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: 3
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Haha. This must be a joke of some kind! Who exactly is Occupy L.A. that they contemplate of suing?

Nothing but an idle threat made in poor, poor taste. If somehow it does go through though, then we should start filing class action lawsuits against the federal government and federal reserve for taxation without representation and make sure we get the best lawyers money can buy.

Then add racketering, embezzlement. counterfeiting, lying under oath, treason, psychological trauma, extortion, etc. Gather up all the criminals we can find, empty out the prisons with people serving trivial sentences and fill it up with them, then throw the key out the window and let them starve to death...like how they are treating the animals in america today!

Face it, most of these people who constantly hate and ridicule OWS are the same racist pigs who hate Obama and Ron Paul. These sling mud with the hope something sticks to their faces, but they fail each and every time. Well usually that is. They hate freedom!

By denying or restricting people the right to gather and protest it only shows you support a one world capitalist dictatorship. At least in other cities the local government is smart enough to keep their evil profile as low key as possible for fear of repercusions, but in LA they are not that smart...or as someone above me stated they figured out a way to cheat the taxpayers another dime.




posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   
LA has lost it- how would they even DO that? because basically it would be the public they'd be suing. they'd have to say that ever person had a hand in every bit of every problem- like suing the people that went to a football game for the trash left in the stands?

STUPID.



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 03:47 AM
link   
Good.. They should not only pay for the property damages they caused.. they should also pay businesses in the area for revenue lost because of their little tantrum.



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Care to elaborate, your lazy attempt at sarcasm wasn't very clear.

Make it simple for us regular folk


Who do you think should pay for it?

1. The people who did it.

2. Everyone else (the taxpayers who had no part in it).

Really, what do you think? Either way, someone has to pay for it. It doesn't pay for itself.


They already paid for it. If you gathered together everyone that was at the occupy that pay taxes you can bet it far exceeds a couple of million bucks. It's funny they want to sue over a few million in this case but the la riot which caused over 400 million in damage they let that slide.



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 06:51 AM
link   
Originally posted by SLAYER69
Originally posted by detachedindividual

You responded:


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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, his point came across well. This is what detachedindividual wrote:


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?


His examples make sense. You must have read those too. Instead, you cherry pick the point and answer the sentences that are most easily manipulated. Ignore the rest while diverting attention away from the points by taking on a condescending style. The only thing I take away from that is a sense of Mockery. Certain people would be proud.

detachedindividual is right. The city collects taxes for revenue to be used for any type of city business. If the city happens to be broke due to questionable practices that is a problem. The solution is not to force any taxpayer--involved or not in the occupy debacle--to pay again. I can't imagine that the city does not have some kind of reserve or emergency fund. I guess that got blown too.



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


Protesting did not cause the damage or police overtime. The rioting they did is what caused it.

When you damage property, its not protesting - its rioting.

As rioting is a criminal offense, they can ask to be reimbursed for expenses used to deal with the situation.
edit on 25-12-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


Good. Make those hippies do something with their lives instead of standing around complaining about how they have nothing to do.

Put them asses out in the streets and make them CLEAN UP THEIR OWN MESS.

Who knows, maybe they'll finally get a taste of what hard work is really like, and feel proud of something they helped accomplish.

...I doubt it, but it is absolutely worth a chance.



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Damn we got some dumb little tatertots posting in this thread. Just mindbending stupidity.

Anyway, this story seems topical here:




www.de.sott.net...


Top 100 Corporate Crime Stories of 2011

Corporate Crime Reporter
Fri, 16 Dec 2011

[...]

The big multinational corporations, which are the primary delivery systems of wealth to the 99 percent, have rigged the justice system so that when they get in trouble with the law, they either aren't prosecuted for their crimes, of if they are, they get special treatment - non prosecution or deferred prosecution agreements.

If they end up in the civil courts, they also get special deals - like neither admit nor deny consent decrees.


True, they pay fines, often in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, but this is pocket change to them - the equivalent of a parking ticket for serious wrongdoing.

They marinate the halls of power with campaign cash, flood them with lobbyists, and lubricate the revolving door - all to undermine our system of justice.



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by smallpeeps
 




Damn we got some dumb little tatertots posting in this thread. Just mindbending stupidity.


I'm glad that I'm not the only one to notice.

It's to be expected though, any mention of OWS is bound to bring out some mixed reactions. It's a really touchy subject around here so it seems

edit on 25-12-2011 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   
LA won't risk the counter-suit litigation costs to pursue this matter past posturing.
I wonder when someone is going to sue the financial criminals resposible for the protests.

I mean CA politics are rampant with obvious criminals.
The whole country is.
We need to call these idiots out.
From the President on down.
Misrepresentation, misidrection of public funds and fraud.

Either they are admitted ignorant idiots who should be stripped of their jobs and held responsible for defrauding us into believing they are competent enough to run the Federal and state finances, or arrested for knowing better and breaking the bank, which makes them financial terrorists by US law.
Screwing with the nations economy is treason.

Congrassmen and Senators too.
Should be arrested at once.
You can't write laws that allow you and your pals to subvert federal laws. ( insider trading laws specifically).
It's illegal, organized crime, and due to the massive ripple effect, could be construed as an act of terrorism against the US.


The minute one of these elected officials break a law that you and I must obey, they have violated their oath of office, and are no longer a representative of the people, band should be removed as such.

And now LA flexing on OWS?

Sue the people for protesting..........When the city should have simply managed funds better?
Gross spending, funds spent on pet projects, fighting the will of the people, militarizing their police force, fighting court orders to put cameras in cop cars.. man I could go on for pages on LA Alone.

Time to call them all out.

Vote these people out of office, and stop paying them to rob you.
Petition to have them arrested.
Countersue every time they try posturing like this.
LA is broke. They can't afford to fight OWS in court.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 05:26 AM
link   
It figures that L.A. would worry about this too !!




A proposal that would require adult film actors to use condoms has qualified for the June ballot after proponents gathered enough signatures to put the issue before Los Angeles voters.

Proponents gathered more than 70,000 signatures, exceeding the 41,000 required to place the issue on the ballot, according to AIDS Heathcare Foundation spokesman Ged Kenslea. The signatures were certified last week by the LA City Clerk.
Adult Film Condom Proposal Qualifies for June Ballot

Wheeeew !



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join