at some time after the Occupy Wall Street began, Brookfield Properties promulgated rules which prohibited, among other things, "Camping and/or the erection of tents or other structures. Lying down on the ground, or lying down on benches ...The placement of tarps or sleeping bags or other covering on the property Storage of placement of personal property on the ground, benches, sitting areas or walkways which unreasonably interferes with the use of such areas by others" (Verified Petition, Ex A.)

According to respondents, at approximately 1 :00 a.m. this morning, the NYPD announced, via bullhorn and written notices, to those occupying Zuccotti Park to remove immediately all property and leave the park on a temporary basis, and that ifthey fail to leave the park, they will be subject to arrest. (Holloway Affirm. 11 3.) Petitioner JenniferWaller and others (who were not named in the petition) commenced this special proceeding, by order to show cause, for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction: (a) Enjoining the respondents from evicting lawful protesters from Liberty Park/Zuccotti Park; (

Permitting all protestors to re-enter the park with tents and other gear previously utilized;Ic) Returning all property seized from protestors; and (d) Granting such further relief as may seem just and proper Petitioner represented that the notice of the application for the temporary restraining order was faxed to the Corporation Counsel for the City of New York at approximately 4:34a.m., when the offices were closed. Earlier today at 6:30 a.m., Justice Lucy Billings granted a temporary restraining order prohibiting respondents from: "(a) Evicting protests from Zuccoti Park aIkIa Liberty Park, exclusive of lawful arrests for criminal offense (

Enforcing the 'rules' published afterthe occupation began or otherwise preventing protesters from re-entering the park with tents and other property previously utilized" By its terms, the temporary restraining order continues "until this matter is heard on the date set forth above [November 15,2011]."

This Court held oral argument shortly after noon today. At oral argument, the Court granted, without opposition, an application to participate at oral argument by counsel on behalf of John Samuleson, as President of Transport Workers Union of America Local 1 00, Marsha Spinowitz, as President of Transport Workers Union of America Local 1 01, the NY Communities Exchange, and the Working Families party, who sought to "intervene as plaintiffs." Leave to participate was granted solely forthe purpose of oral argument, as the City disputed the intervenors' standing in this lawsuit The owner ofZuccotti Park has represented that, after cleaning and restoration of Zuccotti

Park, it will permitthe Occupy Wall Street demonstrators to reenter the Park and to resume using it, in conformity with law and with the owner's rules. Petitioners contend that, under the First Amendment, Brookfield's rules are not valid. Petitioners assert that, given the enactment of the rules after the demonstrations began, the rules targeted Occupy Wall Street.

It is apparently undisputed that the owner is responsible for improving, maintaining, and cleaning the property, and correcting hazards and violations oflaw. It appears that, unlike owners of many other such development bonuses, privately owned spaces made available for the use of the public, the owner of Zuccotti Park had not previously published rules regulating its use by the public. The parties dispute whether the First Amendment applies to the actions of the owner in enacting the rules. For purposes of this application, the Court assumes that the First Amendment applies to the owner of Zuccotti Park, thus obviating petitioners' request for a hearing as to whether

Zuccotti Park is traditional public forum, or a limited public forum. Assuming arguendo, that the owner's maintenance of the space must not violate the First Amendment, the owner has the right to adopt reasonable rules that permit it to maintain a clean, safe, publicly accessible space consonant with the responsibility it assumed to provide public access according to law.

The Court is mindful of movants' First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and peaceable assembly. However, "[e]ven protected speech is not equally permissible in all places and at all times." (

Snyder v Phelps

, 131 S Ct 1207, 1218 [2011], quoting

Cornelius v NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc.

, 473 US 788, 799 [1985].) Here, movants have not demonstrated that the rules adopted by the owners of the property, concededly after the demonstrations began, are not reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions permitted under the First Amendment.

To the extent that City law prohibits the erection of structures, the use of gas or other combustible materials, and the accumulation of garbage and human waste in public places, enforcement of the law and the owner's rules appears reasonable to permit the owner to maintain its space in a hygienic, safe, and lawful condition, and to prevent it from being liable by the City or others for violations of law, or in tort It also permits public access by those who live and work in the area who are the intended beneficiaries of this zoning bonus.

The movants have not demonstrated that they have a First Amendment right to remain in Zuccotti Park, along with their tents, structures, generators, and other installations to the exclusion of the owner's reasonable rights and duties to maintain Zuccotti Park, or to the rights to public access of others who might wish to use the space safely. Neither have the applicants shown a right to a temporary restraining order that would restrict the City's enforcement of law so as to promote public health and safety. Therefore, Petitioners application for a temporary restraining order is denied.

At the end of the day, I doubt the First Amendment even applies since this is private property.

Edited November 16, 2011 by jbg

[jacee]

Occupy senate grounds and parliment grounds .... then you'll see the powers that be get nervous.

The money powers that be have to be ... 'persuaded' that revolutionary change is necessary first ... They gotta WAN-na change.

[GostHacked]

Nope, that would be an increase in the money supply, caused by stupid govt policy.

The increase in money supply came after the banks getting into trouble, because they made bad business choices which caused them to get to the point where they needed a bailout. The fed printed more money to allow the bailouts to happen.

Regulations favor the larger institutions because they can afford to pay for them. The security of a gov't bailout allowed them to be reckless in the first place.

MOre like de-regulations favoured those institutions. These guys even hedged against their own losses and still made money. THey knew they could! And because the gov is slack, they are bought out by these financial institutions, and most likely threatened the government to bail them out or the house of cards comes crumbling down. But looks like they only procrastinted the inevitable for a couple years.

[jbg]

Occupy senate grounds and parliment grounds .... then you'll see the powers that be get nervous.

You mean turn the Rideau Canal into a pigsty?

[Michael Hardner]

At the end of the day, I doubt the First Amendment even applies since this is private property.

Very clear. I think you are right.

[GostHacked]

You mean turn the Rideau Canal into a pigsty?

Confederation Park is right beside the Canal as well. You know, where Occupy Ottawa currently camps out?

[blueblood]

The increase in money supply came after the banks getting into trouble, because they made bad business choices which caused them to get to the point where they needed a bailout. The fed printed more money to allow the bailouts to happen.

MOre like de-regulations favoured those institutions. These guys even hedged against their own losses and still made money. THey knew they could! And because the gov is slack, they are bought out by these financial institutions, and most likely threatened the government to bail them out or the house of cards comes crumbling down. But looks like they only procrastinted the inevitable for a couple years.

The increase in money supply came from 2 decades of low interest rates, and got put on steroids in 2001,2002 when the bubble got inflated. The fed is just banging it's head against the wall rates near zero right now.

Everybody hedges when they're speculating, that's how they stay in business. Hedging is taking the quick way out and prevents one from making too much and losing too much money. If there were fewer regulations, there would be no fanny and Freddie backstopping all the mortgages, no FDIC to backstop deposits, and no artificially low interest rates. Had the gov't not meddled in the market like that, we'd be a lot better off.

[cybercoma]

Seattle seems to have no problems dealing with their protesters: http://www.ballardnewstribune.com/2011/11/14/news/seattle-city-council-passes-resolution-support-oc

[dre]

The increase in money supply came from 2 decades of low interest rates, and got put on steroids in 2001,2002 when the bubble got inflated. The fed is just banging it's head against the wall rates near zero right now.

Everybody hedges when they're speculating, that's how they stay in business. Hedging is taking the quick way out and prevents one from making too much and losing too much money. If there were fewer regulations, there would be no fanny and Freddie backstopping all the mortgages, no FDIC to backstop deposits, and no artificially low interest rates. Had the gov't not meddled in the market like that, we'd be a lot better off.

If there were fewer regulations, there would be no fanny and Freddie backstopping all the mortgages, no FDIC to backstop deposits, and no artificially low interest rates.

You cant have a fractional reserve system without the FDIC, and the Fed. Those are the only things preventing runs on banks.

You dont understand the implications of what you are saying. The only reason private commercial banks can leverage deposits to create loans is because the fed backs this behavior and prevents runs on banks. So if you take these institutions out of the picture, you remove commercial banks from their main activity which is controlling the size of the money supply. The problem is now you need to control the size of the money supply a different way, and you need a different way of putting new money into the economy. Right now new money enters the economy through private commercial banks by being created as loans. You would essentially be abolishing this practice.

I find this statement from you rather odd. Youve been defending fractional reserve lending in other threads, so its odd to hear now that you would abolish it. What changed?

Anyways. I like your idea just fine. Get rid of the fed, and the fdic, and partially deregulate private commercial banks, let them lend out only the money they really have on hand in deposits. Thats traditional banking, and you wouldnt need much regulation. Keep in mind this would end up being a pretty small industry, because without the FDIC not many people are going to put money in a commercial bank.

Anways... back to to the other question. If commercial banks are no longer the ones creating new money and putting it into the economy, who will do that? Do you have a plan?

Edited November 16, 2011 by dre