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.

 

Man faces 13 years in prison for writing in chalk outside bank!

page: 6
57
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 



While I do not know the enviromental impact that chalk would have on the environment, however, the question is was there a study done on such? Can we be certain that it is biodegradeble?

sidewalk chalk is composed of calcium carbonate and some form of binder, like rice starch. it is harmless.

your whole post is beating around the bush of whether he did indeed vandalize property, and the answer is no.




posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   
We live in a backwards country where justice is based on $$$, not the rule of law.

scribble on a sidewalk with water soluable chalk outside the banksters headquarters and get 13 years

Destroy the economy of a whole nation by creating fraudulent derivatives and get bailout by the tax payers as well as a monthly injections of money forever.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
You'd have to look at the definition of "vandalism" in the city or state laws. I'd wager this would NOT fit the definition, therefore he'd walk. Even if he didn't, he should only be liable for the amount of the cleanup. The law exists to make one "whole", and that would do it.


I fear that may really depend. When the main thrust/season for Occupy was winding down into early 2012, they passed a series of laws to prevent it from happening again (in my view). Among them was an anti-vandalism law to cover federal lands. It included things like protection of diplomats, the President and the rest for Occupy and their type never getting close so as usually, it was a confused mess of issues in one bill. However, I distinctly recall provisions making it a major crime to deface or destroy federally controlled or protected property. There wasn't distinction made for the dollar amount or the nature of the 'defacing' and it was put forward then that simply planting picket signs could, technically, be defacing and destroying a court house lawn.

Stupid and crazy..I know..but so are many laws. It's all in how they are enforced. Banks would fall under it the same way they do for enforcement of crime. Banks are a federal crime to rob, even if it's a 100% locally based and controlled one. Why? FDIC Insurance and other regulation. Which...if I'm not mistaken, could be taken to mean the Bank's sidewalk as well.


The Devil is in the details, isn't it?
edit on 26-6-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Has NO ONE got any COMMON SENSE anymore?
This world is currently a screwed up merry go round and it ain't showing signs of stopping.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by evc1shop
 





I lived in San Diego for about two years and the only misuse of power I've seen there was when the police confiscated all of the homeless people's belongings when they went into the soup kitchen to get a hot meal. The police were claiming the stuff abandoned after they literally witnessed the folks walk into the buildings. They had their pickup trucks right there waiting.... said it was blocking the sidewalks public use and they were cleaning it up. The police said they should have left space for other's to pass if they were parking belongings on the walk (cited bikes and bike racks as an example) They stood behind the fact that it was the city's sidewalk and they had jurisdiction to remove it as a nuisance.


Damn dude just reading that broke my heart.


Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I fear that may really depend. When the main thrust/season for Occupy was winding down into early 2012, they passed a series of laws to prevent it from happening again (in my view). Among them was an anti-vandalism law to cover federal lands. It included things like protection of diplomats, the President and the rest for Occupy and their type never getting close so as usually, it was a confused mess of issues in one bill. However, I distinctly recall provisions making it a major crime to deface or destroy federally controlled or protected property. There wasn't distinction made for the dollar amount or the nature of the 'defacing' and it was put forward then that simply planting picket signs could, technically, be defacing and destroying a court house lawn.

Stupid and crazy..I know..but so are many laws. It's all in how they are enforced. Banks would fall under it the same way they do for enforcement of crime. Banks are a federal crime to rob, even if it's a 100% locally based and controlled one. Why? FDIC Insurance and other regulation. Which...if I'm not mistaken, could be taken to mean the Bank's sidewalk as well.


The Devil is in the details, isn't it?
edit on 26-6-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)


Turn a blind eye to their monumental crimes while you make it illegal to protest said crimes in many harmless yet effective ways. I know (HOPE) the guy probably wont get the 13 years but these type of trumped up charges are a weapon of deterrence they use to make sure people stay scared.

Similar to an article I read about PRISM. The greatest benefactor of this information being leaked was the American government. Now the people are scared to talk on the phone, send text or post online any form of dissent. Im sure everyone on ATS is place in neat little directories labeled "Trouble Makers".
edit on 26-6-2013 by StrangeTimez because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
He says he went 2-3 times a week. So 2.5.
He did this for 6 months, 4.3 weeks a month.
So, 2.5*4.3*6=64.5 visits
6,000/64.5 is $93 per cleaning

Sounds reasonable to me.





If that's your idea of "reasonable" then boy have I got a deal for you. I will spray anything you want with a hose, for...we'll say 2/3 to 1/2 that price.





This case is ridiculous, and fine evidence of what our country, and our world, is slowly becoming.




posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by StrangeTimez
 
My wife was teaching law at Cal-Western a few blocks from where it happened and she tried contacting whomever she could to get some justice. She used to work for the ACLU up in San Francisco a while back and is no stranger to the underhanded-ness that goes on out there. She was shaken up by it for a while herself. That was such a cold and cruel thing to do, taking away all they had.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 02:32 PM
link   
"This is BS and a case of a judge being paid.."



Maybe they paid the judge $5999 and a poor sap $1 to clean the chalk.

We live in corporate America , where money and con artist are a daily dose to our people. I would have to say the worst part is there is no way to defend yourself and it will always be one against all .it also comes to show how desperate banks are if they cant just hose/pour/even possibly smudge the chalk , what's the worst that could have been written , heck maybe if he would have drawn genitals or something I could understand but "stop big banks" .... ...........................really,it's that stupid. I wish the TRUE victim good luck and as for the banks hire a janitor for less than $6000 (for almost a year) you'll save money and you won't get your "very important" counting hands dirty.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 

In the state of California, any substance that could contaminate water, the person putting said substance where it can enter into the storm drain, is guilty of pollution. That is the law out in California. I used to work in an industry where the environmental laws had to be watched and followed.

But beyond that, did he have permission from the city to put such on a public walk? No. Did he have the right to draw or put anything on what would be considered public property? No. So if he did not have permission and ultimately was drawing or writing on the sidewalk, and did not have permission, he ultimately was doing an act of Vandalism.

In the state law here is the definition:
Every person who maliciously commits any of the following acts with respect to any real or personal property not his or her own, in the cases others than those specified by state law is guilty of Vandalism:
1) Defaces with Graffiti or other inscribed material.
2) Damages.
3) Destroys.

Whenever a person violates this subdivision with respect to real
property, vehicles, signs, fixtures, furnishings, or property
belonging to any public entity, as defined by Section 811.2 of the
Government Code, or the federal government, it shall be a permissive
inference that the person neither owned the property nor had the
permission of the owner to deface, damage, or destroy the property.
(b) (1) If the amount of defacement, damage, or destruction is
four hundred dollars ($400) or more, vandalism is punishable by
imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 or in a
county jail not exceeding one year, or by a fine of not more than ten
thousand dollars ($10,000), or if the amount of defacement, damage,
or destruction is ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or more, by a fine
of not more than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), or by both that
fine and imprisonment.


The actual rest of the code is found at the following link:

law.onecle.com...



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Isittruee
 


well if the Judges are refusing to upheld the law of the united states then that poor gentleman as no case to answer cause there is no law. Truth " RISE UP it's the only way to stop this bull# from happening does it only take Muslims, in Muslim country's to show us westerners how to do it they don't give a # but like I said in past post PEOPLE POWER will always prevail , we just don't stand together like they do, if the U.S Judges are like ours in England then they are probably stuck up some Coir boys arse.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   
If he maybe used spray paint I could understand the charge of vandalism....

BUT SIDEWALK CHALK!?! ARE YOU #*&#% KIDDING ME!?

Another thing that bakes my noodle.... How can they even laughably justify a $6000.00 figure for a job that only requires a garden hose....

Was it the delivery fee for the whole dozen 5 gallon buckets they would have to haul out there were they not privy to use of a hose?

AND THEN THE BIGGEST LOAD OF CRAP IN THIS WHOLE DEAL! (even moreso than a $6000.00 figure to clean up a water soluble children's toy.)

He cannot even invoke his own first amendment rights at trial......... In a court... you know, the place where the laws of the land are upheld.... like say.. the supreme law of the land?! You know.. that silly little document called the constitution!?
edit on 26-6-2013 by DaMod because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by StrangeTimez
 


these type of judicial cases should alert people to what that gold fringe around the flag in court really means..

you are under admiralty law. you have no rights. plain & simple.




When you enter a courtroom displaying a gold or yellow fringed flag, you have just entered into a foreign country, and you better have your passport with you, because you may not be coming back to the land of the free for a long time. The judge sitting under a gold or yellow fringe flag becomes the "captain" or "master" of that ship or enclave and he has absolute power to make the rules as he goes. The gold or yellow fringe flag is your warning that you are leaving your Constitutionally secured RIGHTS on the floor outside the door to that courtroom.



The Law of the Flag, an International Law, which is recognized by every nation of the planet, is defined as: "... a rule to the effect that a vessel is a part of the territory of the nation whose flag she flies. The term is used to designate the RIGHTS under which a ship owner, who sends his vessel into a foreign port, gives notice by his flag to all who enter into contracts with the ship master that he intends the Law of that Flag to regulate those contracts, and that they must either submit to its operation or not contract with him or his agent at all." Ref.: Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41



This is exactly why so many judges are appointed, and not elected by the people. The Federal judges are appointed by the President, the national military commander in chief. The State judges are appointed by the Governors, the state military commanders. The judges are appointed because the courts are military courts and civilians do not "elect" military officers. Under martial law, you are presumed guilty until proven innocent.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 

In the state of California, any substance that could contaminate water, the person putting said substance where it can enter into the storm drain, is guilty of pollution. That is the law out in California. I used to work in an industry where the environmental laws had to be watched and followed.


Kind of gets negated when the city also holds this every year: www.sandiegocoastlife.com... If chalk art were considered to be an applicable pollutant, then, well, the city of San Diego (or many other California cities) wouldn't be actively holding chalk art festivals.

I also worked in the oil and gas industry for years and can state that the damage from the chemicals used in the daily operation of a motor vehicle is substantially worse than anything a little chalk can do. Simply driving a car down the road or parking it on the street would breach that rule if there is any sort of leak of oil, gas, brake fluid or antifreeze. Haven't you ever looked at a puddle in a street after a rain? Any one of those things can easily seep into a groundwater supply or enter into the storm sewer system. In fact, many storm water management services have specialized sumps to help extricate oil and gas from storm water before it returns to the stream. Comparatively, I haven't heard of any specialized sumps that handle children's street chalk. But if drawing on a public sidewalk with chalk is a violation of the state of California's environmental laws, then, by your rationale, surely they should be pressing charges on everyone that operates a motor vehicle in that same light including those gosh darn kiddies and street artists in Little Italy. Also get those people living out in suburbia that are using Round Up and chemical fertilizers as well because my god, that stuff is far more dangerous to the environment than street chalk and if street chalk is an environmental offense worthy of arrest, then the usage of these chemicals should probably warrant the death penalty.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Thatta teach him.

Big ole meanie aristocrats



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04


$93 is what you pay to get a cleaning crew to show up. If it required real effort to clean from permanent markers it would have cost substantially more.

What the banks did has no bearing on this man breaking the law. You can open your eyes to the truth, but you are blinded by hatred so I don't expect that. Just because your neighbor is a felon doesn't make it alright to vandalise his property, with chalk or anything else.


All it takes is a garden hose and a few brushes with a broom to clean. Probably a 5 minute exercise for the buildings cleaners. Vandalism is causing damage to property. Public sidewalks are not bank property. There was no damage caused to the sidewalk. This perp will walk.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1

Does "freedom of speech" normally extend to acts of vandalism?

I mean if, for example, somebody you didnt like (eg. stupid neighbor) was to vandalise your own house in a similar way, then would you also be arguing that he has a right to do this because of "free speech"?

Because the law is supposed to work the same way, whether you agree with the person's ideals or not.


I agree it is vandalism, but to whom? I would think since it is on the side walk it would be a city issue. Maybe i am wrong, wouldn't be the first or last time i was.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Reading of the judges action of barring the mentioning of a persons first amendment as a defense in a trial, along with the fact that the man is looking at 13 years for essentially doing nothing just further proves to me that our Constitution was been completely usurped and that we do not live unders Constitutional law any more but instead are living under admiralty/corporate law.

People can mock me all they want and say I'm "one of those wackjobs that believe in the freeman movement" all they want but the truth and evidence to support my belief is staring at us everyday. Think about it, if constitutional law meant anything to the courts and judges this would not even be happening and even if it were the judge would not be violating his oath to uphold the constitution by placing a gag order on the defendents right but would instead be willingly defending and allowing his first amendment right to be heard.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by StrangeTimez


Jeff Olson, the 40-year-old man who is being prosecuted for scrawling anti-megabank messages on sidewalks in water-soluble chalk last year now faces a 13-year jail sentence. A judge has barred his attorney from mentioning freedom of speech during trial. According to the San Diego Reader, which reported on Tuesday that a judge had opted to prevent Olson’s attorney from "mentioning the First Amendment, free speech, free expression, public forum, expressive conduct, or political speech during the trial,” Olson must now stand trial for on 13 counts of vandalism.


rt.com...

THIS is madness. The kind of stuff that makes you scared to voice your opinions... We are going to hell in a handbasket.

One bank said they spent $6000 cleaning up the water soluable chalk lol....
edit on 26-6-2013 by StrangeTimez because: Addition


It would be Freedom of Speech if he stood....maybe on a soapbox...and spoke about what he believes.

It's vandalism and impeding upon the rights of the business (bank) by writing all over the street and sidewalk or god forbid, the bank itself....touting your opinions.

Madness? Not at all.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

His freedom of speech was not banned. Vandalism is not an act of freedom of speech.


Vandalism. You mean the way he put harmless chalk on the giant piece of litter that is a modern bank building? A bank doesn't get charged with vandalism when they pave over a natural swampland to build. Once again, shame on humanity.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 04:03 PM
link   
It is Freedom of Speech.

There is no Permanent Damage being done.

He used a Public Medium (sidewalk to express his speech)

On the other hand, buying of politicians via "freedom of speech" and polluting the airwaves with their filthy lies that encroaches on the rights and harms millions of other American's since they are not represented and don't have the money to buy politicians appears A - OK.

Let's not kid each other.

There are sidewalks all over that have soluble chalk drawings on them.

This is about the cockroaches at BOA and many other Big Banks that are fighting a PR war that they will loose
either way.

I am doing my part to make sure people never forget the crimes they have committed and have gotten away with since they own DC.

That is until they do away with Freedom of Speech for everyone but them and they are working on it.

They already have "Freedom of Speech Zones"

The citizens already have freedom of speech restrictions, but the plutocrats can spout their filth on the airwaves throughout the whole nation.
edit on 26-6-2013 by jacobe001 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
57
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join