It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


ABC Producer Arrested in Denver For Taking Pictures of Senators, Big Donors!

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 02:40 PM

Originally posted by manson_322
more proof that USA is a evil fascist genocidal empire ..... that harasses its journalists

This in no way reflects anything on america as a whole. It is a case of rich people pushing their wieght around with their money and not wanting their business printed in the papers, that happens everywhere around the world and is no way exclusive to the US. We have laws and due process and civil courts. This producer will get his day in court but long after the pertinent information he may have gathered will matter to the election or not. The people with power don't sit on their hands they use their power.

I want to know who the big money people were that didn't want their picture taken after meeting with DNC people. It must be very damaging stuff to the Obama campaign. Seeeing the scoundrels he is in bed with is not something they want published.

posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 02:46 PM
The government is digging themselves a hole here and I don't think they realize it, yet. I don't blame the cops for issues like this (aside from physically assaulting someone for no reason) as they're merely following orders. Speaking as a man with a family to support, I'd do the same. Having convictions is great, but feeding your family and keeping a roof over their heads is more important on a personal level. I do, however, blame the political machines that are ultimately responsible for this crap. Clearly the order to keep the deep pockets from being filmed with the sticky fingers came from somewhere above the cops on the food chain of command.

The hole I mentioned is that the government really has no obvious reason to bully this newsman. They've managed to back themselves into a corner where, if they merely release him with no charges he'll demand to know why he was arrested in the first place, and if they persue this the only legitimate thing they can charge him with would be imminent lawless action... which would mean they were acknowledging that something was going on at that hotel which, if exposed, would lead to the people being incited into possible riots or other lawlessness. So then they would be forced to either answer or at least hear the question of "What was happening there that was so damning you were trying to prevent the media from exposing it?"

The DNC should NOT be covering any issue vital to national security which could fall under the umbrella of confidentiallity law. Those issues are (I believe) legally restricted to sessions of Congress, be they normal or emergency, and cannot legally occur at single party conventions as I believe it would be illegal for them to be held at such a party-exclusive event. So any issue covered there either falls under individual privacy concerns (where they only have reasonable expectation of privacy which cannot legally include the police forcing media off of public property) or else it should be fully transparent to the public.

Any way you slice it, this is messed up.

posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 03:02 PM

Originally posted by Fiverz
Two points:

1) Aside from the obvious error in legal ownership of the sidewalk, can someone still be arrested on public property for taking excessive pictures of a private establishment? I don't think so, but someone with more legal experience can chime in here (plus that's not what he was arrested for anyways ... sounds to me like they almost made something up - "um yea you were um ... conducting yourself in a disorderly fashion!")

Well, if they CAN be arrested for doing it, then the paparazzi creating huge scenes around celebrities and being video taped creating huge scenes around celebrities are in flagrant violation of the law on an almost continual basis.

Since we see police sometimes at the scene of these paparazzi mobs doing next to nothing, and I happened to watch some argument between some California official and the owner of some paparazzi org. on some news show, I would say 'No, it isnt illegal to take a lot of photographs of people on the sidewalk even when you are flashing bulbs continuously in their face, blocking their vehicle, and generally making an donkey out of yourself."

The ABC crew and producer were doing none of the above. It seems to me very clear that this is just an attempt by the powerful to keep their bribing of our publicly elected leaders secret, or at least behind closed doors.

I would also like to commend Burdman on his work, DD for posting this, and I hope Burdman does send his take on the issue of whether or not the sidewalk was public to ABC. And, also, post it anywhere it will be seen by many, just in case ABC does roll over like a big fat lapdog.

posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 04:21 PM
This site HATES the MSM until something like this happens, then they are our best friends since third grade.

Just an observation.

posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 04:47 PM
reply to post by jprophet420

This is exactly the reason people hate the MSM, though. Normally speaking they wouldn't dare try to expose links & stories like this. Apparently ABC didn't recieve their kickback from George Soros or Karl Rove this month and decided to tear down the 3rd wall. If the MSM would do this more often, they'd certainly gain some legitimacy.

posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 06:00 PM

Originally posted by muzzleflash
well why do the "people " keep letting this happen?

why do they just take it without fighting back?

im really confused...

remember back 40years ago the black panthers would follow cops around with rifles to make SURE they didnt beat up black folks

wheres the panthers now?

Running for president?

The reporter was obviously making a nuisance of himself, the hotel asked him to leave the area, when he didn't they called the cops and signed a complaint, they then asked him to leave, and he didn't, so he gets arrested.

Let's see what happens next.

[edit on 28-8-2008 by Retseh]

posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 06:25 PM
did they inject him with something in the neck?????

look carefully as they hold his neck. look at the officer holding his neck. he has something in his mouth that looks like a syringe. he brings his arm up while holding his neck. then the producer is delirious, confused looking.

am i wrong? am i miss-seeing something?

posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 06:55 PM

posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 06:57 PM
I hate to break it to you but that is a cigar. Even the article referred to the officer in charge as "cigar chomping".

posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 07:06 PM

Originally posted by jefwane
I hate to break it to you but that is a cigar. Even the article referred to the officer in charge as "cigar chomping".

more than others, shouldn't we know not to believe everything we read? disinformation is precisely saying something like that. what other relevance does saying an officer is "cigar chomping" serve for the article? and why else would he be holding him by the neck? and why does the producer look delirious and slump into the officers saying "what's going on..." ?\

posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 08:50 PM

Originally posted by stinkhorn
I would go as far to say that 65% of americans are close to retarded in IQ. Look at youtube videoes about stupid americans, it sickining how ignorant most americans are. Thanks to the liberal dumbing down of the public education system, kids grow up to be stupid adult voters.

At least some of those idiots are considerate enough to remove themselves from the human gene pool for the benefit of all humanity...The problem is that the educational system & MSM lying in the same bed with a fascist government winds up giving birth to idiots faster than Natural Selection can take them out.

Maybe we need to up the IQ level of Big Corp honchos & government servants: For one thing corporations posses the equivalent of federal citizenship (as defined by the 14th Amendment) so that gives the corporation itself access to Civil Rights...Never mind the fact that a corporation is not even a living being of any sort & can not have "interests" to protect (only those people who work within a corporation can have "interests"). Just remove that citizenship status from corporations (but not the people that work within it).

As far as our government servants go, make 'em take an IQ test (the Constitution disallows a religious test), based upon knowledge & application of the Constitution that they swear/affirm a legally binding Oath of Office to serve...Before they actually take the Oath & assume their Office. I think these two considerations would go a long way to root out blatant corruption.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
The Money Trail: Putting on the Ritz, VIP Treatment for Big Money Democrats

I've been saying something like that for years here on ATS...The government is a corporation! The Civil War put the government on the fast track to bankruptcy & the best "fix" that they could come up with was to establish the Federal Reserve Bank...At that time, the government was officially bankrupt & hooked into a scam by a private banking cartel to turn the government into a "branch office" for the Fed Res.

As far as investigating corruption goes, pick a leaf from the professional detectives...No one tries to track people anymore: Instead just follow the money trail! Since the government is a corporate entity, it's primary "business interest" is to make money...So, to find the real corruption, follow the money trail into & out of the government!

Originally posted by eaganthorn
I see the gun laws in Denver are too strict. You just don't hear about this sort of thing in areas where the average person can carry a gun. It’s the only safeguard remaining in America against this type of intimidation and tyranny. Think about it.

Yep...Kennesaw, GA, for example, has Municipal Codes that run strictly "in pursuance of" the 2nd Amendment: People can even carry firearms in City Parks (Chapter 66, Section 2). The only restrictions on gun ownership are concerned with Personal Responsibility & Personal Choice.

Since enacting these Codes, instances of violent crimes (per capita) has been decreasing. Would that cop have been so "physical" with his "unlawful orders" if he knew that the reporters could have been armed too?

Also consider that Washington D.C. has the strictest gun control laws in America and, well, it's not called "murder capitol of the USA" for nothing...
Also, history has shown that any nation that put strict controls on weapons for the people always tend to be the nations that commit massacres of their own people! So never let the liberals tell you that you have to be disarmed "for your own good." Maybe Denver should be taking a leaf from the "Constitutional book" like a number of other cities have?

Originally posted by stinkhorn
Liberals say that Bush has created a police state, duh, its all of them, especially the dems. They want to control your life more than anybody else. They create laws to protect you from you.

No, they create laws to try to protect themselves from us, while holding themselves unaccountable to those very same laws!
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." -- Thomas Jefferson
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson
The problem is that when paranoids get into government, they try to ensure their own personal security through the power of making laws to induce fear in the population...Whenever new laws are created, there also new criminals are created. When the laws reach a point where everyone is a potential criminal, then there's tyranny...All due to the government's fear of the People. Does the real purpose of the Patriot Act come into better focus now?

Originally posted by Redhead6971
That is what civil lawsuits, and public demonstrations are for. The best way to effect policies and change are by demonstration, strikes, elections, and other forms of civil disobediance. Think about what Ghandi did. We should try more of his ways of non-violent protest. He freed his country this way.

Well, there's another peaceful way that not many people even think of...It boils down to the Journals of the Continental Congress (1:105-113) which have never been repealed!

If money is wanted by Rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, they may retain it until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility.

Since the government is only a "corporate branch" of the Federal Reserve Bank & money is the only thing that corporations crave...

Originally posted by SectionEight
It is a case of rich people pushing their wieght around with their money and not wanting their business printed in the papers, that happens everywhere around the world and is no way exclusive to the US.

Geee, since it's a hotel, isn't it? A business open for the purpose of making profits? A commercial enterprise? Free publicity? Yet now being publicized for allowing police to hassle reporters, against the 1st Amendment on public property (the city sidewalks) right in front of their establishment?

Originally posted by loam
This caught my attention:

He also said the arrest followed a signed complaint from the Brown Palace Hotel.

If the hotel management really wants to turn bad publicity into good publicity, then I'd think they'd rather support ABC's legal battle against the police in this case...After all, wouldn't such support give the hotel a "better name" than issue additional complaints against ABC? Sounds like the hotel (mis)management possesses a majorly-maladjusted company "policy" to me.
Ooops! What am I saying?...Of course, the hotel management is afraid that they'll lose more money in the short term by being "overlooked" for more such "conventions" being held in the hotel, as compared to the long term loss of money due to more of the general public refusing to patronize them in the future...

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
The government is digging themselves a hole here and I don't think they realize it, yet.

Actually, the government has been digging the hole for a long time...Every time they make new laws in opposition to the Constitution & maintain these laws through fraud, misrepresentation, illegal enforcement practices & lack of full disclosure surrounding their "contracts of hidden adhesion laws," they increase the risk that the People actually wakes up to the reality hidden behind the illusion. When the general public en mass reaches a "critical point" about the truth, that hole is going to be big enough to bury all of the criminals in government.
The rest of your post there is pretty well spot on.

Overall, I'm glad to see a "member" of the MSM following up on this...I've started seeing some signs of hope trickling out of the Judiciary Branch (admittedly, a small trickle) & now it seems there's a trickle of hope with MSM. Or maybe ABC is just looking to increase the bribe it'll take to roll over & bury that bone they're picking...

[edit on 28-8-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 12:10 AM
This is the police state in which we live in these days. It is the home of the silenced and the oppressed. It wasn't that long ago when we didn't have this problem, or at least it you never herd about it. But everyday, more and more, we are treated as common criminals and anarchist for having an opposing opinion or wanting to get to the truth and knowledge of what is going on. Alex Jones is right. It is going to come to a hear, and soon by the looks of it, that we are going to have to rise up against the globalist and take back what is ours. The Question is, what are the depths we are willing to go to in order to do it.

posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 02:18 AM
Wow , is that officer dumb or something he pushed Eslocker out in to the street Into on-coming traffic. The oncoming traffic was beeping there horns also. Then confronts him in the middle of the street. The city police officer in Denver just put his life and Eslocker danger. How did this officer ever make police sergeant. That was uncalled for. Im sure ABC will sue the city of Denver over this as will many others that had unjustified confrontations with the Denver Pd. The Denver P.D. has no right to do this that was a city sidewalk not owned by the hotel at all. Im never taking a trip to Denver.

posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 08:24 AM
reply to post by 2stepsfromtop

unregistered is absolutely key.

there are states that have essentially no state regulations requiring any

paperwork. i recomend you find one like i did.

posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 08:55 AM

posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 09:27 AM
My friend spent 3 days in jail for jaywalking. That officer forced the reporter to jaywalk. Is that not a more serious crime? I say 6 days in jail for the officer would be appropriate.

posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 09:29 AM

Originally posted by jefwane
I hate to break it to you but that is a cigar. Even the article referred to the officer in charge as "cigar chomping".

It is clearly a space ship piloted by Greys.

posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 12:05 PM
reply to post by Blaine91555

I agree with you man. Last year I was driving on expired tags (The plates were from california, I live in OH) and they had been expired for about 4 months. I lost the title after I had bought the car and so I had no real proof that the car was even mine. I also didn't have my license with me OR proof of insurance in the car lol. But to make a long story short I was driving on the expired tags, a cop pulled out behind me so I pulled into a gas station real quick and waited for him to go down the road. Well, he gets a little ways down the road and I pull back out onto the main street and was proud cuz I had evaded the cops. Well, to my unfortunate surprise he was chillin up a few intersections in the left hand lane and I drove by and made an immediate right at the intersection.. of course he follows me. He ends up pulling in behind me at a Tim Horton's and I got out of the car and he asked me what was goin on.. point is he was VERY polite and I could've been in some SERIOUS trouble.. but it was one of the most pleasant exchanges with a police officer I could've hoped for given my situation.

Also another time I got pulled over for having a headlight out and the highway patrol man that pulled me over gave me a 100 dollar ticket for not wearing my seatbelt.. besides giving me a ticket he was really nice-- and i've always heard bad things about highway patrol men.

[edit on 29-8-2008 by Ketzer22]

posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 01:11 PM

Originally posted by maria_stardust
Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.

This is a case of censorship and harrassment. They wanted this guy out of the way for the short term. There's no way in hell that this charge is going to hold up in court.

I hope you are right that there is an honest, good judge out there. Almost all judges are former attorneys. I have no doubt there are no honest attorneys, they are taught how to mislead and prevaricate in law school. I have never identified an honest judge, or cop. If there is one out there, it is a 'maverick' and has to go against heavy pressure from the Luciferian 'Justice' system.

posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 01:30 PM
reply to post by Gools

No, you'll never see anything from this, charges will be dropped and the game will go on. If he had been run over after being pushed into traffic, they would have sacrificed the goon, but never the man behind the order.

Police are out of control, inciting violence so they can "crack down" on violence. and the people who organize it are never held to account.

<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in