Evict OWS Protesters...

[Luissa]

Your wrong RetiredGySgt:

The Freedom of Speech clause in the US Constitution superpasses State and Local law!
The United States Constitution came first, then State, then Local. Read up on the constitution. No law is above it.

I think you have it backwards. Maybe you think you local and state gov are supreme, but your wrong, wrong, wrong!

And yet it is ESTABLISHED law through out the Country that the 1st Amendment has limits. That those limits can and are imposed by all levels of Government. Keep proving just how ******* stupid you are.

Arn't you tired of putting your foot in your mouth yet? Everyone knows that some speech is limited---Political is not one that is. In fact it is protect speech above all other speech.

I do not think that cursing shows your intelligence--In fact one is questioning your upbring...you poor soul. Saying the F*** word shows how small your vocabulary is.

I am guessing you bet your wife when she doesn't agree with you? Yes or No?

No family.
One could question your up bringing for even suggesting someone you don't know beats their wife.

 

[syrenn]

Their just freeloading bums at this point.

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

I could not agree more.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Hey, don't believe me...believe your Republican groonies.
I never went to college and I don't have five degrees like you.
I never went to law school and litigated cases and have others dislike me because I am right.

Nope not me. Your so smart and educated, I should move out of your way---and let you walk all over me.

You think because they squat in a public place that it then makes that public place their "home".

Amazing bit of fail on your part.

A home by definition does not have to be a structure with four walls, a window, and a door. Now this is fundemental to the constitution and the fourth amendment.

At present there are numerous cases that have been decided in regards to the issue. Google--read and learn.

In regards to Occupy Oakland for example the issue will surely come up. When the occupy-occupied Oscar Grant Plaza--their first eviction was illegal. Since their re-occupation of the plaza the Mayor allowed them to stay. Now she wants to remove them without due process. Oh, yeah...they have fourth admendment rights. Huge! Big!

In other occupy movements--many law suits have been filed by wonderful lawyers who claim the tenth amendment. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Local codes stating once can not camp is superseded by the first amendment---redress your grievces to your gov and free speech and assembly.

Those tents are homes. And taking it away without due process process of law is unconstitutional. And cities that have not allowed people to put up tents and protest after 11:00pm are being sued.

Perhaps in the minds of some radical leftist ACLU lawyer, those tents could be argued in court as homes. Ok fine....There are laws and regulations that define the type of home permitted and where it may be erected.
Surely your legal brilliance is not going to insist that public property can simply be occupied and forever taken without due process?
See it cuts both ways genius.
A tent is NOT a home. No matter how you try to wrap you little liberal brain around this, a tent, especially one occupying a taxpayer funded piece of property is NOT a 'home'...
So please, take your radical leftist dirt eating left over 60's I'd like to teach the world to sing bullshit and shove off. At the end of the day, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few., Those occupy people are not going to be allowed to prevent the public's enjoyment of those public spaces for much longer.
BTW, genius.....A "home' may NOT create a public nuisance, be of unsound or unsanitary condition or otherwise pose the health or safety threat to the public.

 

[conner700]

And yet it is ESTABLISHED law through out the Country that the 1st Amendment has limits. That those limits can and are imposed by all levels of Government. Keep proving just how ******* stupid you are.

Arn't you tired of putting your foot in your mouth yet? Everyone knows that some speech is limited---Political is not one that is. In fact it is protect speech above all other speech.

I do not think that cursing shows your intelligence--In fact one is questioning your upbring...you poor soul. Saying the F*** word shows how small your vocabulary is.

I am guessing you bet your wife when she doesn't agree with you? Yes or No?

If political speech is protected completely by the 1st Amendment then why did Democrats pass a federal law barring political ads that mention a candidates name 90 days before a Federal election?

If political speech is so protected then how come Obama and Clinton both used federal and State laws to limit vocal political protest at gatherings they attended while running for office?

Keep proving how stupid you are.

I am putting you on notice to stop calling me "stupid."

Just because one tries to encroach, strip away, and minimize free speech law does not make them right. Yes --on one hand all living in the land usually abide by the law, yet on the otherhand, others are in court fighting to undue what another has done.

All law is is---one giving an opinon and examples of it. Each case is summerized on it merits. If you want to tackle the law one uses deduction. What is the issue? What are the cases that fall under similar situations. What was ruled, affirmed? What did the desent say? How can one make rational argument aggainst its opposition? What ruling are good law? If there is a defect is good law, then arguements are made to persuade the court the rule otherwise.

Again---you must stop calling me stupid....that is not protect speech.

 

[Dr.House]

Arn't you tired of putting your foot in your mouth yet? Everyone knows that some speech is limited---Political is not one that is. In fact it is protect speech above all other speech.

I do not think that cursing shows your intelligence--In fact one is questioning your upbring...you poor soul. Saying the F*** word shows how small your vocabulary is.

I am guessing you bet your wife when she doesn't agree with you? Yes or No?

If political speech is protected completely by the 1st Amendment then why did Democrats pass a federal law barring political ads that mention a candidates name 90 days before a Federal election?

If political speech is so protected then how come Obama and Clinton both used federal and State laws to limit vocal political protest at gatherings they attended while running for office?

Keep proving how stupid you are.

I am putting you on notice to stop calling me "stupid."

Just because one tries to encroach, strip away, and minimize free speech law does not make them right. Yes --on one hand all living in the land usually abide by the law, yet on the otherhand, others are in court fighting to undue what another has done.

All law is is---one giving an opinon and examples of it. Each case is summerized on it merits. If you want to tackle the law one uses deduction. What is the issue? What are the cases that fall under similar situations. What was ruled, affirmed? What did the desent say? How can one make rational argument aggainst its opposition? What ruling are good law? If there is a defect is good law, then arguements are made to persuade the court the rule otherwise.

Again---you must stop calling me stupid....that is not protect speech.

You are amazingly stupid....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Arn't you tired of putting your foot in your mouth yet? Everyone knows that some speech is limited---Political is not one that is. In fact it is protect speech above all other speech.

I do not think that cursing shows your intelligence--In fact one is questioning your upbring...you poor soul. Saying the F*** word shows how small your vocabulary is.

I am guessing you bet your wife when she doesn't agree with you? Yes or No?

If political speech is protected completely by the 1st Amendment then why did Democrats pass a federal law barring political ads that mention a candidates name 90 days before a Federal election?

If political speech is so protected then how come Obama and Clinton both used federal and State laws to limit vocal political protest at gatherings they attended while running for office?

Keep proving how stupid you are.

I am putting you on notice to stop calling me "stupid."

Just because one tries to encroach, strip away, and minimize free speech law does not make them right. Yes --on one hand all living in the land usually abide by the law, yet on the otherhand, others are in court fighting to undue what another has done.

All law is is---one giving an opinon and examples of it. Each case is summerized on it merits. If you want to tackle the law one uses deduction. What is the issue? What are the cases that fall under similar situations. What was ruled, affirmed? What did the desent say? How can one make rational argument aggainst its opposition? What ruling are good law? If there is a defect is good law, then arguements are made to persuade the court the rule otherwise.

Again---you must stop calling me stupid....that is not protect speech.

I can pretty much call you any name I want on this board and there is very little you can do about it. You want me to stop calling you STUPID? Quit posting such absolute stupid shit. ow grow up and actually use what ever limited intelligence you have.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

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.

Ok...You lost what little credibility you may have dreamed you had when you spewed this gem....."Intimate Domain"......Asshole....It's EMINENT DOMAIN....
That right is reserved for governmental bodies in which private property may be taken via due process with the owner compensated at fair market value, for the public good.
Where you got the idea( it's NOT anywhere in the US Constitution) that people can simply 'take public property' is ******* mystery......They may assemble peaceably in order to make known their grievances....
Here ya go genius....I did your homework for you....
Protest similar to Occupy Denver established case law on closing public parks - The Denver Post
Occupy Wall Street Now Occupying Courtrooms With First Amendment Lawsuits
As far as your attempt to use Amendments X and XIV, is concerned, you application is incorrect....If you want to look like you have a ******* clue what your talking about, do some research and come up with case law that sets precedent in support of your claims.
Failing that, you can have a big spoonful of shut the **** up....
Notice in the links provided, no attorney is asserting Amendment X or XIV.....
How about this.....Why don't you don a suit, go to one of the Occupy cities and file a lawsuit using what you think is a viable legal argument....We could all use a good chuckle...

 

[Lumpy 1]

I thought this was interesting...when you're talking fading freedoms and such...

-----------------------

MORGAN HILL, Calif. -- A federal judge says a Northern California high school official did not violate a group of students' right to freedom of speech when he ordered them to remove clothing with the American flag on Cinco de Mayo.

Chief U.S. District Judge James Ware of San Francisco on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit filed against the Morgan Hill Unified School District by the students.

Ware said officials at Live Oak High School reasonably believed the students' American flag clothing - worn on the Mexican holiday, Cinco de Mayo - could spark violence on campus.

The school's assistant principal ordered the students to remove the American flag clothing or turn it inside out on May 5, 2010 and eventually sent two students home.

Bill Becker, a lawyer for the students, called Ware's ruling "bizarre" and said he planned to appeal.

Judge: School could order removal of flag clothes - Sacramento News - Local and Breaking Sacramento News | Sacramento Bee

 

[conner700]

And yet it is ESTABLISHED law through out the Country that the 1st Amendment has limits. That those limits can and are imposed by all levels of Government. Keep proving just how ******* stupid you are.

Arn't you tired of putting your foot in your mouth yet? Everyone knows that some speech is limited---Political is not one that is. In fact it is protect speech above all other speech.

I do not think that cursing shows your intelligence--In fact one is questioning your upbring...you poor soul. Saying the F*** word shows how small your vocabulary is.

I am guessing you bet your wife when she doesn't agree with you? Yes or No?

No family.
One could question your up bringing for even suggesting someone you don't know beats their wife.

I would like u to read what I wrote about his wife. There is a question mark and the end of the sentence.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

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.

Your wrong RetiredGySgt:

The Freedom of Speech clause in the US Constitution superpasses State and Local law!
The United States Constitution came first, then State, then Local. Read up on the constitution. No law is above it.

I think you have it backwards. Maybe you think you local and state gov are supreme, but your wrong, wrong, wrong!

"superpasses"? What the **** does THAT mean?
It's "supercede"....What a moron you are....CHRIST!!!!
Now, on a purely constitutional question ,you are correct. However, the rights in that make up the Bill of Rights as Ret GY Sgt so accurately explained to you are not absolute.
In other words one cannot pitch a tent on public property and become a nuisance or public safety/health hazard or simply be a general pain in the ass. All communities reserve the right to restrict use of their public facilities. The legal argument that pitching a tent on public property is a form of "expression" is a stretch.
I find it remarkable how you libs find the US Constitution to be a road block to your agenda yet you attempt and in this case, fail to use the Constitution to your political advantage.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Arn't you tired of putting your foot in your mouth yet? Everyone knows that some speech is limited---Political is not one that is. In fact it is protect speech above all other speech.

I do not think that cursing shows your intelligence--In fact one is questioning your upbring...you poor soul. Saying the F*** word shows how small your vocabulary is.

I am guessing you bet your wife when she doesn't agree with you? Yes or No?

If political speech is protected completely by the 1st Amendment then why did Democrats pass a federal law barring political ads that mention a candidates name 90 days before a Federal election?

If political speech is so protected then how come Obama and Clinton both used federal and State laws to limit vocal political protest at gatherings they attended while running for office?

Keep proving how stupid you are.

I am putting you on notice to stop calling me "stupid."

Just because one tries to encroach, strip away, and minimize free speech law does not make them right. Yes --on one hand all living in the land usually abide by the law, yet on the otherhand, others are in court fighting to undue what another has done.

All law is is---one giving an opinon and examples of it. Each case is summerized on it merits. If you want to tackle the law one uses deduction. What is the issue? What are the cases that fall under similar situations. What was ruled, affirmed? What did the desent say? How can one make rational argument aggainst its opposition? What ruling are good law? If there is a defect is good law, then arguements are made to persuade the court the rule otherwise.

Again---you must stop calling me stupid....that is not protect speech.

Ok...you are Galactically stupid.

 

[conner700]

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.

Ok...You lost what little credibility you may have dreamed you had when you spewed this gem....."Intimate Domain"......Asshole....It's EMINENT DOMAIN....
That right is reserved for governmental bodies in which private property may be taken via due process with the owner compensated at fair market value, for the public good.
Where you got the idea( it's NOT anywhere in the US Constitution) that people can simply 'take public property' is ******* mystery......They may assemble peaceably in order to make known their grievances....
Here ya go genius....I did your homework for you....
Protest similar to Occupy Denver established case law on closing public parks - The Denver Post
Occupy Wall Street Now Occupying Courtrooms With First Amendment Lawsuits
As far as your attempt to use Amendments X and XIV, is concerned, you application is incorrect....If you want to look like you have a ******* clue what your talking about, do some research and come up with case law that sets precedent in support of your claims.
Failing that, you can have a big spoonful of shut the **** up....
Notice in the links provided, no attorney is asserting Amendment X or XIV.....
How about this.....Why don't you don a suit, go to one of the Occupy cities and file a lawsuit using what you think is a viable legal argument....We could all use a good chuckle...

Your correct on the spelling..I never said I was a great speller. In fact you knew what I was saying otherwise. Don't undermine a person for such nominal things like spelling...if I was litigating the case...Damm sure I would cross all my t's and dot all my i's. Here on this board...my general messege is articulated in the forum in which it is written. That is to give one an overview of what my position is as a debater.

My legal arguements and others are being discussed as I write here.

The Occupy Movement is nothing to laugh about. And I do not think your funny.
Most of us are very serious, college educated persons ---that would like our country to hold up to its promises to the people. If we are the biggest leaders of the free world and hold everyone to our standards...we sure ain't making a good impression.

Are you proud of the fact that we have homeless people? Does having homeless people who need shelter make you a proud American?

Is this the image you hold so dear---and will pass on to your children in their bedtime stories.

Once Upon A Time....America has 1 in 6 persons in the country who were food insurer and I did nothing to stop it. Good Night Little Michael.

You bashing me doesn't hurt...You know why, cause your kind is done bashing. The country is changing. Out with the old Republican ways and in with the Social Safety Nets that protect the most vunerable in society from preditors like you with your elite mentality. Your special and everyone is not. SHAME ON YOU!!!

No go in your bathroom---look in the mirror and dish yourself all the crap you have been dishing out to the 99%.

 

[Luissa]

Arn't you tired of putting your foot in your mouth yet? Everyone knows that some speech is limited---Political is not one that is. In fact it is protect speech above all other speech.

I do not think that cursing shows your intelligence--In fact one is questioning your upbring...you poor soul. Saying the F*** word shows how small your vocabulary is.

I am guessing you bet your wife when she doesn't agree with you? Yes or No?

No family.
One could question your up bringing for even suggesting someone you don't know beats their wife.

I would like u to read what I wrote about his wife. There is a question mark and the end of the sentence.

I don't care what you wrote. It should not have even been brought up.
RGS is a prick, but you don't bring family into it.

 

[conner700]

If political speech is protected completely by the 1st Amendment then why did Democrats pass a federal law barring political ads that mention a candidates name 90 days before a Federal election?

If political speech is so protected then how come Obama and Clinton both used federal and State laws to limit vocal political protest at gatherings they attended while running for office?

Keep proving how stupid you are.

I am putting you on notice to stop calling me "stupid."

Just because one tries to encroach, strip away, and minimize free speech law does not make them right. Yes --on one hand all living in the land usually abide by the law, yet on the otherhand, others are in court fighting to undue what another has done.

All law is is---one giving an opinon and examples of it. Each case is summerized on it merits. If you want to tackle the law one uses deduction. What is the issue? What are the cases that fall under similar situations. What was ruled, affirmed? What did the desent say? How can one make rational argument aggainst its opposition? What ruling are good law? If there is a defect is good law, then arguements are made to persuade the court the rule otherwise.

Again---you must stop calling me stupid....that is not protect speech.

Ok...you are Galactically stupid.

Most persons who get notice comply. If you would like to add yourself to the don't have anything to add to the conversation list. Well, please don't let me stop you. Your doing a wonderful job all by yourself.

You can keep following the Yellow Brick Road to reach the Great and Powerful OZ.
Don't pay no mind to the man behind the curtin.

 

[conner700]

I would like u to read what I wrote about his wife. There is a question mark and the end of the sentence.

I don't care what you wrote. It should not have even been brought up.
RGS is a prick, but you don't bring family into it.

Luissa.. I think you ought to give conner 700 some +rep...he put up the good fight..

and yes conner, no family stuff...

Okay...no questions about family...I concede. I was upset, he and others are calling me quote on quote stupid. How about no personal attacks either?

In a real debate forum one would not be allowed to use personal attacks. Yes -- this is the internet and I was just going with my gut---that when one calls another "stupid" then they are hiding something.

Politics is rough....but if one can't take the heat, one needs to get out of the kitchen.

I was well groomed in my family kitchen and if it got hot I went to my room and debated another day. The issues today are not going away.

The Occupy Movement is here now----despite what others may think. The social movement will prevail above all.

Why? Because the time is now!

 

[Lumpy 1]

I don't care what you wrote. It should not have even been brought up.
RGS is a prick, but you don't bring family into it.

Luissa.. I think you ought to give conner 700 some +rep...he put up the good fight..

and yes conner, no family stuff...

Okay...no questions about family...I concede. I was upset, he and others are calling me quote on quote stupid. How about no personal attacks either?

In a real debate forum one would not be allowed to use personal attacks. Yes -- this is the internet and I was just going with my gut---that when one calls another "stupid" then they are hiding something.

Politics is rough....but if one can't take the heat, one needs to get out of the kitchen.

I was well groomed in my family kitchen and if it got hot I went to my room and debated another day. The issues today are not going away.

The Occupy Movement is here now----despite what others may think. The social movement will prevail above all.

Why? Because the time is now!

Bare bones... if they could police themselves, show respect and deliver a clear and coherent message, their odds would have improved but they have failed...

 

[conner700]

Luissa.. I think you ought to give conner 700 some +rep...he put up the good fight..

and yes conner, no family stuff...

Okay...no questions about family...I concede. I was upset, he and others are calling me quote on quote stupid. How about no personal attacks either?

In a real debate forum one would not be allowed to use personal attacks. Yes -- this is the internet and I was just going with my gut---that when one calls another "stupid" then they are hiding something.

Politics is rough....but if one can't take the heat, one needs to get out of the kitchen.

I was well groomed in my family kitchen and if it got hot I went to my room and debated another day. The issues today are not going away.

The Occupy Movement is here now----despite what others may think. The social movement will prevail above all.

Why? Because the time is now!

Bare bones... if they could police themselves, show respect and deliver a clear and coherent message, their odds would have improved but they have failed...

The Occupy Wall Street movement has a clear messege. I am sadden each and everytime one says they haven't recieved it.

The messege is that our country is not working. It steams from ambigious laws at all levels of gov. Furthermore, the system is broken. There is corruption at all level of infrastrure. Moreover, remedy to fix the above two---redress gov one grievence is lost subjected to special interest groups.

For thirty plus year think tanks have given our congress game theroy. Game theroy doesn't work with more than two players. This game was purchased by the US Taxpayer from the Rand Group who employed math students.

With this premise--our government found away around our constitution. On one hand they said to the People you will cooperate with us. Meaning, follow all laws, pay your taxes ect. Yet on the other hand Congress was working with Wall Street and played the opposite game on the people. That is --- non-cooperation game theroy.
Just like at the end of the Roman Republic. All government building stood there. The fascade was there. The people in the buildings were there to put on a show for the masses. Here in the US. Gov buildings stand, there departments still exist, yet nothing gets done on behalf of the people. Non-cooperation is the gov wants the people to cooperate, yet they don't have to cooperate with the people. What has been going on for a very long time is the stripping aways of human and civi rights of the people throught the three branches of gov. And at the sametime they have used the tax payers dollars to ensure this happens. Making slaves of all of us and rewarded the thugs and lawbreakers at the expense of the elderly and young.

If ones wants to get technical there are so many cases where a person is holding the weight of the world on their shoulders and can't even grasp the magnitude of their situation, because the gov who was sent to congress to protect the minority----threw them under the bus and sided each and everytime with the billionairs and special interest.

Well the Masses has a special interest also. And their messege is being spread throughout the United States in cities and all over the world. The Masses wants the millionairs, billionairs, and trillionairs, to give back what they have robbed for the people, otherwise the people will occupy there space---our space. This is the Masses Planet. And the people are demanding what was wrongfully taken must be given back.

Society is not a game. Social inequality is not a game. Wanting food, shelter, clothes, schools and protection from others is not a game.

Yet somehow these minimal basic needs are auctioned off daily to Wall Street.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Okay...no questions about family...I concede. I was upset, he and others are calling me quote on quote stupid. How about no personal attacks either?

In a real debate forum one would not be allowed to use personal attacks. Yes -- this is the internet and I was just going with my gut---that when one calls another "stupid" then they are hiding something.

Politics is rough....but if one can't take the heat, one needs to get out of the kitchen.

I was well groomed in my family kitchen and if it got hot I went to my room and debated another day. The issues today are not going away.

The Occupy Movement is here now----despite what others may think. The social movement will prevail above all.

Why? Because the time is now!

Bare bones... if they could police themselves, show respect and deliver a clear and coherent message, their odds would have improved but they have failed...

The Occupy Wall Street movement has a clear messege. I am sadden each and everytime one says they haven't recieved it.

The messege is that our country is not working. It steams from ambigious laws at all levels of gov. Furthermore, the system is broken. There is corruption at all level of infrastrure. Moreover, remedy to fix the above two---redress gov one grievence is lost subjected to special interest groups.

For thirty plus year think tanks have given our congress game theroy. Game theroy doesn't work with more than two players. This game was purchased by the US Taxpayer from the Rand Group who employed math students.

With this premise--our government found away around our constitution. On one hand they said to the People you will cooperate with us. Meaning, follow all laws, pay your taxes ect. Yet on the other hand Congress was working with Wall Street and played the opposite game on the people. That is --- non-cooperation game theroy.
Just like at the end of the Roman Republic. All government building stood there. The fascade was there. The people in the buildings were there to put on a show for the masses. Here in the US. Gov buildings stand, there departments still exist, yet nothing gets done on behalf of the people. Non-cooperation is the gov wants the people to cooperate, yet they don't have to cooperate with the people. What has been going on for a very long time is the stripping aways of human and civi rights of the people throught the three branches of gov. And at the sametime they have used the tax payers dollars to ensure this happens. Making slaves of all of us and rewarded the thugs and lawbreakers at the expense of the elderly and young.

If ones wants to get technical there are so many cases where a person is holding the weight of the world on their shoulders and can't even grasp the magnitude of their situation, because the gov who was sent to congress to protect the minority----threw them under the bus and sided each and everytime with the billionairs and special interest.

Well the Masses has a special interest also. And their messege is being spread throughout the United States in cities and all over the world. The Masses wants the millionairs, billionairs, and trillionairs, to give back what they have robbed for the people, otherwise the people will occupy there space---our space. This is the Masses Planet. And the people are demanding what was wrongfully taken must be given back.

Society is not a game. Social inequality is not a game. Wanting food, shelter, clothes, schools and protection from others is not a game.

Yet somehow these minimal basic needs are auctioned off daily to Wall Street.

The core values of most Tea Party Groups is Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.

Thats the kinda message that the OWS just doesn't have, their more of a movement that gets assigned a message by whomever comes up with one at any particular time... Seems rather scatterbrained to me..

Heck, we all know it's not working.. sheesh...

and Democrats playing class warfare and their typical scare cards is just pathetic and predictable..

 

[bucs90]

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.

Hey dumbass, the local municipal law is called "Trespass After Notice". In other words, if you are in a bar, and they tell you to leave, and you dont, and the cops show up and say "Dude, get out and go home before you go to jail" and you say "No you silly cop I have due process and I dont have to leave and only the judicial branch can evict me from this bar"..............your ass is going to jail.

Evictions are for residential buildings. Homes, apartments. NOT for ******* tents pitched in a park. BTW, the NYC park is PRIVATELY owned. And yes, the city can tell you to leave city property.

You lefties are so ******* stupid. Go sit in the middle of your local DMV and refuse to leave at 5pm. And when the cops show up, tell them they have no authority to remove you and only a judge can evict you. We'll visit you in jail.

Learn the differnce between "eviction" and "trespassing"

 

[bucs90]

Hey, don't believe me...believe your Republican groonies.
I never went to college and I don't have five degrees like you.
I never went to law school and litigated cases and have others dislike me because I am right.

Nope not me. Your so smart and educated, I should move out of your way---and let you walk all over me.

You think because they squat in a public place that it then makes that public place their "home".

Amazing bit of fail on your part.

A home by definition does not have to be a structure with four walls, a window, and a door. Now this is fundemental to the constitution and the fourth amendment.

At present there are numerous cases that have been decided in regards to the issue. Google--read and learn.

In regards to Occupy Oakland for example the issue will surely come up. When the occupy-occupied Oscar Grant Plaza--their first eviction was illegal. Since their re-occupation of the plaza the Mayor allowed them to stay. Now she wants to remove them without due process. Oh, yeah...they have fourth admendment rights. Huge! Big!

In other occupy movements--many law suits have been filed by wonderful lawyers who claim the tenth amendment. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Local codes stating once can not camp is superseded by the first amendment---redress your grievces to your gov and free speech and assembly.

Those tents are homes. And taking it away without due process process of law is unconstitutional. And cities that have not allowed people to put up tents and protest after 11:00pm are being sued.

So............if I plop my ass down in the middle of Hooters, and call it home, the cops cant make me leave. They must spend days going through the eviction process?

Or if I sit in the middle of the DMV...or the city gymnasium....or the city park that closes at night......

ANYWHERE I sit my ass down becomes my "home"?


If your logic was true, then every single police dept in America would be sued for making any arrest called "Trespass After Notice". Which is done thousands of times per day every day.

You are such a ******* retarded idiot.

Hey...I'm gonna go to the local Outback, take a seat, put a blanket over me, call it a tent and make it "home" and dare the police!!!! They gotta evict me!!!! (See how retarded you sound?)