Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Legal group is pushing criminal law experts out!

Posted 6 years ago on Oct. 10, 2011, 6:48 p.m. EST by IndependentLawyer (93)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I'm part of a collective of criminal law experts that showed up to help the cause Saturday and Sunday evenings. We all specialize in criminal defense, would love to help pro-bono, are licensed in NYS, and live in the area.

We arrived Saturday and looked for some kind of legal infrastructure. We found the Nation Lawyer's Guild (NLG) booth. They took our info, but did not seem like they gave a rat's ass about having non-NLG attorneys help. We went to get dinner, and came back to find the NLG booth was empty, and no lime green hats could be found.

Still wanting to help, we decided to get to work. We sat down in the former NLG booth, made up a quick sign saying "lawyer", and started answering questions for all who came.

...

141 Comments

141 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by ms3000 (253) 6 years ago

I am with a group of lawyers and students and we would love your input on our action plan to organize and petition the government to redress grievances under the 1st Amendment. Please let us know if you have any suggestions:

Declaration: https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/

Action Plan: https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/home/the-steps-to-non-violent-revolution

[-] 1 points by IndependentLawyer (93) 6 years ago

My previous reply makes me sound like a bit of a prick. I didn't have time to read your links all that closely. Can you give me a 30-second pitch?

[-] 1 points by ms3000 (253) 6 years ago

to be honest I am so tired it would not make sense, I will private message you tomorrow

[-] 1 points by IndependentLawyer (93) 6 years ago

So you're calling for a Constitutional Convention as allowed under Article 5, but not really? If you want to redo the Constitution, just say so! It seems like you are going through a lot of trouble to "elect" some sort of extra-Constitutional "Congress" that will only have the power to petition the actual Congress.

[-] 1 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 6 years ago

That is my impression of "continental congress". As ms3000 says, "we thought those procedures too difficult to employ", relating to Article 5, but probably doesn't know that congress is basically violating the constitution IF the 9th and the 14th are used to interpret Article 5. This nation should have had one long ago. If the protesters were educated in this, WOW, would they have a DEMAND for congress. Essentially we have the defacto military government left over from the civil war pretending to be constitutional. The civil war was never formally ended and the victors of the north were assisted by british arms manufacturers which gained such power that the "military industrial complex" was essentially formed. I have compiled the fact recently substantiating this. http://algoxy.com/poly/emergency_powers_statutes.html

[-] 2 points by IndependentLawyer (93) 6 years ago

Your website reads like the ramblings of a mentally ill person, probably because they are. I will let you in on a secret (come closer so I can whisper): THE ACCUTREMENTS ON A FLAG HAVE NO BEARING ON A COURT'S POWER! No, really! Court purchasing personell buy flags with fringes becaue they are pretty, not as some secret sign to show people "in the know" about what type of Court they are in!

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 6 years ago

I'm a big fan of his web site and I have to agree with that assessment. His suggested revision to the First Amendment is the funniest thing that I've seen in a long time.

Thanks for volunteering your time and expertise.

[-] 1 points by IndependentLawyer (93) 6 years ago

I didn't feel like going through his site. Do you have a direct link to the First Amendment stuff (for the lulz)?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 6 years ago

Oh most definitely, check out this legal brief:

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

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 6 years ago

Please keep coming back to this forum. xo : )

[-] 1 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 6 years ago

Do you agree with the accounting of the end of the civil war here and how war is basically continuing on the people by the government? http://algoxy.com/poly/polyims/Constitution.pdf

[-] 1 points by AN0NYM0US (640) 6 years ago

That was interesting. I saw no facts to back it up, but it was interesting. As for the "God" stuff. There is a reason we have seperation of church and state. (We don't want to be Iran, do we? lol) Don't know if you agreed with that, just saying.

[-] 1 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 6 years ago

I see your point and did notice the religiousity in there. Believe it or not, nearly all US governmental entities are very well aligned with religion. But that is secret and will only be seen with very specific testing. That alignment extends to a sector of the population too, which is why the alignment continues invisibly. The one fact that was there, http://algoxy.com/poly/polyims/Constitution.pdf that I had been looking for, actually for years, was the "Lieber code" and how as rules of engagement, was controlling the defacto continuation of the military government after the war, was an important link for me to see how it worked. You might want to examine this page, http://algoxy.com/poly/emergency_powers_statutes.html that integrates that info into the larger picture going all the way back to the Magna Carta, because the constitution is based in it. The fact of the deflection of the creation of constitutional government because congress had not made a date to reconvene, is an important fact showing how an Article V is completely needed to break a kind of stalemate.

[-] 1 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 6 years ago

Also, your comment, "THE ACCUTREMENTS ON A FLAG HAVE NO BEARING ON A COURT'S POWER! No, really!" says nothing about the courts fidelity to the constitution, only power. Uh, what is with that? If they tell you it is a "ceremonial flag" apparently you believe them, but you have not read history OR the law. U.S.C. Title 4, Chapter 1 sec, 1&2 http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/04C1.txt The gold fringe flag is not the US flag.

[-] 2 points by IndependentLawyer (93) 6 years ago

Ok, you got me. You're totally right. A flag with gold fringes in a Courtroom means the Judge is legally allowed to take you back to his chambers and anally rape you. If it has multi-colored tassles it means the Judge will make you toss his salad.

You have cracked the secret code! I just hope you're able to hide from the black helicopters. If you are captured, make sure you kill yourself before they bring you to Court, or else they will put you in THE ROOM. Trust me, you don't want to know what happens in THE ROOM!

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 6 years ago

You absolutely cannot buy entertainment like the stuff in this exchange between you and the guy with the tin-foil hat. Thank you so much for participating in creating that wonderful art work.

[-] 1 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 6 years ago

It appears you don't take law or the constitution seriously and can't talk about Article V either.

[-] 2 points by IndependentLawyer (93) 6 years ago

I take the Law and Constitution plenty seriously. It's the people like you who are either paranoid delusionals or stupid enough to believe whatever bullshit they read on the Internet that I don't take seriously at all. Seriously, dude, there's a reason the men in the white coats are telling you to keep taking your lithium!

[-] 1 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 6 years ago

Actually, you probably are an infiltrator because I've just kicked your butt in legal issues having to do with the constition and how to enforce it and you don't have the integrity to admit it OR discuss Article V. Your attitude gives you away. It matches the many I've seen on forums conducting "cognitive infiltration". Your actions give you away. It is not what is said, but what is done, that tells the truth in this situation.

[-] 1 points by IndependentLawyer (93) 6 years ago

I'm pretty sure the mold on my bathroom tile has a more rational view on Article V than you do. While entertaining the delusions of the mentally ill is fun, I really have better things to do with my time.

Now,Why don't you pass the time by playing a little solitaire?

[-] 1 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 6 years ago

I'm playing a little lawyer instead:) . You have no intention of doing anything but disrupting valid proposals for change, just like an infiltrator. Congress is terrified of Article V, because then Americans take America back http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution "Congress acted preemptively to propose the amendments instead. At least four amendments (the Seventeenth, Twenty-First, Twenty-Second, and Twenty-Fifth Amendments) have been identified as being proposed by Congress at least partly in response to the threat of an Article V convention."

[-] 1 points by IndependentLawyer (93) 6 years ago

Damn, you got me again! I'm -totally- an infiltrator trying to ruin The American People's dream of calling for a Constitutional Convention by taking absolutely no position on the matter!

You're such a genius! It's impossible to believe that you're just a Thorazine-dose short of writing on the walls with your own poop!

[-] 1 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 6 years ago

We needed your confession of fitting in with the ignorance and working for cognitive dissonance.

[-] 1 points by IndependentLawyer (93) 6 years ago

You're a perfect example of why we need to make sure birth control is cheap and easily available!

[-] 1 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 6 years ago

Not logical. However it is logical to use your behavior of a perfect example of a "cognitive infiltrator". http://politics.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/

[-] 1 points by IndependentLawyer (93) 6 years ago

Yes, I'm totally infiltrating your mind! You really should stop doing that to your cat, they don't like jizz in their hair any more than you do!

[-] 1 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 6 years ago

You are attempting to infiltrate discussion here with obscene nonsense.
FAIL!

[-] 1 points by IndependentLawyer (93) 6 years ago

You're the one that infiltrated a discussion about legal advise with some bullshit about Article 5. Just get the hell out of this thread you inbred moron!

[-] 1 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 6 years ago

What I've done is called "posting in a forum" and I happened to have evoked a very questionable set responses from you IF a person is actually in support of the constitution. Your responses you have no interest in real law or the constitution it is based on. You are exposed.

[-] 1 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 6 years ago

If that is the case, how come no one has ever been able to get one out of the court room?

[-] 2 points by IndependentLawyer (93) 6 years ago

Because the Courts have better things to worry about than entertaining hand-written motions from crazy people rambling on about the interior decorating.

[-] 1 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 6 years ago

Such is not a reasonable answer. You are failing at being accountable.

[-] 1 points by ms3000 (253) 6 years ago

yes it is not under Article 5 b/c we thought those procedures too difficult to employ This is basically a shadow congress made up of regular people, not career politicians owned by corporations, to debate, vote on and present a list of grievances for redress under the first amendment.

The problem with this movement is that no one knows exactly what it stands for (other than anti "corporate greed") and there is no leadership to organize it a cohesive plan of action to change the government.

If this plan went forward and a petition was presented before election day, I think it would have a profound impact on the outcome of the election (just like the tea partiers did in 2010).

If those who are elected in the general election choose to ignore the petition presented by the 870 delegates, they would do so at their own political peril. We think the people would be so outraged, it would force change through a recall and resignation movement. This has never been done before but resignations are demanded and given in Europe (although less so over the past 10 years).

The process of electing delegates and then having this convention would also keep the focus on the movement people involved. The demonstrations and occupations would continue from now until the election in 2012 so pressure candidates to stop being purchased by Wall Street and the corporations.

[-] 1 points by ms3000 (253) 6 years ago

sorry for all the typos, I am very tired

[-] 2 points by IndependentLawyer (93) 6 years ago

… We were soon approached by some girl (whose name I didn't get) and told that we have to tell people we are not associated with the legal group, because they were the ones controlling legal issue. Guess what, I don't work for "The Legal Group", and they sure as hell have no right to tell me what sort of advice I give out.

I answered some questions for a student filmmaker on camera. One of the questions that came up is if I had heard rumors of police actions. I very clearly told the person that I had heard those rumors, but had no information to confirm the truthfulness of the rumor.

Within minutes of the “interview” being over, we were accosted by a college-age looking guy with long blonde hair and a red windbreaker and a much larger guy (probably “the muscle”). He started berating me asking why I hadn’t sent that person to the media booth, etc, etc. I never saw any signs for a media booth, and again, I don’t work for Media and they don’t tell me what I tell people. After a few minutes, blondie left after realizing I wasn’t going to be his lapdog. He kept talking to people while pointing at me, probably ratting me out or whatever.

A few hours later, we were approached by another short young guy with a goofie smile and a nametag that said “Ben”. He was accompanied by Alexander Penley. Ben asked what we were doing. Alex kept asking us about our legal qualifications. Unsatisfied by our answer grabbed our sign. When I told him that it was our sign he replied “mine now”. He then pushed my associate and said we weren’t real lawyers. Ben should thank his lucky stars my associate (a former boxer) didn’t punch his lights out. Ben went away still taunting us (which continued throughout the night) but Alexander remained. He kept going on about how highly he was qualified and how he was licensed in a millions different places and totally famous in his field. It should be noted that even though his business card claimed his office was in NYC, he is not listed in the NYS Courts Attorney Directory (and thus not licensed to practice law in the State of New York). We remained giving help until a little after 12:30AM and then went home (still being taunted by Ben). The next day (Sunday the 9th), we decided to bypass the politics of the “organizers” and go our own table, and a sign saying “Independent Lawyers, No agendas, etc, etc”. I set up a little after 8PM. I got quite a bit of people asking questions, several who had been given appearance tickets, some facing felonies, and many more with general questions. Even more simply walked by and thanked us for helping out.

The only flack we got were from “organizers”. They kept asking us why we weren’t with the NLG, why we hadn’t been to the organizing meetings (which we didn’t know about), etc, etc. The recurring theme was that someone would be coming over to “talk to us”. The only person from NLG that I saw was a woman who looked like she was going home (taking her hat off and walking out of the park).

At around 11:30 we were again accosted by thuggish-looking tall white male wearing a neck cravat and wearing multiple red medic crosses. He stated that he was with security and that we should leave, because we are “ambulance chasers” who were there to make money (despite us telling him we were working pro bono). He said the organizers had been talking about us and wanted us to leave (despite the unanimous thanks from everyone who approached us). He then squatted down and started yelling about 3 inches from my (seated) associate’s face. He should also thank his lucky stars he still has all his teeth. I told him to back off, which made Mr. Security sit up and step toward me, well within my personal space. I am not a violent man, but I will not hesitate to protect myself if I am physically threatened.

Mr. Security said he would be getting someone to deal with us, and walked over to were the Police were. He talked to a group of large civilians for a few minutes while pointing at us, and then walked over to us again. He then started accusing us of being Police Officers. As if the NYPD would set up a booth giving legal advice for some reason!

A very nice person wearing an NLG hat came over and spoke to us. We inquired about getting more involved, and he said we would have to join the NLG (at upwards of $300!). He asked a very basic procedural question that anyone with even a basic knowledge of criminal procedure should know. He revealed he was actually an intellectual property lawyer. Getting involved is important for lawyers, but someone with so little criminal experience should NOT be involved in defending people in Court, particularly in a complex high-profile case such as this.

This post is getting much too large. I will post how NLG is giving bad advice out on a subsequent post.

Best of luck!

-Independent Lawyer

[-] 2 points by powertothepeople (1264) 6 years ago

I hope you post about the bad advice - I think it's important.

[-] 1 points by IndependentLawyer (93) 6 years ago

I will try to tonight if I have some extra time.

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 6 years ago

God bless you for wanting to help. If what you're saying is true, something needs to change down there. I can understand they might be suspicious of possible "infiltrators" and saboteurs and I also know they have a "consensus' process which hopefully doesn't stand in the way of them getting actual work done. I'm not a camper I've just been down there 3 times to support the marches, again, bless you & thanks for helping people pro bono!

[-] 1 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 6 years ago

Who are "they"?

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 6 years ago

The people camping out at Liberty Plaza and the people IndependentLawyer was referring to in his post.

[-] 1 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 6 years ago

Thank you. I doubt very much that most of the campers knew about this or would have approved of running off legal help.

[-] 1 points by IndependentLawyer (93) 6 years ago

I'm all for consensus when it comes to deciding when to institute quite hours and the like. Unfortunately, criminal defense doesn't work that way. A criminal defense (or any, for that matter) Attorney who is worried about a group's consensus over the needs of his client, or lets the advice he gives be controlled by the will of an outsider is NOT acting ethically.

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 6 years ago

Yes, I agree, anyone who wanted to consult with you should have been allowed to do so without harassment.

I've actually been concerned since I saw the pic of the 14 y.o. getting arrested on the bridge. Many naive young people are attracted to this demonstration and don't realize the dangers inherent.

We decided not to walk across the bridge just because it would have taken too long to get back and we had a time constraint. I had no idea they intended to storm the bridge, it is very clear when you are over there that the police DO NOT want you walking in the street, had I walked over the bridge I would have known instinctively to stay on the foot path -- but naive people maybe not.

[-] 1 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 6 years ago

You said: Yes, I agree, anyone who wanted to consult with you should have been allowed to..

Allowed by whom?

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 6 years ago

Could you please follow the thread? If you read the thread & my replies in order you'll get the gist.

[-] 1 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 6 years ago

I've read the thread. Could you please answer my question? Who would do the allowing?

[-] 1 points by IndependentLawyer (93) 6 years ago

Yes, a lot of people are not familiar with the criminal justice system. This may be the first time they have ever been in trouble. Being handcuffed and taken to The Tombs or Brooklyn detention in a cell with "real" criminal can be extremely scary. Having someone who know WTF they are doing and can explain it to you goes a long way to relieving the stress!

[-] 1 points by gobrewers (22) 6 years ago

Thanks for taking the time to tell your story. Information and background on the organizers of OWS is really sparse. I appreciate you shining your light.

[-] 0 points by gobrewers (22) 6 years ago

I also find it odd that Intellectual Property lawyers are being used at all here. Why are they trying to defend "Intellectual property" at a protest movement? Ideas are the lifeblood of any resistance, especially in its infant stages. Intellectual property attorneys are in the business of "Hey - that was MY idea! And you can't have it!"

WTF

[-] 1 points by IndependentLawyer (93) 6 years ago

The IP guys was here to help people who were arrested, etc. He wasn't here as an IP lawyer, that's just his "day job".

[-] 0 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 6 years ago

Wow, this is very interesting. Who are these self appointed nanny's of the protests? I know what I would do and that's tell them fuck off. I would inform them, "You are not the boss of me, skippy." The very idea that someone would try to interfere with my offering needed assistance would REALLY piss me off. I hope you don't call it quits because of a few control freaks. They have NO RIGHT to imply that they are in charge of anything - because they aren't. No doubt, some people will very much need what you have to offer.

[-] 2 points by IndependentLawyer (93) 6 years ago

Unfortunately, we did opt to call it quits. Helping out is not worth the aggravation or threats on our personal safety.

[-] 1 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 6 years ago

Come on! You don't actually think they'd have the audacity to assault you, do you??? Call their self important bluff. We the People need to do this with the control freaks wherever they rear their ugly heads and when they aren't armed, lol.

[-] 1 points by IndependentLawyer (93) 6 years ago

I don't want to find out. I have no problem taking any of these assholes down, but why deal with the hassle.

It's also hard for just 3 of us to man the booth for any reasonable amount of time. We all have full Court calendars and other responsibilities to deal with.

Also, having a presence in the city is expensive for us. We are all self-employed, and getting down to the city from Westchester, as well as spending all that non-billiable time is unsustainable. We do have bills to pay, after all.

[-] 1 points by IndependentLawyer (93) 6 years ago

That said, if anyone from OCW calls us, we are willing to help them in Court, and will stand by our offer of pro-bono representation of anyone arrested for a Violation (Disorderly Conduct, Unlawful Possession of Marihuana, etc).

[-] 1 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 6 years ago

Well, it's good of you to do what you can and what you feel comfortable with. Probably a lot more than most attys would do.

Thanks for sharing what I find to be a rather disturbing story.

[-] 0 points by FuManchu (619) 6 years ago

Sounds like union behavior. Or people trying to sabotage OWS

[-] 1 points by convertiblecaddy (89) 6 years ago

File class action lawsuits against HSBC, BANK OF AMERICA/COUNTRYWIDE, JP MORGAN CHASE, WELLS FARGO, CITIBANK, for fraud, and illegal foreclosures, predatory lending..etc., THIS WOULD HELP THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS....We have public defenders for criminal problems..We have financial, economic, and social inequality issues!

[-] 1 points by IndependentLawyer (93) 6 years ago

Not saying that's not needed, but that's not what the NLG, my group, or myself do. I'm a criminal defense attorney, not a financial contracts or class action.

[-] 1 points by atki4564 (1259) from Lake Placid, FL 6 years ago

As lawyers, in addition to providing criminal law services, we more importantly need constitutional law services, and although I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 10% Management Group of Business & Government, there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers ourselves. Consequently, I have posted a 1-page Summary of the Strategic Legal Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to do this at:

http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategic_legal_policy_organizational_operational_structures_tactical_investment_procedures

Join

http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/

if you want to support a Presidential Candidate – myself – at AmericansElect.org in support of the above bank-focused platform.

[-] 1 points by StevenMagnetgAyq5lzi952 (40) 6 years ago

Make a lemonade stand that says "legal advice" with a tin can. donate the proceeds to the bail fund of anyone arrested.

[-] 1 points by Esposito (173) 6 years ago

Can you help me out with my parking tickets?

[-] 1 points by IndependentLawyer (93) 6 years ago

Not pro bono unless you're looking at jail time!

[-] 1 points by Esposito (173) 6 years ago

Bummer.

[-] 1 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 6 years ago
[-] 1 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 6 years ago

Hey, Independent Lawyer, here's what you do: Bring a card table and chair, hang out a sign that says "Free legal advice" and tell anyone who says you can't to eat shit and die.

[-] 1 points by IndependentLawyer (93) 6 years ago

That's exactly what we did (read the continuation of the story down below a bit), and were continually harassed. I'm not going to risk physical assault at the hands of "security" in order to do this. Pro Bono doesn't pay enough for this shit :-)

[-] 1 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 6 years ago

Okay, I'll read below. I thought you said that you sat in the Nazi lawyer's booth/spot, though. That's why you need your own. That said, I may have missed something so I'll go look...

[-] 1 points by IndependentLawyer (93) 6 years ago

Yeah, there is a limit on the length of original posts, so I had to ad the rest of the story as a comment.

[-] 1 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 6 years ago

Just read it and commented.

[-] 1 points by ms3000 (253) 6 years ago

if you accuse everyone who offers help with having an agenda we will get nowhere, The whole idea behind the 99% is that we are all in the same boat, set adrift by the 1% (excuse the extended metaphor) but have very different priorities and views on how to get back in dry land

[-] 1 points by IndependentLawyer (93) 6 years ago

I have no idea if NLG had an agenda, I just made sure people who approaches us for help knew that we didn't.

[-] 1 points by rxantos (87) 6 years ago

Sounds to me like a group with an agenda.

Good that this is a decentralized movement. That way groups cannot hijack it for their own agenda (although many are trying). I applaud your decision to offer help anyway.

[-] 1 points by ThinMan (54) 6 years ago

Legal group is pushing criminal law experts out!

That sounds disgusting!

[-] 1 points by IndependentLawyer (93) 6 years ago

Oh man, I'm so tired it took me until now to get the joke! :-\

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 6 years ago

the whole thing is disorganized mess. we need serious organization its probably the organizational failure don't take it personally.

thanks for your interest and time, keep at it..


http://occupywallst.org/forum/thetruth-socialismcapitalismcommunismmarxism/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/capitalism-versus-corporatism/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/no-war/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/help-me-understand/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/capitalism-a-love-story/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/sociology/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/energy-101-solution/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/ethics/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/break-your-left-right-conditioning/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/nader-kucinich-and-paul/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/5-facts-you-should-know-about-the-wealthiest-one-p/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/i-am-homeless-joe-jp-morgan-chase-accidentally-for/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/can-we-end-the-fed/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-end-the-federal-reserve-and-what-do-you-replac/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/teaching-the-occupation/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/this-forum-needs-structure/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-is-not-your-personal-billboard-for-your-politi/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/systems-theory-primer/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/organize-inform-take-action-effect-change/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/better-website-needed/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/stop-playing-the-devils-games/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/nonviolence-the-only-path/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-not-against-capitalism/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/this-is-not-about-political-stripe-it-is-about-bas/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/national-initiative-for-democracy/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/a-third-political-party-the-movement-of-the-middle/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/300-fema-camps/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-is-a-false-flag-operation/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-this-will-not-work/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/paradigm-shift-now/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/a-proposal-for-focus/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/stop-the-bullshit-posts-and-get-organized/

[-] 1 points by IndependentLawyer (93) 6 years ago

Unfortunately I have better things to do than get berated by a bunch of over-privileged stoner kids protesting how riche their daddies are, simply for trying to help. They can kiss my ass. I will gladly help anyone who calls, but I'm not going down to Wall Street any time soon.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 6 years ago

Oh no, you missed your chance here. This one is at least as crazy as the one with the conspiracy theory about the courtroom flag. You just have to scratch the surface a little with this one to discover it. Something in the water in Santa Barbara, apparently. Both of these guys are esteemed honorees of the Iserbyt Award, for excellence in crackpot ideology.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 6 years ago

er. me neither? i feel ya.

[-] 0 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 6 years ago

its become clear what "independent lawyers" agenda was and is, and why the crowd would walk away from him. good job Chris Brown for exposing this fraud and con scammer.

[-] 1 points by IndependentLawyer (93) 6 years ago

Gee, someone from the exact same place as ChristopherABrown, spouting the same bullshit. No, couldn't possibly be a troll and his alt. Of course not!

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 6 years ago

we do live in the same city, but thats not the exact same place.

Chris just arrived on the scene. I have been here for days.

i love paranoid delusional lawyers. lol.

[-] 1 points by IndependentLawyer (93) 6 years ago

Some idiot has an obviously schizo site about how fringes on a flag denote a Court where the common law doesn't apply, and I'm the paranoid delusional! Suuuuure!

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 6 years ago

hes right. the fringe on the flag means its a military flag, the moment you step into any modern court room you have left the United States and entered THE UNITED STATES; which is a martial law and admiralty law corporate system.

[-] -1 points by Reigne (175) 6 years ago

Dear IndependentLawyer,

Who/What did you give an Oath to as a BAR Attny/Lawyer - I mean other than to the BAR to obtain your membership?

I don't know why you don't believe Some of the Statutes/Codes/Regulations/parts of Constitution but then believe other Statutes/Codes/Regulations/parts of the Constitution.

It's TRUE about the Flag. It is USED for Identity of a nation/country, or branch of said nation/country.

[-] 0 points by Reigne (175) 6 years ago

To top it off, you actually Admitted to Breaking the Law by

trespassing onto someone elses property - specifically, you called it the "former NLG booth" simply because you didn't see any NLG people there.

Did you also use - without the owners permission - their belongings to create your sign saying "lawyer"?

And being a BAR member, I must conclude you you knowingly AND willfully Tresspassed.

Heck, I'll be councel for THAT Criminal Charge! And no, one does NOT have to be a member of the BAR to be councel - the Constitution says NOTHING about a Lawyer/Attorney or Councel membership being needed. And I will do it without charging any fees as well!

[-] 1 points by AN0NYM0US (640) 6 years ago

What is your problem?

1) They were offering to help.

2) You have no idea what you are talking about.

--------a) OWS is on privately owned property, if they told you to leave, you all would be trespassing. Right now it is a privately owned property that is used as a public space, so you are okay. --------b) Being public space (The whole reason OWS is allowed to step foot there) they are all there to exercise their rights. It would be completely hypocritical for the NLG to claim private space on top of a public space, that is being used publicly, and is owned privately. -------c) You have no legal standing, nor do you have a situation that meets the legal requirements of the law of trespassing.

So stop being so hostile.

[-] 1 points by AN0NYM0US (640) 6 years ago

No idea how that became bold...

OWS is just that important.

[-] 1 points by Reigne (175) 6 years ago

I was gonna ask you how you made that bold LOL

Woah, the booth is not the property of this LawyerGroup, he clearly said it was someone else's booth, then USED it. THAT is Trespassing by using anothers booth and whatever else what in it because it's NOT His! What's hard to understand about that?

I have all the standing needed. I didn't say I was going to file charges, I said I'd be Counsel for whomever was tresspassed upon. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits anyone from choosing who they want their counsel to be, nor does it prohibit anyone from being counsel for anyone.

I'm not being Hostile. I'm speaking the Truth. The Truth will set you free - however, there's a good chance it will tick you off first!

[-] 1 points by AN0NYM0US (640) 6 years ago

Yes, but a judge would laugh at you. It doesn't belong to them, because almost everything there is DONATED to the OWS movement. By joining the crowd and offering his help, as well as helping, he is part of the movement. Therefore it is his too.

Even if there was Mens Rea, you could easily argue against the actus reus.

[-] 1 points by Reigne (175) 6 years ago

So, by your line of thinking, if I donated a car to you, and you weren't inside it or near it, then he could come up and USE the car because it was Donated? WHAT?

You are sounding like a child who wants another childs toy, not demanding that they share it with you, but that somehow (because it was given/donataed) it is YOURS too cuz you are there.

Wow - Yet another response that Proves my point. Thank you!

As far as a judge laughing at me, fine, but HE gave an oath to uphold, preserve, support, defend the constitution, thereby, when he dishonors his oath, he is Liable for his own Act(ions), and complaints/charges can be brought upon him as well.

[-] 1 points by AN0NYM0US (640) 6 years ago

140.17. Criminal trespass in the first degree. A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the first degree when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building, and when, in the course of committing such crime, he:

1.   Possesses,  or  knows  that  another  participant  in  the  crime

possesses, an explosive or a deadly weapon; or

2. Possesses a firearm, rifle or shotgun, as those terms  are  defined

in section 265.00, and also possesses or has readily accessible a quantity of ammunition which is capable of being discharged from such firearm, rifle or shotgun; or

3.  Knows  that  another participant in the crime possesses a firearm,

rifle or shotgun under circumstances described in subdivision two. Criminal trespass in the first degree is a class D felony.

Not here either. they all require a building. Your case is moot. And OWS is safe.

[-] 1 points by AN0NYM0US (640) 6 years ago

140.15. Criminal trespass in the second degree. A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling. Criminal trespass in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.

No problem here either, once again OWS is scott free too.

[-] 1 points by AN0NYM0US (640) 6 years ago

140.10 Criminal trespass in the third degree. A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the third degree when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building or upon real property (a) which is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders; or (b) where the building is utilized as an elementary or secondary school or a children's overnight camp as defined in section one thousand three hundred ninety-two of the public health law or a summer day camp as defined in section one thousand three hundred ninety-two of the public health law in violation of conspicuously posted rules or regulations governing entry and use thereof; or (c) located within a city with a population in excess of one million and where the building or real property is utilized as an elementary or secondary school in violation of a personally communicated request to leave the premises from a principal, custodian or other person in charge thereof; or (d) located outside of a city with a population in excess of one million and where the building or real property is utilized as an elementary or secondary school in violation of a personally communicated request to leave the premises from a principal, custodian, school board member or trustee, or other person in charge thereof; or (e) where the building is used as a public housing project in violation of conspicuously posted rules or regulations governing entry and use thereof; or (f) where a building is used as a public housing project in violation of a personally communicated request to leave the premises from a housing police officer or other person in charge thereof; or (g) where the property consists of a right-of-way or yard of a railroad or rapid transit railroad which has been designated and conspicuously posted as a no-trespass railroad zone, pursuant to section eighty-three-b of the railroad law, by the city or county in which such property is located. Criminal trespass in the third degree is a class B misdemeanor.

Nothing here, So he is not guilty of criminal trespass in the third degree. Neither is OWS according to this.

[-] 1 points by Reigne (175) 6 years ago

Trespass does NOT have to be a house or land. It can be ANY personal/private property-even Donated, even one's own body can be trespassed upon, as well as RIGHTS (that is usually termed as infringing upon / violating, but is still a trespass).

[-] 1 points by AN0NYM0US (640) 6 years ago

While it is a "trespass" in the english sense.

A Tresspass in the legal sense means: A person is guilty of trespass when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises. Trespass is a violation.

A violation, not really a criminal offense.

  1. "Premises" includes the term "building," as defined herein, and any real property. 2. "Building," in addition to its ordinary meaning, includes any structure, vehicle or watercraft used for overnight lodging of persons, or used by persons for carrying on business therein, or used as an elementary or secondary school, or an inclosed motor truck, or an inclosed motor truck trailer. Where a building consists of two or more units separately secured or occupied, each unit shall be deemed both a separate building in itself and a part of the main building.

So yes, he technically trespassed, but it wasn't criminal. He would get a ticket at worst. Hell, being a lawyer, he could easily explain what I have and the cop would say, oh, you are right.

You are being childish about this.

Also, no one would even try to charge him so you have no one to represent.

[-] 1 points by Reigne (175) 6 years ago

Ugh - I never offered to REPRESENT anyone - I offered to be of assistance as Counsel (assistance of counsel is guaranteed via const).

I would surely hope the folks at NLG could handle it on their own tho, considering they are Lawyers too!

Saying "trespass" in the english sense lol What "sense" would you prefer? Chinese? Russian? Spanglish? LOL

[-] 1 points by AN0NYM0US (640) 6 years ago

That is not what I said.

I said it was DONATED to OWS, not them! As a part of OWS, anyone has the right to use it, and no one would deny his help, except for this lawyer group apparently.

That doesn't make me a child. If YOU donated a car to OWS, which was used by all to collect food, then someone is not stealing if they are part of the OWS, they take the car, and use it to collect food like it was intended.

He would not LITERALLY laugh at you, he would dismiss the case, because there is NO case. Read above.

It is a location OPERATED by OWS on PUBLIC SPACE. This person was a part of OWS, and began OPERATING it to the purpess it was intended. If he moved it, or used it for something unrelated to OWS than it would have more weight. But this case has no weight, and you need to read up on Trespassing.

You should study some law before you try to assume legal facts, and direct those assumptions in a hostile manner toward someone who, wait for it..... IS TRYING TO HELP

[-] 1 points by Reigne (175) 6 years ago

How can anything be donated to OWS if it is NOT an organized group, but a loose gathering of groups & individuals?

Which is it? How do you know NLG didn't bring in their own supplies? How do you know someone donated it to OWS and not to NLG?

There are plenty of peope who are "trying to help" and who are not USING other peoples property without permission to do so... You're still proving my point ... thanks

[-] 1 points by AN0NYM0US (640) 6 years ago

You want a point? Read the LAW.

Trespassing requires a building, or specific instances of fenced enclosures.

[-] 1 points by Reigne (175) 6 years ago

Codes/Regulations/Statutes are NOT LAW nor do they pertain to ME unless I consent to them. They do however pertain to our public servants.

ANY law/code/regulation/statute that is CONTRARY to the Constitution or the Treaties are NULL-AND-VOID. THAT IS THE LAW!

[-] 1 points by AN0NYM0US (640) 6 years ago

What are you talking about? How is trespassing laws against the constitution? You do realize, that the constitution is a framework for our legal system. It is what says that those codes/regulations/statutes are to be written by whom, and to what extent they are to be followed.

You are required to follow them, because they have been ratified by the proper people through the dictations of the constitution.

You can't tell me that the law of trespassing is unconstitutional.

Also, with that attitude, I feel bad for anyone you represent. You can't just stand in front of a courtroom and whine how you don't think you have to listen to the laws. Besides, that wouldn't help a prosecutor at all.

[-] 1 points by Reigne (175) 6 years ago

ARTICLE 6 Clause 2 says: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

ANYTHING that is contrary/offensive to the Const is NOT LAW!

[-] 1 points by Reigne (175) 6 years ago

Also in American Jurisprudence Vol51: Licenses and Permits Section 80 - Agreement to comply with law; surrender of Constitutional Rights

"A political body that has the authority to forbid the exercise of a particular privilege completely may, in general, authorize the exercise of the privilege by issuing a license granted on conditions. Such condition may NOT however REQUIRE the applicant or licensee to GIVE UP his constitutional rights a a prerequisite to acquiring or maintaing the license.

Accordingly it has been pointed out that even the acceptance of a license issued under state legislation purporting to impose conditions does NOT REQUIRE the licensee to respect or COMPLY with condition in the form of state laws that are regugnant to the United States Constitution."

Any more Questions? If so, please start learning about your Rights and REAL LAW.

[-] 1 points by AN0NYM0US (640) 6 years ago

You are right, the constitution itself says that. Yet, we are not talking about permits, or laws that do not coincide with the constitution. We are talking about TRESPASSING. I law supported by the constitution.

So, while you may be right, it doesn't prove anything, because you are off topic.

[-] 1 points by Reigne (175) 6 years ago

Ugh - I did NOT say Trespassing Laws are not constitutional, I said Codes/Regulations/Statutes are NOT LAW (Statutes at Large are Law)> I said we do NOT have to comply with laws that are contrary to the const. YOU SAID "It is what says that those codes/regulations/statutes are to be written by whom, and to what extent they are to be followed.

You are required to follow them, because they have been ratified by the proper people through the dictations of the constitution.

You can't tell me that the law of trespassing is unconstitutional.

Also, with that attitude, I feel bad for anyone you represent. You can't just stand in front of a courtroom and whine how you don't think you have to listen to the laws. Besides, that wouldn't help a prosecutor at all."

I was OFFERING EVIDENCE as to NOT having to obey a "law' just cuz...especially if it's contrary to the const.

[-] 1 points by Reigne (175) 6 years ago

Please learn the difference between Lawful & Legal, English & Legalize, and Rights & Benefits/Privileges. When you comprehend that, then you are truly on your path to finding viable solutions to the problems we face as a nation.

[-] 1 points by AN0NYM0US (640) 6 years ago

Why would I think you were talking about law in general all of a sudden when we were discussing a specific law!?

[-] 1 points by Reigne (175) 6 years ago

Well, donations were also brought up along with other aspects. I apologize if I lost ya along the way. That was not my intention to confuse you or anyone. I said "Codes/Regulations/Statutes" are not law, which is 'general,' and does apply when you bring up a code/reg/statute. Again, I apologize for any confusion.

[-] -1 points by OccupyDC (153) 6 years ago

Independent Lawyer....

I guess you are now starting to see that this whole so-called "movement" is not the democratic protest movement that is being portrayed.

There are and always have been organized groups pulling the strings from the beginning. Their greatest fear is being exposed. That is why you were treated the way they treated you.

[-] 4 points by IndependentLawyer (93) 6 years ago

I don't think that's the case. I think it's just kids who haven't ever lead anything being a position of power for the first time and letting it go to their heads. That, and maybe they are a bit overwhelmed by the massiveness of the current endeavor, and they simply revert to "don this because I said so" because that is the fastest way to get things done.

I believe that explains the attitude of the "organizers". This naiveté on their part may allow them to get co-opted by charlatans (i.e. Alex Penley) and groups who are probably well-meaning, but may not be (NLG).

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 6 years ago

This is correct for the larger mass of the best of them, "That, and maybe they are a bit overwhelmed by the massiveness of the current endeavor, and they simply revert to "don this because I said so" because that is the fastest way to get things done."

But for those that suspect someone such as yourself of being an infiltrator, that is another story. I've got a completely different perspective that is VERY harrowing, but it makes sense. Start with what an Obama advisor, advised in 2008. http://politics.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/ 'Cognitive Infiltration" Well I'm certain I've being seeing it in the 9-11 activism world heavy since 2004. Consider the proven aspects of "cointelpro" in the 1970's. Wonder about the leftist conditioning at universities. Indymedia formation for example. I tried to involve myself in the formation of one in 2003 to find university students colluding in groups violating their "process" to prevent anyone from having any control except for their group. There were no cognitive processes applied. They were creating the needed non profit and developing articles of incorporation and bylaws. I borrowed from the IMC of Dallas TX, and improved on them in a significant manner. The group of students could not or refused to rationally discuss what I was proposing and ran off with the decision to do whatever, on their own. No great loss, but I learned something very important about a younger generation that appears unable to conduct reasoning with law and only values a social structure that pivots on an image. Such brings a new meaning to "socialism".

[-] 0 points by OccupyDC (153) 6 years ago

Well.... The NLG is not a well meaning organization. They support only leftists and leftist causes. You NEVER saw an NLG booth at a Tea Party protest and you never will.

There is organization down there. They are expending a lot of effort to keep themselves hidden. There are professional media consultants there in the media area who work for professional "progressive" social media companies.

Let's not forget that the NY Working Families Party is offering to pay people to attend these protests.

Stuff like that doesn't come cheap. There are professional political activist organizations footing the bills.

[-] 2 points by IndependentLawyer (93) 6 years ago

I doubt that there is a lot of money being pumped in. If that were the case, there would be porta-johns, real food, etc, etc. I think it's just assholes power tripping, not some nefarious hidden cabal.

[-] 1 points by OccupyDC (153) 6 years ago

The city would have to issue permits for the porta-johns. They already said no.

The park land is also privately owned. They will never agree to porta-johns within the park. They have forbidden tents and are upset that people are using tarps and sleeping bags, which are forbidden in the rules they posted in the park.

[-] 1 points by IndependentLawyer (93) 6 years ago

Right, but if, as you allude, there is some secret stash of DNC or MoveOn or George Soros money, then it would be very easy to say "hey there, Mr. Park owner, let us the park for a few weeks, here's $100K. It's starting to get cold, so here's another $100K for letting us put up a tent. Hello, NYC Permits Office? We'd like to put up porta-johns and a small stage with a small PA system, here's the details for our $100K insurance bond, and $3K for all the permits. Yes, the name on the credit card If George Soros, S-O-R-O-S. Have a nice day!"

[-] -1 points by OccupyDC (153) 6 years ago

No. It doesn't work like that.

The owners of the park are an extremely wealthy real estate company and holding company of various types of businesses named Brookfield Office Properties Inc.. It's not a money issue with them. They have a lot of money. More than any George Soros type or any of that ilk. Ironically they are the 1% the people in the park are protesting.

The city has an arrangement with Brookfield as far as uses for the park that allowed it to be a private park.

One holding company that was formed by Brookfield and another partner (Brookfield is 75% owner) also recently received $136 million from the Obama administration in loans for a wind farm project in New Hampshire.

I don't know why a company with assets of about $100 billion would need government taxpayer money.

Talk about crony capitalism.