It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

L.A. might sue Occupy L.A. protesters for financial damages

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
If los Angeles doesn't like the law of the land and the right to protest maybe they need to leave America and go back to north Korea where they came from
edit on 24-12-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)


Bwahaha!

For one tiny moment in history we agree.




posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed

L.A. might sue Occupy L.A. protesters for financial damages




As I have explained, law is a weapon.

And it's the sort of weapon that uses bullets, so whomever wins, has the most bullets

And the bullets are lawyers

Lawyers, all of whom, are beholden to UK/Zio-talmud cadres and colleges and restaurants.

Someday, there will be an America, which is not a colony of London. Until then, we have this.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
You can only sue the exact person who you have proven to do damage. However, imagine if all protestors can be SUED.

Fascism rules and don't protest it?

Also, considering they took away the right of group law cases against corporations, class actions, from what I understood in the last couple years, how do they think they can apply it the other way?

In any case, I'd meet this with increased protests, BULLHORNS, and target all elected representatives and anyone on public purse, ie courts, police etc until this world is FREE.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Left-ism always creates red ink, no matter what form it takes on. No exceptions, ever.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Why U Sue?

Its free Stupid!

Taxes pay for it!





posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Sorry, I don't get it


Must be because I'm Canadian



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


What he is saying is that "taxes paying for it" does not mean its "free", as "liberals" routinely assume.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by lucid eyes
 


Oh I see, that helps clarify it.

Thanks.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Is this what it comes to, suing the crap out of each other. wow. Sad thing is it will pass.
Why? Have some rich person take car of it



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 



I have a set budget.

With it I take care of my property. Which has a set amount for yard work. Now, If a bunch of people decide one day to camp out in my yard and destroy it [according to your logic] that is ok because I do yard work anyways not considering the extra amount I will have to now put out above and beyond the normal maintenance.

RIGHT?


People have paid their taxes but not everybody wants their tax money to be used for the extra expense of repairing the damage caused by a vocal minority. They'd rather it be used for other badly needed projects.

edit on 24-12-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)


So by that logic a person with cancer who can be saved is a minority that the tax payer shouldn't pay for.
When a disaster hits a neighborhood, it's only a minority and therefore your taxes shouldn't be used to support them and rebuild.
When black people won the right to vote, they should have had to pay for the expansion of the system, because they're a vocal minority and everyone elses tax $'s shouldn't have been wasted to support their freedom of expression.

Taxes are paid by all citizens to deal with all eventualities. Protest is a right in a democratic society, and no person or group should be required to pay additional costs for that process.
Requiring peaceful protesters to pay for the right to express their opinion is a limitation, a tax on political opinion. You're suggesting that others should be taxed more than you because they have a different political opinion to you.

Surely I am not alone in seeing how hypocritical this is?



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by lucid eyes
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


What he is saying is that "taxes paying for it" does not mean its "free", as "liberals" routinely assume.


So if your government stated tomorrow that you'll be paying 100% more tax, that you have no right to a pension, and that your kids will not go to college, you'll be happy to pay for your right to protest against those decisions?

Really, you'll gladly put your hand in your empty pocket, sell something or beg, just to be able to voice your opinion to your elected?

Seems like a lot of people here are only happy about the suggestion because the protesters are "lefty", "commie", "hippies". They'll soon change their mind when it's them being silenced and restricted while the wealthy lobbyists and corporations take total control of government.

Well done, you just failed the fascism test.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
I wonder exactly WHO they will sue ?

Is Occupy LA a corporation ?

Is it a sole proprietorship ?

Do they sue individuals who were arrested ?

Do they sue anybody who may have provided financial assistance ?

A lawsuit like this could expose a few things.



I grew up in LA. The sad thing is there does not have to be someone to get the money from. There are several laws in California that entitle victims of crimes to compensation from the state. LA would simply collect from an already overburdened state welfare system.

Pretty typical if you ask me. Hollywood makes all the money in LA and they do it off stories like this.

Next stop...movie but the region will see none of the profits.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual
Protest is a right in a democratic society,


People have a right to protest and express themselves.
No argument there.


and no person or group should be required to pay additional costs for that process. Requiring peaceful protesters to pay for the right to express their opinion is a limitation,


Nice try

Paying for the damages caused by their actions. Not paying for the right they already have to express their opinion.



a tax on political opinion.


Where in this thread has anyone advocated such a Tax?


You're suggesting that others should be taxed more than you because they have a different political opinion to you.


Reading comprehension isn't one of your strongest traits eh?
Paying for the damages caused by their actions.



Surely I am not alone in seeing how hypocritical this is?


hypocritical?

No, I thought your argument was more convoluted than hypocritical.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69


You mention that the tent dwellers should pay for their stay at "hotel sidewalk"?

Yet, that sidewalk, is the cornerstone of an institution called the Federal Reserve Bank, which impoverishes the world, and particularly, the 99% of Americans.

The Federal Reserve Bank is a killer of US presidents. There's much evidence for the backers of that foreign bank, having stolen gold at the time of the establishment of that bank.

Therefore, the trillions that the Fed makes, means that they should host a daily tent party outside their door. That is a reasonable American conclusion. They should host tent city at their door, since .00000000000001 percent of their wealth would buy tents and scrambled eggs, each day, for all the people they impoverish. Hell they'd even have enough left for toast and porta-potties and maybe a generator or two.

So perhaps you are confused as to the occupation? It is being done by the non-Federal bank that calls itself Federal. This tent city thing, is a counter occupation.

Get it? Occupation >< Counteroccupation.

Get it? Fractionalized bull# currency = pays for tents, breakfast, and basic hygiene for the homeless.

No way should these foreign banks take over our Treasury and not support tent city. That's just plain evil.
edit on 24-12-2011 by smallpeeps because: hmm right



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Good I hope they recoup some of the losses. You have a right to protest, not a right to destroy public property and create a huge mess. Thanks for the help 99%. The regular taxpayer (who just maybe doesn't agree with your protest) shouldn't have to pay for your little 2 month party. 'Lets help the people by being a nuisance and running up even more of the debt we're fighting!' Protest all you want but be responsible for your actions. They should just park some cops there and arrest and fine anyone littering, defecating in public or committing acts of vandalism. No I don't think all the protesters are bad, I don't really even think it's a majority.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


So, list the damages which resulted in these ridiculous charges.

I'd like to see how it can be justified that worn down grass and the removal of rubbish (much of which was only the result of the destruction of the camps to begin with) can result in these charges.

No doubt the costs of policing will be included in this bill. And no doubt you'd accept that too. Ignorant of the fact that you'd be open to the same charges for any political protest regardless of it lasting ten minutes or ten weeks.

Again, I suspect that a lot of people who disagree with the political opinions of OWS would support this, and then be the first to scream about their right to protest when they get the same kind of restriction and economic intimidation.

Whether you accept it or not, by agreeing with this suggestion you are advocating a tax and restrictions on the freedom to protest. Charging people for the policing of their protest is a restriction. Charging people extreme amounts of money for "trodden grass" is a nefarious tactic designed to dissuade people from voicing their opinions freely.
It's intimidation.

Clearly, I am not the one unable to comprehend.
edit on 24-12-2011 by detachedindividual because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by zroth



I grew up in LA. The sad thing is there does not have to be someone to get the money from. There are several laws in California that entitle victims of crimes to compensation from the state. LA would simply collect from an already overburdened state welfare system.

Pretty typical if you ask me. Hollywood makes all the money in LA and they do it off stories like this.

Next stop...movie but the region will see none of the profits.

 


I have heard of that.

So the "City" can sue a "name" whether real or implied or fictional and collect a verdict from an agency funded by taxpayers anyway.

I wonder how much money has been paid out since that system has existed ?

Sure makes for a wide open corruption racket.

Phony claims, phony evidence, etc.

The liars lawyers all get a piece.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   
"Damn these protesters, we could be doing way more important things with taxpayers money like buying nightsticks, tasers, drones and pepper-spray. Not to mention those rather fetching black riot squad uniforms with matching accessories...."



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


You are right, civil disobedience costs taxpayers money. Let's disregard the fact that income tax in America is unconstitutional for a second. Costing the public energy and resources to express a point that is for the apparent good of the nation is the purpose of civil disobedience, you could even consider it a service just as you would hiring a tutor or a lawyer. What is the difference between people in the street causing ruckus to express a point and taxpayers bailing out bankers that hold their money for them? Obviously the bankers and politicians aren't considering your interests when investing money and starting wars, but you want to ride these protestors to the ground for costing Starbucks a few cups of coffee and messing up a park.

What makes the people protesting so much worse than the people who hijacked the nations wealth and used it for their own malicious purposes? Admit it, whatever the protestors have done pales in comparison to what those who they are protesting against have done.

You can go on and on about how many pennies these protestors cost the tax payers all day long and make it sound like a valid point, the reality is you never had control of where that money was going to go anyways. It never cost you anything, nothing is different and when # starts costing more and more it won't be because of any protestors.

Personally I'm sick of people claiming the "taxpayer" argument, like they actually have a say in how much they pay or where it goes. Sure, it's publicized, now try and tell me you actually believe that #.
edit on 24-12-2011 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   
As has been stated, the right of free speech is not a right to anything else. They damaged city property and now they will have to pay. Who will be sued? Whomever controls the donation money. Whatever was in that kitty will be frozen and whatever entity controlled it will pay up if the suit is won. The donations wll go to the city to partially cover their expenses.
Beyond that, any suit is a waste of time. Individual suits would only burden the taxpayer more by clogging the courts and wasting public defender time. The same applies to jail time for trespass or mischief or whatever they can be charged with. It is not worth the effort.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join