judge to Occupy Boston: screw!

[Si modo]

It was the correct and proper thing for the judge to do.

Get this, a squatter here in DC has filed a suit with the District for their razing of the house (well, the house frame, so far) the squatters constructed on McPherson Square. Prime, really prime, real estate they confiscated to build their "house".

The court agreed that the Park Police were wrong because they did not give the squatters proper notice.

Proper fucking notice? Not to confiscate real estate?

 

[Teals_Of_Wonder]

now didn't the fat trolls over at MSNBC get all giddy when they announced that the OWS was growing like wildfire in October/November? and here we are about 5/6 weeks later,,so how many are there now living in New Yorks Manicotti's Park?

 

[Rat in the Hat]

It was the correct and proper thing for the judge to do.

Get this, a squatter here in DC has filed a suit with the District for their razing of the house (well, the house frame, so far) the squatters constructed on McPherson Square. Prime, really prime, real estate they confiscated to build their "house".

The court agreed that the Park Police were wrong because they did not give the squatters proper notice.

Proper fucking notice? Not to confiscate real estate?

Whoa, wait a minute. The shitters started to build a house on land they didn't own, and without permits or blueprint approvals, and the court said the Police were in the wrong??

 

[Amelia]

Imagine, occupation is not speech but money is. Pacs and individuals can spend unlimited money to influence our politics but they are putting limits on speech when it comes to the only way to counter the big money.

Please. How is telling people that they cannot commandeer land limiting speech?



Oh wait, you don't know the difference between setting up housekeeping on someone else's property and written or verbal communication? That could explain a lot.

 

[Amelia]

it was the correct and proper thing for the judge to do.

Get this, a squatter here in dc has filed a suit with the district for their razing of the house (well, the house frame, so far) the squatters constructed on mcpherson square. Prime, really prime, real estate they confiscated to build their "house".

The court agreed that the park police were wrong because they did not give the squatters proper notice.

Proper fucking notice? Not to confiscate real estate?

whoa, wait a minute. The shitters started to build a house on land they didn't own, and without permits or blueprint approvals, and the court said the police were in the wrong??

ikr!

 

[Liability]

We want wouldn't people protesting and doing something radical like going across the atlantic and starting a whole new country under a republic form of government. I mean that would be just crazy!

We want wouldn't people posting coherently....

 

[Si modo]

It was the correct and proper thing for the judge to do.

Get this, a squatter here in DC has filed a suit with the District for their razing of the house (well, the house frame, so far) the squatters constructed on McPherson Square. Prime, really prime, real estate they confiscated to build their "house".

The court agreed that the Park Police were wrong because they did not give the squatters proper notice.

Proper fucking notice? Not to confiscate real estate?

Whoa, wait a minute. The shitters started to build a house on land they didn't own, and without permits or blueprint approvals, and the court said the Police were in the wrong??

I shit you not.

Here is a pic of what got razed Sunday night.

And, here's the suit about proper notice: Occupy DC Wins Legal Victory On Camping In McPherson Square

 

[Si modo]

Meh, a better link to it from WTOP: Police must give 24 hours notice to evict Occupy DC - WTOP.com

 

[RadiomanATL]

Meh, a better link to it from WTOP: Police must give 24 hours notice to evict Occupy DC - WTOP.com

Police must give 24 hour notice before enforcing the fucking law?

Have we gone insane?

Maybe if I steal something now, the cops must give me 24 hour notice before arresting me?

 

[Si modo]

The park was a nice park for all of us.

Now, it's a disaster. They've ruined it.

 

[Si modo]

Meh, a better link to it from WTOP: Police must give 24 hours notice to evict Occupy DC - WTOP.com

Police must give 24 hour notice before enforcing the fucking law?

Have we gone insane?

Maybe if I steal something now, the cops must give me 24 hour notice before arresting me?

Pretty crazy shit.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

It was the correct and proper thing for the judge to do.

Get this, a squatter here in DC has filed a suit with the District for their razing of the house (well, the house frame, so far) the squatters constructed on McPherson Square. Prime, really prime, real estate they confiscated to build their "house".

The court agreed that the Park Police were wrong because they did not give the squatters proper notice.

Proper fucking notice? Not to confiscate real estate?

Whoa, wait a minute. The shitters started to build a house on land they didn't own, and without permits or blueprint approvals, and the court said the Police were in the wrong??

I shit you not.

Here is a pic of what got razed Sunday night.

And, here's the suit about proper notice: Occupy DC Wins Legal Victory On Camping In McPherson Square

Well, it's no wonder they didn't get their blueprints looked at. It would never have been approved. The way the side walls are canted outward, it would have collapsed before they finished constructing the roof.

When they wanted the design, they must have gone to Andrew Lloyd Wright instead of Frank Lloyd Wright.

 

[Si modo]

I'm thinking a nice Cape Cod next to the Roosevelt Memorial overlooking the Tidal Basin might be a great place to live.

Relatively easy Metro access, too.

Location, location, location, they always say.

 

[occupied]

Imagine, occupation is not speech but money is. Pacs and individuals can spend unlimited money to influence our politics but they are putting limits on speech when it comes to the only way to counter the big money.

Please. How is telling people that they cannot commandeer land limiting speech?



Oh wait, you don't know the difference between setting up housekeeping on someone else's property and written or verbal communication? That could explain a lot.

When faced with a 1st amendment question of money as speech, the SCOTUS issued a very broad and permissive opinion.

When faced with a 1st amendment question on in-person protest as speech, it seems conservatives would have them hand down a very broad and restrictive opinion.

Not coincidentally both decisions make it easier for the big money to shout down the rabble. I have no doubt of how the Roberts court will decide on any free speech question that would arise from the occupy movement.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Whoa, wait a minute. The shitters started to build a house on land they didn't own, and without permits or blueprint approvals, and the court said the Police were in the wrong??

I shit you not.

Here is a pic of what got razed Sunday night.

And, here's the suit about proper notice: Occupy DC Wins Legal Victory On Camping In McPherson Square

Well, it's no wonder they didn't get their blueprints looked at. It would never have been approved. The way the side walls are canted outward, it would have collapsed before they finished constructing the roof.

When they wanted the design, they must have gone to Andrew Lloyd Wright instead of Frank Lloyd Wright.

I was thinking the exact same thing.

Although the structure would probably hold 1/2" OSB as a roof. Not much more than that, and I wouldn't want to be in it. But it would probably hold it.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Imagine, occupation is not speech but money is. Pacs and individuals can spend unlimited money to influence our politics but they are putting limits on speech when it comes to the only way to counter the big money.

Please. How is telling people that they cannot commandeer land limiting speech?



Oh wait, you don't know the difference between setting up housekeeping on someone else's property and written or verbal communication? That could explain a lot.

When faced with a 1st amendment question of money as speech, the SCOTUS issued a very broad and permissive opinion.

When faced with a 1st amendment question on in-person protest as speech, it seems conservatives would have them hand down a very broad and restrictive opinion.

Not coincidentally both decisions make it easier for the big money to shout down the rabble. I have no doubt of how the Roberts court will decide on any free speech question that would arise from the occupy movement.

Squatting on land that isn't yours is not free speech.

Now you know

 

[occupied]

Whoa, wait a minute. The shitters started to build a house on land they didn't own, and without permits or blueprint approvals, and the court said the Police were in the wrong??

I shit you not.

Here is a pic of what got razed Sunday night.

And, here's the suit about proper notice: Occupy DC Wins Legal Victory On Camping In McPherson Square

Well, it's no wonder they didn't get their blueprints looked at. It would never have been approved. The way the side walls are canted outward, it would have collapsed before they finished constructing the roof.

When they wanted the design, they must have gone to Andrew Lloyd Wright instead of Frank Lloyd Wright.

This is actually not that bad, from what I can see it would serve it's purpose.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

I shit you not.

Here is a pic of what got razed Sunday night.

And, here's the suit about proper notice: Occupy DC Wins Legal Victory On Camping In McPherson Square

Well, it's no wonder they didn't get their blueprints looked at. It would never have been approved. The way the side walls are canted outward, it would have collapsed before they finished constructing the roof.

When they wanted the design, they must have gone to Andrew Lloyd Wright instead of Frank Lloyd Wright.

I was thinking the exact same thing.

Although the structure would probably hold 1/2" OSB as a roof. Not much more than that, and I wouldn't want to be in it. But it would probably hold it.

Just imagine what will happen when it gets a snow load on it.

 

[Avatar4321]

Please. How is telling people that they cannot commandeer land limiting speech?



Oh wait, you don't know the difference between setting up housekeeping on someone else's property and written or verbal communication? That could explain a lot.

When faced with a 1st amendment question of money as speech, the SCOTUS issued a very broad and permissive opinion.

When faced with a 1st amendment question on in-person protest as speech, it seems conservatives would have them hand down a very broad and restrictive opinion.

Not coincidentally both decisions make it easier for the big money to shout down the rabble. I have no doubt of how the Roberts court will decide on any free speech question that would arise from the occupy movement.

Squatting on land that isn't yours is not free speech.

Now you know

Which is very correct. Why on earth would it be free speech? Theft is free speech but putting your support behind someone in a political race isn't? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

 

[Si modo]

I shit you not.

Here is a pic of what got razed Sunday night.

And, here's the suit about proper notice: Occupy DC Wins Legal Victory On Camping In McPherson Square

Well, it's no wonder they didn't get their blueprints looked at. It would never have been approved. The way the side walls are canted outward, it would have collapsed before they finished constructing the roof.

When they wanted the design, they must have gone to Andrew Lloyd Wright instead of Frank Lloyd Wright.

This is actually not that bad, from what I can see it would serve it's purpose.

I love this new anarchy!

I know several sites owned by all of us that I would just love. Gonna go get 'em and built me a house!