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.

 

Lawsuit against Occupy L.A protesters. Was the city council threatened or payed off to shut it down?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   
So this morning i woke up listening to KFI-AM 640 when i couldn't help to hear that L.A was considering a lawsuit against the Occupy L.A protesters. Now, the first question that came to me was "what protesters are going to pay for it"?
taxpayers?



The office of City Attorney Carmen Trutanich is considering filing a civil suit against Occupy L.A. protesters. Protesters could find themselves on the hook for damage to city property, the costs of remediation and clean-up, lost business opportunities and the loss of film permits, according to Frank Mateljan, a spokesman for the City Attorney's Office. "The City could potentially file a civil [suit] and attempt to recoup the costs for any Occupy LA-related damages caused by any responsible persons or entities," Mateljan wrote in an e-mail to LAist. The Occupy L.A. movement is famously (or notoriously) leaderless, decentralized and, well, not rich. So it's not immediately obvious how the city would try to recoup money from protesters. There's one exception: any damages the city ends up paying out to Occupy LA protesters who sue the city. The Daily News reports that there are two suits filed in federal and state court by Occupy L.A. against the city (although it is not clear what the nature of these two suits are). Mateljan confirms that the city attorney would be taking a look at any damages paid out to protesters that prevail against the city: "In addition, in any civil lawsuit filed against the City, the City has the ability to counter-sue for any claims or damages it may have against the plaintiff."


LINK

Was property "damage" not anticipated here? IMO, i find this lawsuit a bit absurd, considering that the council voted in FAVOR of the movement.


Here's a quick recap: In the beginning, Eric Garcetti told protesters to "stay as long as you need." The city council voted to support the movement


*that "EX-TEX" above is from the same link above.


This makes me wonder a thing or two...
Was the council meibe threatened or payed off to SHUT DOWN the occupy L.A movement?
Considering that it was growing in numbers and metastasizing to other places around the country?
Here's a picture i found that drew my attention to those questions above.



Now, will the Occupy movement return some time in the future in larger numbers?
will YOU support the movement?







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




posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by OUTofSTEPwithTHEworld
 

I don't see any reason to think someone threatened or bribed the City Attorney's office, when there is a much simpler explanation at hand.

From what you posted, the city has two goals; one, to get money from any identified protesters and national leaders (and the $ 3/4 million that came in as donations), and two, have the city's own lawsuits in place as counter-suits to anything OWS might sue for.

This will be, if fought out to the end by both parties, an ugly and expensive set of lawsuits.

And no, I don't think people expected criminal behavior or damage to property, the movement was billed as peaceful and non-violent.



 
3

log in

join