Banks Cooperating With Each Other and Police to Track Occupy Protesters

page: 12
19
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 4 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Ahahahahahahahha
I like the way they squeal when the cops sit on them. The need to get some fatter cops to sit on those protesters and roll all over them. They should have special cop teams that trane all year on Crispy Creams for the event. Like some super sumo division of law enforcement. If those little $hits was out in front of my place they would be yelling for the same cops to come and save them. What a bunch of childish loosers.

But occupy has had its shining moments,

Text
Here’s what’s happening with Occupy Wall Street
October 13th, 2011 | Author: Posted by Ben Hart
For this Occupy Wall Street protester, freedom of expression includes defecating on a police car. He’s just another “Community Organizer” . . . like Obama




The occupiers will return and they will poop on more police cars!
edit on 4-5-2012 by redneck13 because: ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
edit on 4-5-2012 by redneck13 because: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX




posted on May, 9 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 

Also add:
the 3rd amendment - government will not house troops on your private property - NDRP -Peacetime Martial Law
the 7th amendment - right to trial by jury - NDAA
and the 9th - that the whole Bill Of Rights is enforceable.

And that leaves...a quick count on my fingers... None.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   
wizbangblog.com... /2012/05/06/bridge-bombers-name-appears-on-occupy-cleveland-bldg-lease-occupiers-mad-at-fbi-instead/


Tex
Bridge Bomber’s Name Appears on Occupy Cleveland Bldg. Lease, Occupiers Mad at FBI Instead

May 6, 2012 | Filed under #Occupy,Barack Obama,corruption,Culture Of Corruption,Democrats,Douchebag Of The Day,Economics,Justice,Liberals,Media,Occupy Protest,Society | Posted by Warner Todd Huston

In another story that should surprise no one, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reveals that the name of one of the Ohio bridge bombers nabbed by the FBI is so closely involved with Occupy Cleveland that his name appears on the lease of the rented warehouse they use for a headquarters. Instead of being ashamed, though, the Occupiers are mad at the FBI, apparently.

When stories about the late April arrest of five Ohio men who had formed a plot to bomb some key bridges in Ohio first surfaced, the Old Media called them merely “anarchists.”

It wasn’t long, though, before the New Media began to find out that they weren’t just any amorphous “anarchists,” but members of the Occupy Wall Street movement in Cleveland (Occupy Cleveland). No Old Media outlets reported this in the beginning despite how easy it was to find the facts.

OWSers initially denied this claim saying it was just a smear job on them but now the newspaper in Cleveland finds that one of the accused, Anthony Hayne, 35, signed the lease of the building the Occupiers use for an HQ.

No denying it now, eh OWSers?

The reaction of the OWSers, though, needs to be examined. The CPD notes that instead of being furious at their own member for his desire to kill people and indulge wanton destruction they were mad at the FBI and more worried about bad publicity.

Apparently having murderous bomber wannabes in their midst wasn’t that big a deal.

The paper notes that in a video of an OWS meeting one OWSer says, “We have a person facing terrorism charges on the lease of our warehouse. If this gets into the media, it would be a disaster.”

I guess having the terrorist among you isn’t as bad as the bad publicity when people find out? Notice no condemnation of the terrorist, there.

Another OWSer notes that they are trying send it all down the memory hole and have the landlord erase the accused’s name from the lease.

Another seems to think it is important that even though Hayne’s name is on the lease he never had the rent money in his possession. Why this makes any difference or absolves them from his membership is beyond me.

But the most telling part of the video was this…


During the general assembly meeting, one leader asked the group, “Is it just me? Aren’t you uncomfortable living in a warehouse where a guy has been arrested for terrorism? I don’t want to live in a place and have the FBI show up.”

If this isn’t hilarious! Instead of being ashamed that a would-be killer was one of their central members, they are disgusted that the FBI had once come to their warehouse HQ! They are more comfortable with a domestic terrorist being among them than they are with having the FBI around!

That’s pretty telling about what sort of people make up the Occupy movement.

t



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 12:56 AM
link   
Police state for sure.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Intimidation has been used since the beginning of time, and they will continue until someone gives, but I agree with a few of the first posters in this thread in the way that I believe scouring lawbooks is the best thing to do if one finds they're being stalked, online or off.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Rob the world about trillions and get away with it.... Camp in the wrong place and get arrested for it. It sucks that the bankers write the laws...



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by redneck13
 


It looks to me like you enjoy getting your information from MSN. Follow the money up. The same people that own the banks own the news channels. Stop believing the hype and noise and go and spend some time at an occupy protest so that you can get a fair opinion...




posted on May, 12 2012 @ 02:55 AM
link   


I haven’t derailed the discussion. Having an opinion that you don’t like isn’t trolling. 300 people showed up to the OWS protests...it was an epic failure....deal with it.


What occupy protest where you referring too..?




posted on May, 12 2012 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by redneck13
 





Yes, you have to pay for those thing freeloader wantabe. Congratulations on being disruptive members of society. The people that you claim to benefit are also thankful for the destruction of their personal property GET A JOB


Wow bud.. That is really a bit messed up. I think you have missed the point here... The bankers have robbed tens of trillions and you think the protesters are free loaders...? How many protesters have been arrested compared to bankers...

Pleae elaborate on your thinking



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 





Blocking access to buildings, shutting down bridges, vandalism, etc aren't covered by the first amendment, sir.


Yet increasing world debt by trillions is legal.. Putting people out of jobs is legal, creating poverty to such a high degree it causes starvation is legal...? What on earth would you prefer to do.. Bend over and take it. Funny that in the US whist arresting protesters Obama has been passing laws to give the bankers immunity..

What on earth are you whining about vandalism when your country has been taken to the cleaner. Really wake up. Seen what they did in Iceland.. Not covered much on MSM...




In Iceland, the people has made the government resign, the primary banks have been nationalized, it was decided to not pay the debt that these created with Great Britain and Holland due to their bad financial politics and a public assembly has been created to rewrite the constitution.


fb...

Stop defending the thieves..



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 





You can't be serious. Ok, let me ask you this. Where in the constitution does an American citizen have a right to 1) break windows on private banks, 2) set trash cans on fire, 3) vandalize vehicles, 4) obstruct people from entering businesses, 5) block roadways....I can go on. Show me that these actions are constitutionally protected and I'll be on board



Wow you really are conditioned if you think you need a peace of paper to protest. The constitution you speak off would nnot have existed if people in the past thought like you do now....



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 03:30 AM
link   
I think they are going to stsrt targetting specific individuals bank accounts soon shutting down even the most basic accounts to stop people buying stuff. This will be protestors, activists etc...



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by redneck13
 





Yes, you have to pay for those thing freeloader wantabe. Congratulations on being disruptive members of society. The people that you claim to benefit are also thankful for the destruction of their personal property GET A JOB


Wow bud.. That is really a bit messed up. I think you have missed the point here... The bankers have robbed tens of trillions and you think the protesters are free loaders...? How many protesters have been arrested compared to bankers...

Pleae elaborate on your thinking


Bankers are arrested just as protesters are arrested, when they are caught breaking the law. I do not have a problem with protesting (btw it does not solve the problem) as my reply was direct to some claiming that they are entitled to free services. Those services cost money and if you do not pay for them that is a crime, its called theft. When vandalism becomes part of the demonstration that is a crime, which is destruction of personal property. It is sad you cannot understand the difference between right and wrong. They banks loan money on terms, if those terms are violated the employed penalties under the terms of the contract come into effect. That is within the law. Are you getting it yet? Actions can be taken but only within the limits of the law or that makes you a criminal. As an example, you saw the pictures of protesters breaking out the windows of an American Apparel store (a big sponsor of ATS that you are using now). That store a hard working individual in pursuit of a better life for his family, they are providing jobs, they own those windows, and they probably chose American because they believe in keeping those jobs in the US, it is good for the country and that is called patriotism. If you do not like the way things are you change them by the leagal means available. If you take the law into your own hands, you are part of the problem, that makes you a criminal. You have shown the rest of the world what asses we are, with little or no respect for our own country and its laws. If those law-bidding protesters saw the criminal elements enter the event then do nothing to stop them they are accessories to the crime by creating an unusual atmosphere by making the illegal activities possible. Responsible protestors would have performed a citizen’s arrest on those criminal elements, which would have shown respect for the law, respect for fellow Americans and respect for themselves. By your way of thinking, if I do not like your reply to my statement I should breakout your car windows. I hope you are able to come to realistic terms when functioning in society, everything I have stated above should be considered obvious.
edit on 12-5-2012 by redneck13 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by redneck13
 





If you do not like the way things are you change them by the leagal means available. If you take the law into your own hands, you are part of the problem, that makes you a criminal


It is not always morally correct to obey the law. The western world has a long history of civil disobedience. Do you think the women in the UK would not have got the vote if people had not been willing to break the law. How about the US would the US have been created had people not taken the law into their own hands.

The law is not always correct. There have been times I have been willing to stand up and be counted and disobey the law. I have in the past been arrested for my actions. If more people where willing to stand up for what was wrong. Then things will change.

The problem with doing things through the legal structure is that the laws have been put in place to protect the banking elite. They write the laws and the laws are in place to protect them...




posted on May, 12 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 

I understand when people can’t vote, that means they have no representation in the laws that govern themselves
I don’t know who or what it is that you consider “the banking elite”
and
Protect them from what or who? Please elaborate on your thinking; you are not defining your reasoning.
edit on 12-5-2012 by redneck13 because: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by redneck13
reply to post by purplemer
 

I understand when people can’t vote, that means they have no representation in the laws that govern themselves
I don’t know who or what it is that you consider “the banking elite”
and
Protect them from what or who? Please elaborate on your thinking; you are not defining your reasoning.
]


The banking elite are the families that run the banking empire and the central banks. The empire now has nearly complete control of the world. What do you think all the wars have been about in recent years..

As of the year 2000, there were seven countries without a Rothschild-owned Central Bank: Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, Iran. Now it is down to just Cuban, NK and Iran. See the pattern.

Once you own the central bank every printed note in the country is owed to you with interest. Just like the way the FED works. This creates a debt system controlled by the banks. Once you own all the paper money in the country you can buy what you want. Land, government, laws etc. You do not need to invade with an army you can do it with money.

The bankers buy and own the politcal systems in place. Google the Bilderberg Group for example. Obama is the strongest Bildererberg US president in history. This is a group of the most powerful men in the world meeting behind closed doors to determine the course of world events. There is nothing democratic about any of it.

The people that run the show have put themselves above the law and are unaccountable. Worldwide they continue to pass laws to restrict our freedom and no one seems to notice.

Voting will change nothing. There are times when it is acceptable to take the law into there own hands in the form of protest




posted on May, 12 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


en.wikipedia.org...
You are only offering non-substantiated gibberish. The financial overlords that are out to doom humanity are banks lending money. Do not borrow any money.

If your government is incurring too much debt, you should be looking to your elected officials. Its time to end spending.
You are trying to say a bank has no rites to be in business. Then no one should?

Banks are taking away my freedom. They make it possible for people to begin businesses,
You are attacking imaginary shadows created by your puppet master.



Text
A bank is a financial institution and a financial intermediary that accepts deposits and channels those deposits into lending activities, either directly or through capital markets. A bank connects customers that have capital deficits to customers with capital surpluses.

Due to their critical status within the financial system and the economy[citation needed] generally, banks are highly regulated in most countries. Most banks operate under a system known as fractional reserve banking where they hold only a small reserve of the funds deposited and lend out the rest for profit. They are generally subject to minimum capital requirements which are based on an international set of capital standards, known as the Basel Accords.

The oldest bank still in existence is Monte dei Paschi di Siena, headquartered in Siena, Italy, which has been operating continuously since 1474

The law implies rights and obligations into this relationship as follows:
1.The bank account balance is the financial position between the bank and the customer: when the account is in credit, the bank owes the balance to the customer; when the account is overdrawn, the customer owes the balance to the bank.
2.The bank agrees to pay the customer's checks up to the amount standing to the credit of the customer's account, plus any agreed overdraft limit.
3.The bank may not pay from the customer's account without a mandate from the customer, e.g. a check drawn by the customer.
4.The bank agrees to promptly collect the checks deposited to the customer's account as the customer's agent, and to credit the proceeds to the customer's account.
5.The bank has a right to combine the customer's accounts, since each account is just an aspect of the same credit relationship.
6.The bank has a lien on checks deposited to the customer's account, to the extent that the customer is indebted to the bank.
7.The bank must not disclose details of transactions through the customer's account—unless the customer consents, there is a public duty to disclose, the bank's interests require it, or the law demands it.
8.The bank must not close a customer's account without reasonable notice, since checks are outstanding in the ordinary course of business for several days.

These implied contractual terms may be modified by express agreement between the customer and the bank. The statutes and regulations in force within a particular jurisdiction may also modify the above terms and/or create new rights, obligations or limitations relevant to the bank-customer relationship.

Some types of financial institution, such as building societies and credit unions, may be partly or wholly exempt from bank license requirements, and therefore regulated under separate rules.

The requirements for the issue of a bank license vary between jurisdictions but typically include:
1.Minimum capital
2.Minimum capital ratio
3.'Fit and Proper' requirements for the bank's controllers, owners, directors, or senior officers
4.Approval of the bank's business plan as being sufficiently prudent and plausible






Large door to an old bank vault.
Banks act as payment agents by conducting checking or current accounts for customers, paying checks drawn by customers on the bank, and collecting checks deposited to customers' current accounts. Banks also enable customer payments via other payment methods such as Automated Clearing House (ACH), Wire transfers or telegraphic transfer, EFTPOS, and automated teller machine (ATM).

Banks borrow money by accepting funds deposited on current accounts, by accepting term deposits, and by issuing debt securities such as banknotes and bonds. Banks lend money by making advances to customers on current accounts, by making installment loans, and by investing in marketable debt securities and other forms of money lending.

Banks provide almost all payment services, and a bank account is considered indispensable by most businesses, individuals and governments. Non-banks that provide payment services such as remittance companies are not normally considered an adequate substitute for having a bank account.

Banks borrow most funds from households and non-financial businesses, and lend most funds to households and non-financial businesses



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by redneck13
 





You are only offering non-substantiated gibberish. The financial overlords that are out to doom humanity are banks lending money. Do not borrow any money. If your government is incurring too much debt, you should be looking to your elected officials. Its time to end spending. You are trying to say a bank has no rites to be in business. Then no one should?


You can bring a horse to water you cannot make it drink. If you dont want to learn or research that your choice. I really don't mind. What I said to regarding the central banks is a fact. Prove me wrong. You cannot.
It is non substantiating because you have not chosen to look into the facts. Instead you quote me a useless extract from wiki...

Really is that the best you can do.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Now you seem to be reaching at Cliché type metaphors, what is next, name-calling?
A horse knows better than to drink bad water.

I had hoped by posting the link to the Wiki page you would have a basic understanding of banks and why they are essential if you want to live within the system. I did not want to clutter the thread with the entire page but so much for your investigative powers. Wiki cites their sources of information unlike many of the websites you claim to have gathered your information from. You are basing your information on what you want to hear, not the facts. You are expecting me to look through your facts but you are not presenting me much to go on.
I am looking at the pyramid you have here, that is not right, corporations have to answer to the government. They have rules from the federal trade commission, labor law, tax law and a slew of other regulations that make it difficult to be in business.
The Federal Reserve is part of the government and big banks have many government regulations to deal with. The bottom half of this pyramid is all wrong. Unless you are trying to imply that all the laws and regulations, concerning banks and big business are there just for show and they are the ones that really control the government.
Why didn’t you site your sources for you pyramid of knowledge?

I am trying to understand your reasoning for becoming a criminal however; you seem to skirt the questions when I try to pull details from you. The Rothchilds are an old money family and have been for years, which is because they are smart. They have been keeping other peoples hands off their money for centuries and if I had that money, I would do the same. I guess you believe there is a big conspiracy with the Rothschild family. If there is, does that mean it is correct to destroy other people’s property?
en.wikipedia.org...

The Rothchilds have laws to protect them, from physical harm? Don’t we all?

The Rothchild’s run the world? So the Rothchilds start the wars? They must be responsible for all the wars or just certain ones?

I see the pattern with the countries they do not have Rothschild owned banks; no one is climbing the fence trying to get in.

Currency is equivalent to a pay the bearer bond. The Rothchilds can only own the currency if they have it all in their hands.
en.wikipedia.org...
The Bilderberg Group is a group of leaders that want to be able to talk freely about what concerns them a get point of views from other people. If a board of directors meets in private, would that indicate they are conspiring to commit a crime? They like the Rothchilds need to plan strategies to keep their money out of the hands of criminals.

I guess you are not familiar with financial planning but it is necessary if you have money.
I hope that you are able to convince everyone with evidence of your claims so we can get everything straightened out however, I am afraid the reasoning is a manufactured product of those trying to use the feeble minded by fabricating unfounded conspiracy theories for their own arterial motives. It is obvious because the occupy movement does not have a clear message or a recognized leader.
www.americanthinker.com...

Text
The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.
Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven were two lifelong members of Democratic Socialists of America who taught sociology at Columbia University (Piven later went on to City University of New York). In a May 1966 Nation magazine article titled "The Weight of the Poor," they outlined their strategy, proposing to use grassroots radical organizations to push ever more strident demands for public services at all levels of government.


The result, they predicted, would be "a profound financial and political crisis" that would unleash "powerful forces ... for major economic reform at the national level."

They implemented the strategy by creating a succession of radical organizations, most notable among them the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), with the help of veteran organizer Wade Rathke. Their crowning achievement was the "Motor Voter" act, signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993 with Cloward and Piven standing behind him


If people in the occupy movement cant function in society why should they destroy it for people that can?


edit on 13-5-2012 by redneck13 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by redneck13
 


I am not just referring to the Rothchilds there are other families too.. ie the Rochafella, Morgans etc. These families have infiltrated government. They own government, the construct laws to protect money and put this above people. The WTO, IMF, and the World Bank and tools of the empire used to control countries and keep them poor. Not develop them and make them rich.

Corperations rank in higher than most governments and the ones they dont rank in higher than. They work in liaison with. Check out the Wikileaks files on Monsanto using the US government to create economic war on countries that refused to accept their products. If you think that corporations should be able to dictate to countries thats fair enough but I do not agree and would like to see a fair democratic system in which transparency exists within government and democracy is paramount to money. If you think that bankers should have the right to use the US military as its right arm to impose its will on other countries. Again fair enough but I disagree.

I really do not understand how you can be upset about a few windows being damaged. The real vandalism and theft are the trillions of dollars that have gone awol. In Iceland they arrested the bankers and rewrote their constitution. That was the exception, In the US Obama passes laws to give the bankers immunity.

Why do you concentrate on the small about of damage caused by the protestors and ignore the massive fraud committed by the banks, Do you never think there is time to act outside the law..? Do you think the law is always correct. Again I will point out the USA would not have been formed if not for activism nor would woman have got the vote in the UK.

Bilderberg does not keep the money out of the hand of criminals it puts it firmly in the hand of the criminals. The most powerful men on the planet should not be meeting to dictate the course of events on earth. That should lie in the remit of government. Again you may disagree. You might like dictatorship.



he Federal Reserve is part of the government


The federal reserve is not part of the government. It is a privately owned business. Have a look at how it was set up and who runs the show.




If people in the occupy movement cant function in society why should they destroy it for people that can?


Do you really think the system is ok and does not have problems. Do you really think these problems should not be addressed. Do you think we should just carry on as normal...




It is obvious because the occupy movement does not have a clear message or a recognized leader.


You are correct is does not have a clear message or a leader. Just like Anon it is a leaderless movement and we are all leaders... The lesson has been learnt from the past, When you have a leader to a movement the leader is just removed.... Lesson well learned..


Einstein said something along the lines of. To repeat the same experiment and expect different results is an act of madness.. Dang right and that is just what is happening now...

Soz for fast reply.. Just off to work..

k

edit on 13-5-2012 by purplemer because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
19
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join