Occupy Wall Street Sept 17 2011

[jacee]

City's injunction strategy backfires on besieged mayor

The City of Vancouver's attempt to win an njunction to evict Occupy Vancouver from the art gallery plaza has backfired, big time The protesters won hugely Wednesday when their lawyer, Jason Gratl, separated the issues of health and safety - the two key prongs of the city's argument for urgent action - from questions of the encampment's legitimacy. the city's argument for urgent action - from questions of the encampment's legitimacy.

With an interim order removing the pressing ssues from the table, B.C. Supreme Court Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie had no compelling reason not to give the motley crew a weeklong adjournment to prepare their case. There will be at least three days of argument starting next Wednesday, which probably means the tents and tarps will remain in place until after the Nov. 19 civic election. That can't please Mayor Gregor Robertson.

The bright lights at City Hall, however, figured going for one would muddy the waters of responsibility and up the ante for protesters. responsibility and up the ante for protesters.

Instead of being ticketed and prosecuted under the Trespass Act, City Land Regulation Bylaw or the Fire Bylaw, if an injunction were granted the demonstrators would face contempt-of-court charges and far more serious punishment.

l think the city thought it would quickly win the court's blessing and be on its way. The worst has transpired. City officials find themselves into a corner

Any move now by police and city not precipitated by some catastrophe will raise serious questions about wasting the court's time and respect for the process they set in motion

That could be more damaging politically to the mayor's administration than leaving the commune standing Robertson must be pulling his hair out.

If the protesters start doing street marches and demonstrations that block traffic every day, maybe the Mayor will realize he was better off with a peaceful encampment.

Edited November 10, 2011 by jacee

[Shady]

If the protesters start doing street marches and demonstrations that block traffic every day, maybe the Mayor will realize he was better off with a peaceful encampment.

Why would they want to block traffic? How does making life more difficult for people help with the cause? Do they not realize that 99% of traffic is made up of the so-called 99%. The people they claim to want to represent.

[jacee]

Just sayin' ... the normal protest blocks traffic.

Maybe he should have left well enough alone, since it now appears to be morphing into a prolonged, high profile challenge of constitutional rights which trump bylaws, and which he could lose outright.

[eyeball]

Regardless, Occupy Vancouver as a demonstration against the disparities between the rich and the rest of us has morphed into a legal dispute over the division of powers and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Ah yes, the division of power the gap that really matters the most in the scheme of things.

[Shady]

Just sayin' ...

You're just sayin, and I'm just askin.

Anyways, you don't choose to not enforce the law because the same perps might break the law in a different way. We live in a society with laws, not mob rule.

[blueblood]

Just sayin' ... the normal protest blocks traffic.

Maybe he should have left well enough alone, since it now appears to be morphing into a prolonged, high profile challenge of constitutional rights which trump bylaws, and which he could lose outright.

Just like those occupiers are respecting other people's rights to security of person?

[eyeball]

We live in a society with laws, not mob rule.

No, we live in a society that's ruled from the top down, the very top.

Just the way you adore it.

Edited November 10, 2011 by eyeball

[punked]

You're just sayin, and I'm just askin.

Anyways, you don't choose to not enforce the law because the same perps might break the law in a different way. We live in a society with laws, not mob rule.

Governments decide to enforce and not enforce laws all the time Shady. Wait are you the one who wants that poor women in PEI in jail because she wore her husbands war metals to a service. That is against the law to. Shady hates that poor poor war widow what a sad day.

Edited November 10, 2011 by punked

[Shady]

Governments decide to enforce and not enforce laws all the time Shady. Wait are you the one who wants that poor women in PEI in jail because she wore her husbands war metals to a service. That is against the law to. Shady hates that poor poor war widow what a said day.

Look, you can't camp in a city park. I'm sorry that offends you. But most sane people understand and support it.

[punked]

Look, you can't camp in a city park. I'm sorry that offends you. But most sane people understand and support it.

I know your opinion "You can't wear your dead husbands metals, and get a job you old lady". I personally think some laws have extreme exceptions that can be made like this poor elderly widow who once a year wants to wear her husbands metals to remember the honor he fought with. I guess there are people like Shady who think all laws are created equal and can not be broken and want to see this poor poor lady go to jail and there are people like me who think we need to look at everything and argue the merit on when and where the law should be enforced.

[bush_cheney2004]

They are called "medals"...not "metals"...just sayin'.

[punked]

They are called "medals"...not "metals"...just sayin'.

Love the new Just saying thing. Just wanted to make that comment. Thanks for the pointer.

[GostHacked]

You're just sayin, and I'm just askin.

Anyways, you don't choose to not enforce the law because the same perps might break the law in a different way. We live in a society with laws, not mob rule.

This mob we call the 1% does rule us all. And they have a set of laws for us, the 99%, and a different set of laws for them, the 1%.

[dre]

The only crickets are in your head. Why do you refuse to acknowledge the laws referred to by The New York Times?

Once again, why do you refuse to acknowledge the laws referred to by The New York Times?

Because they dont reference any laws that force private lenders to make subprime loans. They mention bank mergers, but banks were not the ones making all those loans anyways.

Your link is a completely and total red herring that you came up with while you desperately googled for evidence of your utterly vacuous, and log ago debunked assertions.

One last time. What law forced companies like New Century and Country Wide to make sub prime loans?

[punked]

Because they dont reference any laws that force private lenders to make subprime loans. They mention bank mergers, but banks were not the ones making all those loans anyways.

Your link is a completely and total red herring that you came up with while you desperately googled for evidence of your utterly vacuous, and log ago debunked assertions.

One last time. What law forced companies like New Century and Country Wide to make sub prime loans?

Thank you I felt like in the last little while I was the only one calling Shady on his made up citations. They never say what he claims they say.

[Shady]

Fed Stops Bank Merger; Cites Lending Concerns

In a move showing banking regulators' increased emphasis on ending loan discrimination, the Federal Reserve Board has, for the first time, blocked a large bank merger because of concern over possible bias against minority groups in mortgage lending.

By a 3-to-3 vote, with one abstention, the Fed declined to approve the Shawmut National Corporation's acquisition of the New Dartmouth Bank of Manchester, N.H., because of concern that Shawmut, based in Hartford, may not have complied with fair-lending laws.

NYT

I can provide you with information, but I can't force you to read it.

[Shady]

Great work OWS!

Occupy Wall Street costs local businesses $479,400

The Occupy Wall Street movement has cost surrounding businesses $479,400 so far, store owners said.

A Post survey of a dozen restaurants, jewelry shops, beauty salons, a chain store and mom-and-pop establishments tallied almost a half-million dollars lost in the 53 days since the Zuccotti Park siege began on Sept. 17.

“We’re done with them!” barked one Broadway business owner. The restaurateur -- who requested anonymity for fear of reprisals -- said his profits drained as soon as campers moved in.

“My customers used to take food to eat in the park, but now they can’t,” he lamented

Link

[jacee]

Great work OWS!

... and Nero keeps fiddling while Rome burns!

Hilarious, Shady!

Thanks for that laugh ...

Democracy is corrupted beyond recognition and 99% of us are held ransom and drowning in debt that benefits the wealthiest and most corrupt/powerful ... but we should stop protesting because ... the rich can't eat their lunch in the park!

I guess that about says it all!

[bush_cheney2004]

...Democracy is corrupted beyond recognition and 99% of us are held ransom and drowning in debt that benefits the wealthiest and most corrupt/powerful ... but we should stop protesting because ... the rich can't eat their lunch in the park!

Speak for yourself....you certainly don't speak for any "99%". If you are drowning in debt, maybe you are to blame for your own choices.

[Guest American Woman]

... we should stop protesting because ... the rich can't eat their lunch in the park!

Yeah, I'm sure it's the 1% who were frequenting that restaurant and eating in the park.

I guess that about says it all!

It sure does. About how out of touch with reality you are.

[Shady]

Democracy is corrupted beyond recognition and 99% of us are held ransom and drowning in debt that benefits the wealthiest and most corrupt/powerful

Stop pretending you speak for 99%. You don't. Like I've already said. You don't speak for me, and you never will. It's just more hyperbole from you. Nobody is held ransom, except by the degenerates protesting in the park. Everyday regular people are being held ransom by the very folks claiming to be helping.

... but we should stop protesting because ... the rich can't eat their lunch in the park!

I guess that about says it all!

Nope, prtesting is fine, but it can be done in a way that doesn't screw the people you're claming to represent. But it illustrates perfectly, that you, and them, don't give a crap about regular people.

[jacee]

Check out the picture ...

Despite his fears for his own safety from the SCARY protesters ...

DEREK GOES DOWNTOWN!!

I sure hope he doesn't have to deal with

THE SCARY BARREL FIRE!!

a violent confrontation between police and protesters over a barrel fire ...

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/cause-of-death-announced-in-occupy-vancouver-fatality/article2234871/?utm_medium=Feeds%3A%20RSS%2FAtom&utm_source=Home&utm_content=2234871&service=mobile

Are the wealthy so afraid/anxious/panicked that a barrel fire for warmth causes them to unleash the (police) dogs on the poor?

Could we have a little sanity here?

Edited November 13, 2011 by jacee

[cybercoma]

Check out these dirty lazy unemployed.... MDs?

[jbg]

When I graduated college and was waiting to start law school I parked cars and worked as a temporary typist. When I graduated law school and was looking for work I:

1. Worked as a Legal Services volunteer helping the poor;
   
2. Worked at Caldors as a stock clerk for the Christmas 1982 shopping season; and
   
3. Pending admission to the bar started work as a paralegal/messenger at a law firm for $50 per week, which morphed into a first job at $200 per week.
   

I don't see why these people are out there demonstrating rather than trying to get themselves into the employment world any way they can. Are the jobs beneath them so only illegal immigrants can fill them?

I have no sympathy for people who whine rather than work. If the service jobs were filled by the "occupiers" the illegal immigrants would have to go home. The quality of service work would improve. The "occupiers" would get used to the workaday world.

What's so bad about that?

[cybercoma]

I don't see why these people are out there demonstrating rather than trying to get themselves into the employment world any way they can.

I have no sympathy for people who whine rather than work.

I see you missed the post directly above yours where I posted a picture of all the doctors that support Occupy. You also must have missed all the labour unions that have come out in support. To be in a union, you need to have a job. It seems to me you've also missed all of the war veterans that have been at these sites showing their support.

Maybe instead of telling these people to "shut up and go find a job," you should consider the problems they're trying to identify. Since you're a lawyer, I'm sure you can appreciate the fact that attacking the messengers does nothing to discredit the message. In logic terms, you would probably call that an ad hominem.

So instead of making broad assumptions about the people that are there, in spite of not knowing why they're demonstrating (your words not mine), perhaps you might spend some time with an open mind figuring out why these protests are happening.

If I may, let me suggest Matt Taibbi's recent article about his misunderstanding of Occupy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/11/matt-tiabbi-occupy-wall-sreet_n_1087984.html

Edited November 14, 2011 by cybercoma