Evict OWS Protesters...

Their just freeloading bums at this point.

Yet another sponsored left wing failure everyone else ends up paying for...:evil:

Many pay taxes themselves. ;)
Do you guys ever do research on the people who dismiss and judge?
You mean like the dickweeds who refer to the TEA party crowd as "teabaggers", amongst other smears and outright lies?

BTW, how many of those people have been associated with squatting, vandalism, theft, sex acts in public, assault, rioting and other various and sundry acts of aggression and violence?

Like, none.
 
What is going on at the OWS encampments are not legal evictions. I don't know if you know of the term "Due Process"? What the police are doing is not due process of law. The only branch to government that can legally evict anyone from their home is the judical branch.

None of these cities have gone to court to evict the protesters. They just call the police, throw tear gas and take down tents. These actions are a total violation of the due process clause and surely the cities will pay dearly in legal settlements.

But I gather you side with the Red Coats philosophy during the American Revolution.

So tents illegally pitched in Public parks are suddenly peoples homes? Really?

He swears its true because the googles told him so :thup:

So using his logic all the homeless need do is pitch tents anywhere they want, private property Government property Public property, doesn't matter,it then somehow becomes their home, even though someone else legally owns the property. The legal owner then loses the rights to their property until a lengthy legal battle.

This guy must be like 12?
 
Their just freeloading bums at this point.

Yet another sponsored left wing failure everyone else ends up paying for...:evil:

Many pay taxes themselves. ;)
Do you guys ever do research on the people who dismiss and judge?
You mean like the dickweeds who refer to the TEA party crowd as "teabaggers", amongst other smears and outright lies?

BTW, how many of those people have been associated with squatting, vandalism, theft, sex acts in public, assault, rioting and other various and sundry acts of aggression and violence?

Like, none.

Canada's firing them out the door. Enough!


Occupy Canada: Cities Growing Impatient With Protesters; Set Eviction Deadlines
 
So tents illegally pitched in Public parks are suddenly peoples homes? Really?

He swears its true because the googles told him so :thup:

So using his logic all the homeless need do is pitch tents anywhere they want, private property Government property Public property, doesn't matter,it then somehow becomes their home, even though someone else legally owns the property. The legal owner then loses the rights to their property until a lengthy legal battle.

This guy must be like 12?

Oh, but he has 5 degrees and has litigated in the courts.

Just ask him.
 
Their just freeloading bums at this point.

Yet another sponsored left wing failure everyone else ends up paying for...:evil:

Many pay taxes themselves. ;)
Do you guys ever do research on the people who dismiss and judge?
You mean like the dickweeds who refer to the TEA party crowd as "teabaggers", amongst other smears and outright lies?

BTW, how many of those people have been associated with squatting, vandalism, theft, sex acts in public, assault, rioting and other various and sundry acts of aggression and violence?

Like, none.
To be fair, the tea party kind of called themselves tea baggers first. But whatever!:lol:
 
Apparently the word "public" is beyond your ken. And therefore why it can't be their "home".

Google it if you have problems :thup:
He might be wrong about the home part, but other judges and even one in New York City have ruled that even tents and even when one is sleeping in them it can be considered a form of expression. Google if you have a problem. :D

I never disputed that a tent can be home, nor that it can be a form of expression.

But when it's pitched on public land, or land you do not own and do not have permission to be on it is not legally your "home".

Intimate Domain. Here the People can take over public and/or private propery for use to redress of grievances, right to assble, and free speech. The "People" are the government who has the right to use the property for their use. The "People" branch of government is implied in the consitution.

Jumping to the tenth amendment---Article X what is not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibitied to the States, are reserved to the people.

Jumping to the Fourteenth amendment---Article XIV---No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immuninites of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person...equal protection of the law.

_____________________________________

When the Police side with the city mayors they are doing so in volation of the US Constitution. In most States, it is unlawfull for the police to take sides. At best they are paid mercenaries. On Oct 25th the Oakland Police Department paid outside police agencies to raid the Occupy camp--these officers were paid to be a private army for Oakland.
___________________________________
The Occupy protesters movement is making this country to look in the mirror.
 
Butt hurt...physical or mental? :lol:

Why are you obsessed with my butt and what I do with it? That is a little weird.

It's weird for a guy to like a woman's butt? :eusa_eh:

Why is Luissa defending a moron that claims simply pitching a tent on someone elses property and sleeping in it makes it his home? As for the speech thing. Freedom of speech does NOT include the right to violate State and local laws. So the claim that a tent is somehow a manifestation of freedom of speech does not in itself give the protestors the right to keep them pitched on Public property in violation of laws dealing with when the park will be closed. Further living in a tent in violation of local laws forbidding living on said property are not somehow vacated simply because one claims a 1st Amendment right to protest.
 
Why are you obsessed with my butt and what I do with it? That is a little weird.

It's weird for a guy to like a woman's butt? :eusa_eh:

Why is Luissa defending a moron that claims simply pitching a tent on someone elses property and sleeping in it makes it his home? As for the speech thing. Freedom of speech does NOT include the right to violate State and local laws. So the claim that a tent is somehow a manifestation of freedom of speech does not in itself give the protestors the right to keep them pitched on Public property in violation of laws dealing with when the park will be closed. Further living in a tent in violation of local laws forbidding living on said property are not somehow vacated simply because one claims a 1st Amendment right to protest.

Maybe because she likes to take a losing position and see if she can win it.
 
Many pay taxes themselves. ;)
Do you guys ever do research on the people who dismiss and judge?
You mean like the dickweeds who refer to the TEA party crowd as "teabaggers", amongst other smears and outright lies?

BTW, how many of those people have been associated with squatting, vandalism, theft, sex acts in public, assault, rioting and other various and sundry acts of aggression and violence?

Like, none.
To be fair, the tea party kind of called themselves tea baggers first. But whatever!:lol:

To be intellectually honest, it was a couple of old ladies who "called themselves that", not knowing what it meant... NOT "the movement"...

Find me evidence of the movement calling themselves that...

But you don't really care too much about intellectual honesty, do you?
 
He might be wrong about the home part, but other judges and even one in New York City have ruled that even tents and even when one is sleeping in them it can be considered a form of expression. Google if you have a problem. :D

I never disputed that a tent can be home, nor that it can be a form of expression.

But when it's pitched on public land, or land you do not own and do not have permission to be on it is not legally your "home".

Intimate Domain. Here the People can take over public and/or private propery for use to redress of grievances, right to assble, and free speech. The "People" are the government who has the right to use the property for their use. The "People" branch of government is implied in the consitution.

Jumping to the tenth amendment---Article X what is not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibitied to the States, are reserved to the people.

Jumping to the Fourteenth amendment---Article XIV---No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immuninites of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person...equal protection of the law.

_____________________________________

When the Police side with the city mayors they are doing so in volation of the US Constitution. In most States, it is unlawfull for the police to take sides. At best they are paid mercenaries. On Oct 25th the Oakland Police Department paid outside police agencies to raid the Occupy camp--these officers were paid to be a private army for Oakland.
___________________________________
The Occupy protesters movement is making this country to look in the mirror.

:cuckoo:
 
What is going on at the OWS encampments are not legal evictions. I don't know if you know of the term "Due Process"? What the police are doing is not due process of law. The only branch to government that can legally evict anyone from their home is the judical branch.

None of these cities have gone to court to evict the protesters. They just call the police, throw tear gas and take down tents. These actions are a total violation of the due process clause and surely the cities will pay dearly in legal settlements.

But I gather you side with the Red Coats philosophy during the American Revolution.

Your law degree is from which school?
I have questions for you.....Is it your belief that at any time groups of people may gather in public places or on public land and do as they please?
Next....Is it your belief that such gatherings are acceptable even if they cause damage, create an unsafe environment, create an unsanitary environment, refuse to obey lawful orders and commit crimes against each other?
Is it your belief that said gatherings may prohibit the use or enjoyment of the public space by others not associated with the group occupying the space?
Is it your belief that local ordinances or laws restricting the use of public properties to those who've procured the proper permits are unlawful?
Is it your belief that these groups have so called "squatter's rights"?
Is it your belief that no municipality has the right to pass ordinances or laws regarding the use of public property?
IS it your belief that private property owners must defer to civil disobedience and lose enjoyment or use of their property?
 
He might be wrong about the home part, but other judges and even one in New York City have ruled that even tents and even when one is sleeping in them it can be considered a form of expression. Google if you have a problem. :D

I never disputed that a tent can be home, nor that it can be a form of expression.

But when it's pitched on public land, or land you do not own and do not have permission to be on it is not legally your "home".

Intimate Domain. Here the People can take over public and/or private propery for use to redress of grievances, right to assble, and free speech. The "People" are the government who has the right to use the property for their use. The "People" branch of government is implied in the consitution.

Jumping to the tenth amendment---Article X what is not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibitied to the States, are reserved to the people.

Jumping to the Fourteenth amendment---Article XIV---No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immuninites of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person...equal protection of the law.

_____________________________________

When the Police side with the city mayors they are doing so in volation of the US Constitution. In most States, it is unlawfull for the police to take sides. At best they are paid mercenaries. On Oct 25th the Oakland Police Department paid outside police agencies to raid the Occupy camp--these officers were paid to be a private army for Oakland.
___________________________________
The Occupy protesters movement is making this country to look in the mirror.

10th Amendment does not apply to the right of the people when laws CLEARLY do exist prohibiting the behavior.

14th Amendment does not grant to citizens the right to illegally seize public or private property for personal use nor to illegally cam on said property.

And no where does the 1st Amendment grant to the people the right to illegally seize Public property in violation of existing laws. In fact it is established law that Local, State and Federal Governments can require permits, restrict access and limit times of 1st Amendment protests. Under the 1st Amendment it is established law that Local, State and Federal governments can in fact designate sites and locations for protests to occur and can deny access to other sites and property, as well as timesand conditions of said protest.
 
Why are you obsessed with my butt and what I do with it? That is a little weird.

It's weird for a guy to like a woman's butt? :eusa_eh:

Why is Luissa defending a moron that claims simply pitching a tent on someone elses property and sleeping in it makes it his home? As for the speech thing. Freedom of speech does NOT include the right to violate State and local laws. So the claim that a tent is somehow a manifestation of freedom of speech does not in itself give the protestors the right to keep them pitched on Public property in violation of laws dealing with when the park will be closed. Further living in a tent in violation of local laws forbidding living on said property are not somehow vacated simply because one claims a 1st Amendment right to protest.

I clearly stated that I didn't think it was a home. I also stated there have rulings that a tent can be a form of expression according to a few judges. ;)
People protested in front of Gracie Mansion in New York city, pitching tents on the sidewalk(public land). The judge ruled that it was a form of expression and was allowed. Why do you think they have not been able to evict them yet?
And I am not defending anyone. ;)
 
Many pay taxes themselves. ;)
Do you guys ever do research on the people who dismiss and judge?
You mean like the dickweeds who refer to the TEA party crowd as "teabaggers", amongst other smears and outright lies?

BTW, how many of those people have been associated with squatting, vandalism, theft, sex acts in public, assault, rioting and other various and sundry acts of aggression and violence?

Like, none.
To be fair, the tea party kind of called themselves tea baggers first. But whatever!:lol:
Oh, look!...It's Cleopatra! :rolleyes:
 

Forum List

Back
Top