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.

 

Huge Victory for OCCUPY DC: Judge Halts Eviction!

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a judge has blocked the evictions of freedom plasa and mcpherson park,
and required evictions requests must be seen by the court first.

According to this ruling, the Park Service must also provide the court with notice of any proposed enforcement. This Notice to the Court would be subject to Judge Boasberg's review.

Judge Boasberg has also ruled that all citizens at the two parks must be allowed opportunity, via the courts, to challenge any civil action brought before the court by the Park Service.





Further, the Judge stated that a class action lawsuit would likely be legal for all Occupiers who are party to any action brought before his court.


source

a class action law suit would be a very interesting development


The Judge's order did allow for enforcement by the Park Service police for exigent circumstances such as an emergency or serious health concerns. However, Occupiers have recently addressed health concerns by thoroughly cleaning the park.


so it sounds like the first of the wins for occupy is a big one
and the occupations will continue


xploder




posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Sounds like some really good news for the Occupy movement. I know that a lot of people, especially Tea Party folks, think that the Occupy movement is dead in the water, but little do they know! It has only just begun!

F&S, Good find. Thanks for posting.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Defibrillation for a dead movement.

Maybe they should start occupying a voting booth, It will do more than an extended camping trip to a major city.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by redbarron626
 


well i would think that you are sorely mistaken,
the fact that due process takes time is not to be confused with atrophy

occupy is a civil right of your civil society,
pieceful non violent protest by occupation is a very powerful means of change.

all over the world court cases are being fought,
some wins some losses,
all are "heard" in courts around the world.

you seen to think that because the process takes time, that means occupy is "giving up"
really?


as more cases are heard more questions will be raised

xploder



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Time for the citizens and taxpayers of DC to take back their park. Clearly the judge doesn't have the guts to do it or to enforce the law.

Time to Occupy the Occupy camp. Bring your soap, deodorant and lysol. Time to clean up the mess.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
I hope they grow huge, so huge they land up in Nancy Pelosi's back yard. And STAY for at least 8 months....in Nancy Pelosi's back yard.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Started off as a group of idealists making great points has descended into a rag tag buch of homeless and crazy people making a mess and acting like bums. Any headway they made has long since been destroyed by the eyesores of camps dotted around the world. The Edinburgh one was just cleared recently and they have seriously messed up a lovely public square. I saw the camp dwindle everyday and saw it turning from activists to drug users and tramps. Case closed



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by redbarron626
Defibrillation for a dead movement.

Maybe they should start occupying a voting booth, It will do more than an extended camping trip to a major city.


I remain skeptical as to precisely what this so called "OWS" movement will accomplish, and yet this news reveals they've accomplished more than I ever thought they would, but your assertion that voting would accomplish more is simply not true. Voting is the very least one can do in exerting inherent political power. Protection of unalienable rights will not be accomplished through voting, if this were true then unalienable rights would be comfortably protected as I write this. Tragically, this is not the case.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


well even if your not sure weather you like OWS, you might enjoy this news


Eric Schneiderman Suing Three Major Banks For ‘Deceptive And Fraudulent Foreclosure Practices



State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman filed a suit today against Bank Of America, J.P. Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo for creating and using a private national mortgage electronic registry system called MERS to bring ” foreclosure proceedings en masse based on deceptive and fraudulent court submissions.”


source


Our action demonstrates that there is one set of rules for all – no matter how big or powerful the institution may be – and that those rules will be enforced vigorously. Only through real accountability for the illegal and deceptive conduct in the foreclosure crisis will there be justice for New York’s homeowners,” Mr. Schneiderman said.


we can both agree that investigating real crimes of wall street is required,
this could signal good things ahead


xploder



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   
This is great news, thanks for sharing xploder. The more the judicial system gets involved the more a larger picture that can't be denied is painted and we need that larger picture painted desperately. The burden is on us (Occupiers, supporters) to spread this information case by case, and you're doing just that.

I think it's the court cases that will win over more support to the Movement as an uncomfortable majority of people get their opinions from the MSM even here at ATS, sadly. It's laziness to allow oneself to be so easily polarized by a few sentences and soundbites. There's such a larger picture that the MSM denies you, but it's okay...lucky for those of you who fall victim to polarization...we're not going anywhere.

Keep up the good work xploder.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
The cops are moving in anyway and aggressively. I just caught this is happening now but I can't seem to find what started it.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
The cops are moving in anyway and aggressively. I just caught this is happening now but I can't seem to find what started it.


here you go


The Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Health Care, District of Columbia, Census and the National Archives hearing aimed to determine the legal status of the Occupy DC protesters at McPherson Square and establish precedent for future protests.

Panel Republicans, led by committee Chairman Darrell Issa (Calif.) and subcommittee Chairman Trey Gowdy (S.C.), charge that the Occupy DC presence at McPherson Square constitutes unlawful "camping" in a federal park and accuse the National Park Service of allowing support for the protesters' cause to cloud its implementation of the law.

"At the bottom of it all is the issue of fair and equal application of the law," Gowdy said in opening remarks. "From this vantage point, it appears there are at least two different sets of rules."


link to source
the whole exchange



looks like political intervention on occupiers rights by congressional pressure.

xploder
edit on 4-2-2012 by XPLodER because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-2-2012 by XPLodER because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-2-2012 by XPLodER because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 



"At the bottom of it all is the issue of fair and equal application of the law," Gowdy said in opening remarks. "From this vantage point, it appears there are at least two different sets of rules."


Equal application of the law begins with the Supreme Law of the Land. Washington D.C. is bound by the federal Constitution which expressly prohibits government from denying and disparaging any rights not listed by Amendment. (Ninth Amendment) The health claims the government is making must proved in order or the "illegal camping" ordinance or statute to have any effect. If these health claims cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt then the assertion of "equal application of the law" now gets turned around on they, and just as it is for any other private person, if someone denies or disparages the right of another they are acting criminally and must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Grossly misapplying an ordinance, or statute in order to deny and disparage a persons rights is not protected by immunity, as those misapplying that ordinance or statute have moved beyond the scope of their jurisdiction where immunity does exist.

The health claims being made to justify expulsion from the garden may be true they may not be true, but if they are true, then the government should charge these alleged "illegal campers" with a crime and let them face their accusers. If they do not make charges this makes the government look suspect. Either way, if they fail to prove these health claims they've made, they're exposed to "equal application of the law", just as anyone else would be.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   
It's encouraging when you occasionally get a judge who remembers what their job really is. I will admit that I have an exceptionally low level of regard for the profession in more general terms, but occasionally you do get someone who is willing to exhibit a marginal degree of integrity.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


can i ask you for your opinion?
if there are "homeless campers" on the outskirts of a large city where the homeless and forclosure victims live,
the police have never "evicted" them due to health violations,

considering that these camps have been around longer the OWS protestors,
and considering they are living in the "exact" same conditions,

is the clearing of OWS and not the homeless and disposesed from these tents cities outside of cities, an example of tent cities being "allowed" to continue because they have no political voice or message,
while occupy is removed because they are expressing a political message?

i ask because it would seam that two sets of rules do apply to the aplication of bio hazard and public safety laws,
between the tent city citizens outside of major cities who have been there a longer time,
and the occupiers who have been there a short time.

if your poor and destitute and live in a tent OUTSIDE the main body of the city you are not evicted,
by if you are poor or protesting INSIDE the city with a political message you are a health hazard.

is this a good argument to make under the "14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause"

????

thanks in advance

xploder



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


The 14th Amendment is not necessary in order to rely upon the natural right to sleep outdoors. However, states across the nation have - and all too often in spite of the state Constitutions that grant them a limited amount of governing authority for a limited time - taken it upon themselves to insist that there is no fundamental right to sleep outdoors. Consider, as just one example, Jones v. City of Orlando:


Homeless persons are not a suspect class, nor is sleeping out-of-doors a fundamental right. See D'Aguanno v. Gallagher, 50 F.3d 877, 879 n. 2 (11th Cir.1995) (homeless not a suspect class); Kreimer v. Bureau of Police for the Town of Morristown, 958 F.2d 1242, 1269 n. 36 (3rd Cir.1992) (same); Davison v. City of Tucson, 924 F.Supp. 989, 993 (D.Ariz.1996) (same); Johnson v. City of Dallas, 860 F.Supp. 344, 355 (N.D.Tex.1994) (same), rev'd on other grounds, 61 F.3d 442 (5th Cir.1995); Joyce v. City and County of San Francisco, 846 F.Supp. 843, 859 (N.D.Ca.1994) (declining to be the first court to recognize fundamental right to sleep), dismissed, 87 F.3d 1320 (9th Cir.1996); State of Hawaii v. Sturch, 82 Hawai'i 269, 921 P.2d 1170, 1176 (App.1996) (noting that there is "no authority supporting a specific constitutional right to sleep in a public place" unless it is expressive conduct within the ambit of the First Amendment or is protected by other fundamental rights). But see Pottinger v. City of Miami, 810 F.Supp. 1551, 1578 (S.D.Fla.1992) (indicating in dicta that homeless might constitute a suspect class), remanded for limited purposes, 40 F.3d 1155 (11th Cir.1994), and directed to undertake settlement discussions, 76 F.3d 1154 (1996). Consequently, rational basis review is appropriate.


This ruling, however, is factually incorrect, legally unsound and untenable, and unlawful. It matters not that this ruling has been rendered by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Their status notwithstanding, the 11th Circuit had no lawful authority to declare that there is no fundamental right to sleep outdoors.

The 11th Circuit Court derives its authority from the federal Constitution. It cannot just willy nilly ignore the Constitutional restraints placed upon them and declare themselves the arbiter of what is a right and what is not. The Ninth Amendment expressly forbids them from doing so.

Further, in their legal reasoning, they cite as support for their contention there is no fundamental right to sleep outdoors; a lower court ruling from the state of Hawaii that argues that because the Hawaii State Constitution does not cite sleeping outdoors as a protected right, there is no "authority supporting a specific constitutional right to sleep in a public place", is an egregious error made by the 11th Circuit, as they are certainly not bound by lower court decisions, they should have known that the Hawaii State Constitution echoes the Ninth Amendment.


Section 22. The enumeration of rights and privileges shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.


~Hawaii State Constitution: Article I; The Bill of Rights~


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


~The Ninth Amendment~

This is not to say that the federal government has been restrained from crafting "illegal camping" statutes and ordinances, and if the can craft them as being harmonious with their constitutional restraints then these ordinances and statutes are lawful. Health concerns and other environmental factors are compelling arguments government can make to justify such legislation, but in order for a person to actually fall within the purview of such an ordinance or statute, they would have to be "illegally camping".

I think what you often have is states and municipalities who've crafted ordinances and statutes of "illegal camping" that can withstand constitutional muster, but that often what happens is that law enforcement branches begin misapplying these statutes, or ordinances.

None of these facts, of course address the question of whether there are people within the "OWS" movement that are indeed "illegally camping". If the waste caused by human habitation is left uncared for by those inhabiting the parks and other public places then those causing this waste with no regard for the consequences of not properly disposing of the waste are acting in ways the arguably cause injury to others, and the state, or municipality does indeed have compelling arguments that such inhabitants are acting criminally.



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join