New York City to Pay Occupy Protesters $100,000

[JoeB131]

Such bullshit.

New York City should be sueing them for lost tax revenue, the police salaries for all the overtime, the damage done to both public and private property and every other damn cost incurred because of their "squatting" bullshit.

Yeah, screw that First Amendment, they are saying things you didn't like!

 

[Jroc]

Mo money...Mo..money...Mo money

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDJAJz0AXWs]New York City ordered to reimburse Occupy Wall Street - YouTube[/ame]

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

in a word - yes

Concepcion Picciotto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
War News Updates: The Longest War Protest In U.S. History Is Now Over
Silent Sentinels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the first case she stays on private property when not at her protest site, and her protest does not restrict access to the area. OWS took over the entire public space, removing other people's ability to use it. It is also still private property.

The other cases again are individuals, or much smaller groups, that have no impact on other citizen's use of said space.

Also they were not on the lawn, they were in front of the lawn.

Pretty fine distinctions there counselor. Think the judge will buy it?
Lets find out.

OR .....

$100,000 was a bargain. Take it and run.

You also have the issue of damaging personal property in an "over-zealous attempt to deprieve these citizens of their rights."

$100,000 was a bargain. Take it and run.

Actually the cops have the right to end a demonstration if they are given the authority to do so, as the protestors don't OWN the property.

For example:

A cease-and-desist letter is a letter demanding that the recipient refrain from a certain behavior or face legal action. Some types of behaviors that may prompt such letters include:[citation needed]
* Harassment by telephone by a collection agency or junk debt buyers
* Stalking or other forms of harassment
* Property, neighborhood, and boundary disputes
* Patent infringement, copyright infringement or trademark infringement
* Libel or slander
* Terms of service violation

In the case of property and boundary disputes, the letter demands that the recipient cease activity that negatively impacts their neighbors. Some examples include holding loud parties late at night, leaving a dog outside to bark all day, cutting down trees that stand on public or jointly owned land, or building a fence that infringes on someone else's property.

So these Constitutional rights, to use your freedom to assembly argument, don't come with any limitations. Just as there are no limitations at all to what an individual can say, because he can ALSO state that the effects of his actions towards those around him are all covered under the First Amendment and free speech? His constitutional rights therefore takes precedence over the rights of others. That is the argument that you are trying to make in this case.

 

[martybegan]

I know you Conservatives love the Second Amendment, can we show some love now for the First Amendment? It doesn't matter if you AGREE with them or NOT. They have a right to protest peacefully. This right was infringed on, badly.

either way, you can't break laws while expressing your rights. having a right to own a gun doesn't give you the right to shoot someone. free speech doesn't give you the right to trespass and create dangerous situations.

Where is the restriction against peaceably assembling on private property?

If the property owner does not want you on it, its called "trespassing"

The issue was created because these areas are private property, but regulated for public use (with limits) and the OWS people knew this.

FYI the rules for this have already been clarified to clear this up, these spaces now have defined closing hours and no camping rules so the property owner can ask the police to remove them as trespassers.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

What these kids needed was a good old fashioned ass whoopin. ******* bums sucking off the teet of society.

Yeah, no kidding. These people who just impose themselves on the property of others and cause all sorts of interference with daily commerce and wreak destruction just need to get their asses kicked.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

[/quote][/QUOTE]

let me ask you this. Why did your protest attack corporations and banks, who are actually living within the letter of the laws. Why didn't you go after the politicians who write these laws, who allow these situations to exist, and who benefit personally from writing these laws. Why not address the root of the problem?[/QUOTE]

Because you have to file a petition to have a rally on the D.C. Mall, in front of the capitol building. And these petitions seem to be granted only on weekends and during times when the Senate and House are in recess and no one is around except the Capitol Hill police. So no one who matters hears what you have to say. That's why. Any other brilliant questions?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

so what you are really saying is i should be able to own the exact same weapons as the military. excellent. and like the militarty congress should by my weapons and ammunition with tax payer dollars. please send me my RPG's, tanks and fighter planes

Sure.

We can finally disband the standing army.

It would be cheaper if those that want to be part of the militia pay for their own gear.

That was original intent by the way.

I wonder just how many people understand this. That indeed was the intention, for civilians to acquire their own arms at their own expense, because the FF did not want to furnish them.

This was the reason Abraham Lincoln wanted a Federal income tax, who's purpose was to finance the Civil War. Following the war the income tax was repealed in 1872, replaced by the establishment of tax on tobacco and distiller spirits in 1868. An effort to restore the Federal Income tax was ruled unconstitutional by the United Stetes Supreme Court in 1895. So if the subject is to turn and become about the Founding Father's "intention", we shouldn't have a Federal Income Tax system and the IRS should be disbanded.


The First Income Tax

 

[martybegan]

Sure.

We can finally disband the standing army.

It would be cheaper if those that want to be part of the militia pay for their own gear.

That was original intent by the way.

I wonder just how many people understand this. That indeed was the intention, for civilians to acquire their own arms at their own expense, because the FF did not want to furnish them.

This was the reason Abraham Lincoln wanted a Federal income tax, who's purpose was to finance the Civil War. Following the war the income tax was repealed in 1872, replaced by the establishment of tax on tobacco and distiller spirits in 1868. An effort to restore the Federal Income tax was ruled unconstitutional by the United Stetes Supreme Court in 1895. So if the subject is to turn and become about the Founding Father's "intention", we shouldn't have a Federal Income Tax system and the IRS should be disbanded.


The First Income Tax

The founder's intent should be considered when looking at the constituion, with the EXCEPTION of anything added or subtracted to it via amendment. That was the whole purpose and founder's intent of the amendment process, thier realization that the document might need changing as time went on.

So considering an income tax was added via amednment, the founder's wishes on that point have become moot. However the founder's views on something like the 2nd amendment still should hold sway, as opponents of it have not yet amended the constituion to change it.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

"Protestors" ???????? Comical

 

[there4eyeM]

The banks and the city are lucky Americans are so gentle and polite. OWS did not blow up the treacherous establishments. In some places, stealing so much money from the poor and middle class would foment revolution.

 

[martybegan]

The banks and the city are lucky Americans are so gentle and polite. OWS did not blow up the treacherous establishments. In some places, stealing so much money from the poor and middle class would foment revolution.

replace "gentle and polite" with "feckless and wimpy."

 

[Spoonman]

[/QUOTE]

let me ask you this. Why did your protest attack corporations and banks, who are actually living within the letter of the laws. Why didn't you go after the politicians who write these laws, who allow these situations to exist, and who benefit personally from writing these laws. Why not address the root of the problem?[/QUOTE]

Because you have to file a petition to have a rally on the D.C. Mall, in front of the capitol building. And these petitions seem to be granted only on weekends and during times when the Senate and House are in recess and no one is around except the Capitol Hill police. So no one who matters hears what you have to say. That's why. Any other brilliant questions?[/QUOTE]

so to you failure is an option. so how many banks and corporations changed a thing? I see CEO compensation is up yet again. Wall street is giving out record bonuses. they gap between the rich and the poor continues to grow. brilliant. keep up the good work

 

[there4eyeM]

let me ask you this. Why did your protest attack corporations and banks, who are actually living within the letter of the laws. Why didn't you go after the politicians who write these laws, who allow these situations to exist, and who benefit personally from writing these laws. Why not address the root of the problem?[/QUOTE]

Because you have to file a petition to have a rally on the D.C. Mall, in front of the capitol building. And these petitions seem to be granted only on weekends and during times when the Senate and House are in recess and no one is around except the Capitol Hill police. So no one who matters hears what you have to say. That's why. Any other brilliant questions?[/QUOTE]

so to you failure is an option. so how many banks and corporations changed a thing? I see CEO compensation is up yet again. Wall street is giving out record bonuses. they gap between the rich and the poor continues to grow. brilliant. keep up the good work[/QUOTE]

Oh, my , that can't be true. Why, the constitution assures free speech and assembly. I know it does, somewhere. Which amendment was it, now? Gee, all I can remember is that it comes just before the one about guns.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

let me ask you this. Why did your protest attack corporations and banks, who are actually living within the letter of the laws. Why didn't you go after the politicians who write these laws, who allow these situations to exist, and who benefit personally from writing these laws. Why not address the root of the problem?[/QUOTE]

Because you have to file a petition to have a rally on the D.C. Mall, in front of the capitol building. And these petitions seem to be granted only on weekends and during times when the Senate and House are in recess and no one is around except the Capitol Hill police. So no one who matters hears what you have to say. That's why. Any other brilliant questions?[/QUOTE]

so to you failure is an option. so how many banks and corporations changed a thing? I see CEO compensation is up yet again. Wall street is giving out record bonuses. they gap between the rich and the poor continues to grow. brilliant. keep up the good work[/QUOTE]

Because they are just clueless excrement and useless dupes of hard line leftist extremists....

 

[RoadVirus]

These folks were peaceably protesting something they had an issue with. The Tea Partiers did the exact same thing.

The Tea Party protesters didn't set up shanties in city parks and cause crime to skyrocket.

 

[Spoonman]

These folks were peaceably protesting something they had an issue with. The Tea Partiers did the exact same thing.

The Tea Party protesters didn't set up shanties in city parks and cause crime to skyrocket.

lol, i know. where do they dig this sit up from