Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Amendment I: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So OWS has to right to protest

1. I see no right to "camp" over night in the parks.
2. State parks has hours of operation and I'm sure they're not 24/7 unless in a camping area
3. Local gov't gave leeway to stay and protest but it becomes a safety issue



Guidelines for obtainnig a permit to protest

Gather the appropriate information for getting the permit to protest. You will need an estimate of how many people are going to show up. You need to know the area you will be in or the route you are walking. You will need a time frame, though most jurisdictions have this already established.

Call your city offices with the details of your protest including the date and start time. You will have to fill out an application ahead of time and pay a fee.

Inform those involved in the protest of the city ordinances and laws surrounding a demonstration. Most cities do not allow you to block traffic, doorways and other areas that interrupt business or the general flow of the public moving around your city.

Carry a copy of your permit on you the day of the protest. Call the city the day before to ask about any last minute changes or requirements to make sure you are in full compliance

OWS made their point (whateverthefukkitwas). Time to move on.

Info on the judge who signed the 'Don't Evict' order:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/judge-lucy-billings-signed-occupy-wall-street-order-aclu-veteran-article-1.977725

Anyone shocked?

It looks like the ruling was just a temporary "hey wait stop, lets actually have some arguments first since everyone is freaking out"

Which seems pretty sensible to me.

Also don't get so down on the ACLU, they take tons of insane cases, bear the weight of ridicule, all for FREE just because they feel like someone should. I admire that.

Frazzled wrote:The mayor wiped his butt with the court order

Then let the courts gak on him and put him in jail.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:The mayor wiped his butt with the court order

Then let the courts gak on him and put him in jail.

The court order was issued AFTER the police went in, so nobody will get in trouble. They all acted in good faith.

I was mostly objecting to the idea that fething mayors should have the authority to ignore courts.

Melissia wrote:I was mostly objecting to the idea that fething mayors should have the authority to ignore courts.

He didn't ignore it. It simply hadn't been issued at the point when he made the order.

Are you objecting to mayors not being able to see the future?

Or are you just talking about frazzled? Yeah in that case I agree. If it HAD been issued first, he should have obeyed it.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:The mayor wiped his butt with the court order

Then let the courts gak on him and put him in jail.

Good luck with that. However, as noted above the order was issued after the action occurred. However the NYC has since stated it will not permit tents etc back into the park.

Rented Tritium wrote:Or are you just talking about frazzled?

Yes.

Rented Tritium wrote:The court order was issued AFTER the police went in, so nobody will get in trouble. They all acted in good faith.

I think we're not on the same page. The police acted in good faith when they were removed at approximately 4am. [url=http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/15/us/new-york-occupy-eviction/index.html?hpt=hp_c1]The order was given to allow them back in at 6:30AM, and they are refusing to due to EDIT, nevermind, you already saw this while I got distracted posting this.

That being said, I do think their right to protest probably does not cover erecting semipermanent campgrounds.

I really wish these guys would get their act together and go after the real villains. None of these banks they hate for being so greedy took what they have by gunpoint. Our government did that. None of these super unpopular bailouts were stolen from the US treasury. They were given to the banks freely by both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Go fight the real enemy.

Ouze wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:The court order was issued AFTER the police went in, so nobody will get in trouble. They all acted in good faith.

I think we're not on the same page. The police acted in good faith when they were removed at approximately 4am. [url=http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/15/us/new-york-occupy-eviction/index.html?hpt=hp_c1]The order was given to allow them back in at 6:30AM, and they are refusing to due to EDIT, nevermind, you already saw this while I got distracted posting this.

That being said, I do think their right to protest probably does not cover erecting semipermanent campgrounds.

I really wish these guys would get their act together and go after the real villains. None of these banks they hate for being so greedy took what they have by gunpoint. Our government did that. None of these super unpopular bailouts were stolen from the US treasury. They were given to the banks freely by both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Go fight the real enemy.

I think the bailouts aren't even far back enough to locate the real problem. If the congress hadn't spent the past 10 years giving them everything they wanted, they wouldn't have even been in a position to NEED a bailout. They were allowed to get so big and so entangled because they asked for it and nobody was responsible enough to say no.

Business is like a wild animal, you can't really get mad at it for doing what it views as in its best interest, but you can blame the person who was like "sure, I'll let you out of the pen"

That and of course, the real reason.
Citi was on the edge of collapse. AIG and Lehman collapses effectively froze the secondary markets. If Citi went the international financial system would potentially have fallen. That was the argument anyway.

The bailouts for the other institutions was a cover.

Frazzled wrote:That and of course, the real reason.
Citi was on the edge of collapse. AIG and Lehman collapses effectively froze the secondary markets. If Citi went the international financial system would potentially have fallen. That was the argument anyway.

The bailouts for the other institutions was a cover.

Most o which was caused byyyyyyyyyy...


... our old friend, deregulation!

People just want justice for the wrongs inflicted on them. In this case the deregulation directly caused the unchecked greed. If a gambler goes to a Casino and bets the farm and loses it, no one will bail the gambler out. But when Wall Street gambles and loses, the Government bails them out with OUR money. This is the fundamental reason people are pissed off. it is a damn shame that this whole tent business has diluted the real wrongdoing here.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:That and of course, the real reason.
Citi was on the edge of collapse. AIG and Lehman collapses effectively froze the secondary markets. If Citi went the international financial system would potentially have fallen. That was the argument anyway.

The bailouts for the other institutions was a cover.

Most o which was caused byyyyyyyyyy...


... our old friend, deregulation!

And our old friend - LAW mandating loans to persons who did not meet traditional lending criteria. Spread the blame correctly. There's more than enough to go around. Thank you Frank.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dsteingass wrote:People just want justice for the wrongs inflicted on them. In this case the deregulation directly caused the unchecked greed. If a gambler goes to a Casino and bets the farm and loses it, no one will bail the gambler out. But when Wall Street gambles and loses, the Government bails them out with OUR money. This is the fundamental reason people are pissed off. it is a damn shame that this whole tent business has diluted the real wrongdoing here.

You think the economy is in the toilet because of housing?

Small semantic point:

" In this case the deregulation directly caused the unchecked greed"

Should be

In this case the deregulation unchecked the greed.

The greed was always there, it powers our entire economy. We couldn't exist without it. The problem is the "unchecked" not the "greed"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
And our old friend - LAW mandating loans to persons who did not meet traditional lending criteria. Spread the blame correctly. There's more than enough to go around. Thank you Frank.

This is a bit of a myth. The banks weren't forced to do anything. They did it because they thought it would be profitable and they were wrong, but they were never forced to loan to anyone. Bad policy WAS involved, but it's not a mandate for loans.

Frazzled wrote:
You think the economy is in the toilet because of housing?

I'm not following here? Why did you ask this?

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:That and of course, the real reason.
Citi was on the edge of collapse. AIG and Lehman collapses effectively froze the secondary markets. If Citi went the international financial system would potentially have fallen. That was the argument anyway.

The bailouts for the other institutions was a cover.

Most o which was caused byyyyyyyyyy...


... our old friend, deregulation!

And our old friend - LAW mandating loans to persons who did not meet traditional lending criteria. Spread the blame correctly. There's more than enough to go around. Thank you Frank.

Common mistake, Frazzled. George W. Bush's nickname was "Dubya", not "Frank".

Rented Tritium wrote:Small semantic point:

" In this case the deregulation directly caused the unchecked greed"

Should be

In this case the deregulation unchecked the greed.

The greed was always there, it powers our entire economy. We couldn't exist without it. The problem is the "unchecked" not the "greed"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
And our old friend - LAW mandating loans to persons who did not meet traditional lending criteria. Spread the blame correctly. There's more than enough to go around. Thank you Frank.

This is a bit of a myth. The banks weren't forced to do anything. They did it because they thought it would be profitable and they were wrong, but they were never forced to loan to anyone. Bad policy WAS involved, but it's not a mandate for loans.

I guess all those laws mandating it were just figments of everyone's imagination. I guess all those times I had to fill out "race " by law even if they refused to do it were just figments of my imagination too. (well maybe, the job did indeed suck balls).

Frazzled wrote:
I guess all those laws mandating it were just figments of everyone's imagination. I guess all those times I had to fill out "race " by law even if they refused to do it were just figments of my imagination too. (well maybe, the job did indeed suck balls).

Prove me wrong, find one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You'll find PLENTY that are encouraging crappy loans, but none "forcing" them. At the end of the day, a bank still had to look at the loan and decide if the person plus the government encouragements were enough to make it profitable.

Not saying it wasn't bad policy to encourage it, it was horrible policy, but the bank still had to make a risk analysis and pull the trigger. It's on them.

I mean unless you think the banks are so stupid they'd just give out loans without checking just because the government said it was cool, in which case that says a lot more bad things about the banks than obama.

dsteingass wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
You think the economy is in the toilet because of housing?

I'm not following here? Why did you ask this?

Because thats only the housing bubble. If there weren't over speculation it wouldn't have been a bubble to begin with.

The fact we don't make anything has nothing to do with the housing crisis.
The fact China is a massive manufacturer has nothing to do with the housing crisis.
The fact Detroit is has nothing to do with the housing crisis.
The fact our steel industry is almost nonexistent has nothing to do with the housing crisis.
The fact, to buy US made union clothing you have to go on special websites has nothing to do with the housing crisis.
The fact you can’t find an electronic device outside of the military made in the USA has nothing to do with the housing crisis.
The fact that TVs, stereos, PDAs, computers, all are made in Asia has nothing to do with the housing crisis.
The crap related to Europe has nothing to do with the housing crisis.

Especially considering it wasn't during Obama's stint as presidency that such things went into act, IIRC...

Ouze wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:That and of course, the real reason.
Citi was on the edge of collapse. AIG and Lehman collapses effectively froze the secondary markets. If Citi went the international financial system would potentially have fallen. That was the argument anyway.

The bailouts for the other institutions was a cover.

Most o which was caused byyyyyyyyyy...


... our old friend, deregulation!

And our old friend - LAW mandating loans to persons who did not meet traditional lending criteria. Spread the blame correctly. There's more than enough to go around. Thank you Frank.

Common mistake, Frazzled. George W. Bush's nickname was "Dubya", not "Frank".

George Bush didn't put the pressure on Freddie/Fannie. Barney Frank did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
I guess all those laws mandating it were just figments of everyone's imagination. I guess all those times I had to fill out "race " by law even if they refused to do it were just figments of my imagination too. (well maybe, the job did indeed suck balls).

Prove me wrong, find one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You'll find PLENTY that are encouraging crappy loans, but none "forcing" them. At the end of the day, a bank still had to look at the loan and decide if the person plus the government encouragements were enough to make it profitable.

Not saying it wasn't bad policy to encourage it, it was horrible policy, but the bank still had to make a risk analysis and pull the trigger. It's on them.

I mean unless you think the banks are so stupid they'd just give out loans without checking just because the government said it was cool, in which case that says a lot more bad things about the banks than obama.

The Fed was. Frank still is.

Frazzled wrote:

Ouze wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:That and of course, the real reason.
Citi was on the edge of collapse. AIG and Lehman collapses effectively froze the secondary markets. If Citi went the international financial system would potentially have fallen. That was the argument anyway.

The bailouts for the other institutions was a cover.

Most o which was caused byyyyyyyyyy...


... our old friend, deregulation!

And our old friend - LAW mandating loans to persons who did not meet traditional lending criteria. Spread the blame correctly. There's more than enough to go around. Thank you Frank.

Common mistake, Frazzled. George W. Bush's nickname was "Dubya", not "Frank".

George Bush didn't put the pressure on Freddie/Fannie. Barney Frank did.

I didn't know that single members of the house of representatives had such amazing unstoppable power to force entire industries to do things against their will.

Surely, the communist revolution hid itself very well. I did not even notice.

Melissia wrote:Especially considering it wasn't during Obama's stint as presidency that such things went into act, IIRC...

Who the said it did?

Frazzled wrote:The Fed was. Frank still is.

Prove it.

Neither the Fed nor Frank have the authority to FORCE a business to do a thing. Show me where they did this.

Again, just encouraging doesn't count because the bank still won't do something unless it's profitable.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Frazzled wrote:The Fed was. Frank still is.

Prove it.

Neither the Fed nor Frank have the authority to FORCE a business to do a thing.

seriously?

Frazzled wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Frazzled wrote:The Fed was. Frank still is.

Prove it.

Neither the Fed nor Frank have the authority to FORCE a business to do a thing.

seriously?

Yes, seriously.

What you are saying here is that we have nationalized the banks. That is kind of a big claim to make.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Ouze wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:That and of course, the real reason.
Citi was on the edge of collapse. AIG and Lehman collapses effectively froze the secondary markets. If Citi went the international financial system would potentially have fallen. That was the argument anyway.

The bailouts for the other institutions was a cover.

Most o which was caused byyyyyyyyyy...


... our old friend, deregulation!

And our old friend - LAW mandating loans to persons who did not meet traditional lending criteria. Spread the blame correctly. There's more than enough to go around. Thank you Frank.

Common mistake, Frazzled. George W. Bush's nickname was "Dubya", not "Frank".

George Bush didn't put the pressure on Freddie/Fannie. Barney Frank did.

I didn't know that single members of the house of representatives had such amazing unstoppable power to force entire industries to do things against their will.

Surely, the communist revolution hid itself very well. I did not even notice.

You're right. Its all the evil Bankers fault. Once we exterminate them, er put them in camps, then Detroit will hum with manufacturing, HP will make computers in Alabama, and the economy will boom. Every man will have his correct portion of prosperity and freedom.

Nuts.

Considering the bankers were lobbying congress to do this very thing, I hardly find it surprising that the majority of the blame lay on bankers, as opposed to you whom seems to think they are completely blameless.