Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Law (full) Assembly-Strategy, Ease of Eviction-Legal Merit and Meeting Demands, Meeting NEEDS!

Posted 8 years ago on Nov. 15, 2011, 2:27 p.m. EST by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The issue of law (full) assembly is one that should be addressed by adoption of functional strategy. It is a shame to have all those people committing to doing anything less. If it was about getting a patently unconstitutional congress either constitutional or fully exposed and very obviously so; as being; against the constitution. They pretend that the previous interpretations of article 5 are okay, and there was some reason. The only reason could be is to get rid of the constitution by making the people too weak to defend it.----

Article 5 is our first and last constitutional right. If we do not use it now, it is very likely that we will not functionally have rights for much longer. Occupying with less than fully lawful intent, or DEFENSE OF THE CONSTITUTION (ultimate lawful intent), can easily be compromising perceptions and official reaction to assembly later that might be focused on the constitution.----

The early occupation and problems associated are used as an excuse for suppression of focused and fully lawful assembly.

7 Comments

7 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by The1capitalist (87) 8 years ago

You can protest all you want.

You must be moving i.e. walking while doing it so that you don't block the way for other citizens. because they have rights too.

Living in a park, privately owned by the way, is not protesting. It is forcing yourself on others

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 8 years ago

For one second, try pretending that constitutional government were about to end, in that you eventually become a form of slave, with no rights. If people were intentionally confused, and ripped off for their economy, could you develop a little tolerence if they were willing to USE their rights, rather than loose them, even if they were not too adept at doing so? I mean these are your rights too.-----

Or are you too comfortable to notice any of these things?

[-] 1 points by The1capitalist (87) 8 years ago

First, I don't agree with you, I don't feel our constitutional gov't is about to end. Secondly, everyone has a right to protest as I stated before, but not like this, I'm surprised the Mayor of NY put up with it for so long.

And by the way, my family is hurting like others, I am not that comfortable, but I do understand economics. I understand how a business operates, what it needs to grow.

I, personally hate, hate class warfare. I also disapprove of our current administration's policies, but I will fight for change the correct way. At the ballot box. I am much closer to the ideals of the Tea Party, and very, very far from the crazy ideas if direct democracy, and the lie that is cooperation (socialism). I will continue to try and persuade, you can do the same, but to take over private property and hold it for ransom, to talk about actual revolution, to say that the rich will be dragged into the streets and torn apart is not my idea of sanity. Not that you personally said these things, but this sites motto is "The only solution is World Revolution", and I have watched and listened to the live feeds, I have read OWS emails that anyone can read on the net, and I do not agree with any of it. I will fight it fiercely, even physically if necessary. Remember this is America, the majority of us are right of center and we take our second amendment seriously.

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 8 years ago

The1capitalist wrote: First, I don't agree with you, I don't feel our constitutional gov't is about to end.END--

Hmmm, I did err, but in that I did not indicate the full extent of the problem. We have not had a constitutional government for 140 years, so I should have said, our pretend constitutional government were about to end.-----

Here is the proof. The critical part to the understanding is what is contained in this .pdf.

http://algoxy.com/poly/polyims/Constitution.pdf

The "Lieber code", rules of engage ment for the civil war is what is really at the root of the federal government not the constitution. Which is the doctrine exercised by the "military industrial complex".

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lieber.asp#sec1

Pay attention to;

**Art. 3.

Martial Law in a hostile country consists in the suspension, by the occupying military authority, of the criminal and civil law, and of the domestic administration and government in the occupied place or territory, and in the substitution of military rule**

That is why no one can get the gold fringed flag out of the court room. No fringe is described in the constitution.

Here is the whole picture including the "Emergency Statutes" which begat the whole thing.

http://algoxy.com/poly/emergency_powers_statutes.html

The1capitalist wrote: I, personally hate, hate class warfare. I also disapprove of our current administration's policies, but I will fight for change the correct way. At the ballot box. I am much closer to the ideals of the Tea Party, and very, very far from the crazy ideas if direct democracy,END------

Me too with class and policy. I say unconstitutional. I have no confidence in the ballot box unless it is used in state elections upon ratifications of proposed amendments, first to release the stranglehold on unity that media has.

As I am a constitutionalist, I'm close to a republican in some ways. In other ways I'm far opposite, but appreciate much of the Tea Party position on governent, but worried they can't wrap their brain around natural law constitutional strategy. Yes, the constitution to defend itself.

As far as OWS, I see through their euro socialist/anarchist tendencies, which are an intended over reaction to the bizarre treason of the last 25 years. Academia and sub cultures of activism colluded to create a demand silently dependent on the existing system in order to place itself in opposition to it, which is FOLLY.-----

A designed FAIL.

The perpetrators of unconstitutional governments abuses, usurpation's, deprivations are huge, OWS has that right! Now, please realize that the needs of all those OWS folks are not really looked after by the origin of the protest, because there is no clear plan to gain the authority needed to meet the demands made, in any paradigm. The one existing or the one vaguely, incoherently described at times. Unconstitutional performance over decades by government have segments of the populations so outraged, that those in support of government are ready to deem the "outraged" use of rights, to protect rights as a lawless activity.-----

This is only possible because OWS does not align itself under law.

In reality, but unspoken, the protesters depend absolutely upon the constitution far more-so than the Tea Party. OWS is really using constitutional rights, and, BECAUSE it is not invoking law to protect the constitution (unconstitutional gov is the problem), it ultimately might be abusing their rights IF America turns its back on this kind of protest because of the sensational sabotages (violence, vandalism, set ups etc) promoted by media. Promoted by media OVER the fact of the human need.
Consider, a year from now occupation might be more of need than it is now. Let's not burn bridges, particularly in favor------

When will OWS simply stand for human need and quickest most effective way to meet them? Article 5 of the US constitution is made for this situation. Or first and last constitutional right.

The1capitalist wrote: I have read OWS emails that anyone can read on the net, and I do not agree with any of it. I will fight it fiercely,END-----

Consider that there is no leadership in OWS, and taking what is found in emails comments etc. as something that represents leadership or guiding requisite, is providing to much opportunity for misinformation. Seriously, I do not read right wing rants or leftist writings with any regard for a great deal of what is on the surface.----

I look at the cognitive effect and if the person writing is trying to actually get across a valid point for a reason, that I can relate to.

I support OWS for their stance on corporations and election finance, and hope, perhaps with reasonable folks such as yourself willing to post your view here, that some bridging can be created in defense of the Constitution.

[-] 2 points by The1capitalist (87) 8 years ago

First, thank you for replying with civility, much more of that is needed in our country, culture, and political landscape.

I have noted the links that you have provided and will see where they take me. Hopefully not to the place you say they do, but.....

If people with truly good intentions could come together, well, anything is possible, this is America after all, and I still believe in her.

Have a happy Thanksgiving

[-] 1 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 8 years ago

Bridging across social layers requires diplomacy and I sensed yours, and therein perhaps a capacity to see those links through to a fairly complete picture of what matters most. Our social contract, the government of it and purification of that government if anything but constittuional.

THX, enjoy!

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 8 years ago

So is anyone actually interested in seeing needs met or is this just a social event?