As Occupy LA deadline nears, vows to stay

A man has breakfast at the Occupy LA site in front of City Hall in downtown Los Angeles, November 24, 2011. Protesters were warned they face eviction from the City Hall campground after talks on voluntary relocation collapsed. / FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP/Getty Images

LOS ANGELES - The protesters whose tents line the lawn of Los Angeles City Hall made it clear that they received the eviction notice issued by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. Whether they'll heed it is much less certain.

With hours left before the Monday at 12:01 a.m. deadline the mayor and the police chief gave for Occupy LA, very few of the occupiers were packing, and many were instead making plans for what to do when they stay.

Some handed out signs Saturday mocked up to look like the city's notices to vacate, advertising a Monday morning "eviction block party."

Dozens attended a teach-in on resistance tactics, including how to stay safe in the face of rubber bullets, tear gas canisters and pepper spray.

/ AP Photo/Andrew Dalton

Police gave few specifics about what tactics they would use if protesters ignored the deadline.

Chief Charlie Beck said at Friday's news conference that officers would definitely not be sweeping through the camp and arresting everyone just after midnight.

In an interview with the Los Angeles Times published Sunday, Beck said that despite the lack of confrontations in the camp's two-month run, he's realistic about what might happen.

"I have no illusions that everybody is going to leave," Beck said. "We anticipate that we will have to make arrests."

But he added, "We certainly will not be the first ones to apply force."

Occupy LA says they'll stay despite deadline
Mayor: Occupy LA must leave camp Monday
Occupy movement does Thanksgiving nationwide

62 Photos

Occupy protests: Month 3

Villaraigosa announced Friday that despite his sympathy for the protesters' cause, it was time for the camp of nearly 500 tents to leave for the sake of public health and safety.

The mayor said the movement is at a "crossroads," and it must "move from holding a particular patch of park to spreading the message of economic justice."

But occupiers showed no signs of giving up the patch of park too easily.

Will Picard, who sat Saturday in a tent amid his artwork with a "notice of eviction" sign posted outside, said the main organizers and most occupiers he knows intend to stay.

"Their plan is to resist the closure of this encampment and if that means getting arrested so be it," Picard said. "I think they just want to make the police tear it down rather than tear it down themselves."

But some agreed with the mayor that the protest had run its course.

"I'm going," said Luke Hagerman, who sat looking sad and resigned in the tent he's stayed in for a month. "I wish we could have got more done."

Villaraigosa expressed pride that Los Angeles has lacked the tension, confrontation and violence seen at similar protests in other cities. But that peace was likely to get its biggest test on Monday.

Ue Daniels, 21, said as an artist he's "as nonviolent as they come" but he planned on resisting removal any way he could.

"I think we'll comply as far as putting our tents on the sidewalk maybe, that's something that's been going around."

But as far as leaving altogether?

"They would probably have to drag me away," he said.

In other "Occupy" developments:

Philadelphia: The clock is ticking down for Occupy Philadelphia, whose members have been ordered to dismantle their City Hall camp by 5 p.m. Sunday to make way for a $50 million construction project.

Officials hope the ultimatum is met with the same spirit of cooperation that has made for a largely peaceful movement since Occupy members first set up tents on Dilworth Plaza nearly two months ago. But as of Sunday morning, dozens of tents still remained.

Some demonstrators have already agreed to leave and continue their activities across the street under strict conditions that forbid camping. But internal strife within the protest made it unclear whether the rest of the tents and personal belongings would be removed on time.

It's also unclear how the city will react if the deadline is not met.

• no previous page
• next

1/2

[eyarden]

The Mayors of Cities in the United States are part of the Homeland Security system, and when they are ordered to us occasions such as the Occupy demonstrations, they have an obligation to use these occasions as opportunities to test the methods of suppressing 'civil disorder' of the kind expected in the panic that is supposed to follow a terrorist attack. Despite considerable evidence to the contrary. People living in a society where government can be relied on for disaster relief do not panic. And even where they cannot rely on government assistance, they find ways of helping each other deal with the consequences. The ugly truth is that the Office of Homeland Security is conducting 'trainings' to protect the Government from the governed. How un-American can this government get!
Elie Yarden

[dcooper0011]

No one should be above the law not even judges, but they are. SBX211 gave retro active immunity from prosecution to judges for taking bribes from the counties. judges are employees of the state as per the CA Constitution. So the county let the protesters play on the grass for a while, but when the county decides that it's over then that's it. since the County has already bought the court the protesters have no way to address their complaints. Isn't socialism grand.

[RoboSlater]

Here's a lesson in economics for OWS. Explain to the "99%" that they are actually in the 5% of richest people on the planet. Then take their wealth and redistribute it to the 95% of the world that is poorer than them. See how they feel about wealth redistribution then.

[sandiegopete]

That does nothing about the central issue OWS stands for and that is elimination of the corruption in our government.

If you want to sell your "redistrubute the wealth" bill of goods go somewhere else.

Would you support a Constitutional Amendment that would overturn the effects of the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. F.E.C.?

[realtimecoffee]

From the L A Times:
Occupy L.A. participants on Sunday rejected a city official's midday plea to move their political activism indoors and depart the park space that encircles Los Angeles City Hall.

"Until the grievances of the 99% are addressed to end corporate control of the system, the government and the media, Occupy L.A. will be here exercising our 1st Amendment rights and petition for our grievances," said Julie Levine, acting as one of several spokespeople for Occupy L.A., which is loosely organized.
The offer must be rejected because the current system is broken and working within it would not produce effective change, Levine said.

"We have a long-term plan," she said. "We want to build a mass movement of the 99% to take back the entire system from the corporations that control it."

The movement, which speaks of representing 99% of Americans by opposing economic inequality and corporate greed, has resisted making specific demands - in part because various Occupy strongholds have tried to make decisions by consensus at general assemblies, a difficult strategy for narrowing down or sanctioning goals.
--
See what I mean Sandie? No mention of Citizens United. You've got a tough road ahead.

[RDriftwood]

By getting arrested, the OWS people keep their cause in the news. It's a big sacrifice but they want an end to financial and political corruption. Why would anyone NOT want to get rid of the corruption - no matter what their political affiliation? Unless they are corrupt...

[sandiegopete]

Well, they eliminated by last reply to realtimecoffee so I will try and repeat it and see it it sticks.

The OWS message of corruption in our government is not a provocative as the nonsense the media reports so the message gets lost.

The important issue of institutionalized corruption as endorsed by the majority of the Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision cannot be discussed in a few sound bites and for that reason the issue is largely ignored by the major media.

The "eat the rich" comments come from a few hangers on who have no interest in the anti-corruption message of OWS because they are inured to corruption in government. While the camps make for good pictures they do not represent the core message of OWS. That message is being broadcast in thousands of smaller demonstrations across the U.S. in suburban locations. When hundreds of clearly working middle class people demonstrate in a place like Walnut Creek, CA you can bet there is a much larger pro-OWS affinity group in the middle class than has been reported. Those protesters are evidence of a growing alienation of the middle class toward the way our government operates, or doesn't operate. If that alienation is not effectively addressed through systemic change then at some point we could be looking at a situation similar to what has happened recently in Egypt.

[involved_indi]

OWS is done. They have no coherent message. They have been overrun in the bigger cities by homeless vagrants on one hand and paid union thugs on the other. OWS in about a dozen smaller cities & towns that I've personally seen are typically 6 or 8 jobless people looking for a handout... not a hand-up. I'm sorry it's come to this.

[sandiegopete]

Credibility2: The OWS movment was founded as a response to the ratification of corruption by the majority of the Supreme Court in the Citizens United v. F.E.C. decision. Now you claim that most of the people in the United States support corruption in government. What method did you use in your poll?

[sandiegopete]

sbbm-2009:

Hundreds of OWS demonstrators have gathered in Walnut Creek, CA over the past couple of months. Here is where you can read one story:

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_19088904

One of the occupiers said he was almost 60 and employed a dozen people in his business. Clearly, the movement has deeper roots than you think. In fact, there is a growing alienation between the middle class and the way our government operates. Do you deny it?

Would you support a Constitutional Amendment that would overturn the Supreme Court Decision in Citizens United v. F.E.C.?

[credibility2]

These imbeciles and nincompoops do not speak for me nor the vast majority of those in the 99%. I hope the cops in these areas use whatever force and means necessary to get rid of this blight on civilized society; fire up the water canons, get out the night sticks, tasers and rubber bullets. Never mind their so-called rights. They have forfeited them.

[credibility2]

...spot-on bmallen3...

[realtimecoffee]

by sandiegopete November 27, 2011 4:41 PM EST
Realtimecoffee:

You know as well as anyone what the OWS movement hopes to accomplish. I have told you at least once. You choose to disregard the aims because they doe not fit your belief that our country should continue to be ruled 100% by a few very wealthy individuals.

Here again is what the OWS movement hopes to accomplish:

1.) Remove massive corruption from government by overturning the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. F.E.C.

2.) Accomplish 1 by Constitutional Amendment.

If these aims are too complex for your brain to comprehend then let me know and I will try to make it even simpler.


--

Thanks for the insults. Do you believe Citizens United v. F.E.C. is central to corruption? What about befoe 2010, things weren't peachy before that either. As for the Constitutional amendment where are the petitions? Shouldn't you be concentrating on DC and state capitals in that case? And if you succeed how will overturning Citizens United v. F.E.C. return wealth to the poor? It seems to me that convincing 38 state governments to go along would be a huge undertaking and a goal not furthered by occupying public parks.

[sandiegopete]

First of all, the Citizens United case brought before the Supreme Court the issue of corruption in government. The Suprement Court ratified that corruption. There is no provision for a Constitutional Amendment to be initiated by referendum. As the law stands today the only way to get elected officials to act is by popular pressure. To do that a movement must get the attention of the population. Nobody can deny that the OWS movement has done that. However, I do agree that it is extremenly unlikely that elected officials will ever pass such an Amendment. It would mean cutting off a large cash flow enjoyed by elected official. It would be easier to pressure elected officials to pass a Constitutional Amendment that provides for initiation of a Constitutional Amendment by popular referendum. Would you agree to such an Amendment?

The OWS movement has nothing to do with returning wealth to the poor. That is what the anti-movement forces feel is a viable narrative to damage the movement. What the OWS movement supports is a level playing field. What do you think is so wrong with that?

[realtimecoffee]

The petition I mentioned would be given to the elected officials to in some way impress on them the desire for an amendment, but I agree, probably fruitless. A direct referendum for amendments I'd have to think about. I like the idea but I can see dangers in it. For instance right after 9/11 we would probably have outlawed Islam and done god knows what to a lot of innocent people. And I'm surprised to hear about OWS not being about "Eating the Rich" Seems like a lot of the anger in the camps is about exactly that. I've heard a lot of references to the French revolution and guillotines.

[sandiegopete]

Evidently realtimecoffee does not have the intellectual capacity to comprehend the simple fact that the OWS movement developed as a response to the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. F.E.C. Despite being specifically informed of the reasons and aims of the movement realtimecoffee claims he or she still can't figure it out. The reader should make his or her own conclusions regarding motives behind realtimecoffee's comments.

[realtimecoffee]

Again sandie, you should be telling this to the people who are actually doing the occupying. I've heard them complain about everything BUT Citizens United v. F.E.C. I'm sure that message is there, there is no reason for you to lie to me about that, but that message is lost in all the noise. I do appreciate your giving me some direct answers. If I missed your telling me these things before I appologise. Disgussing things on these boards is at best chaotic.

[RDriftwood]

Apparently the wealthy ruling class is inconvenienced and annoyed that the middle class, the poor, and the elderly aren't being as obedient and subservient as they had hoped.

[realtimecoffee]

Where is the public support? Where is the million person march? Where is the coherent agenda? Go read the local media message boards. The middle class hates OWS and the poor think of them as either competitors or prey.

[democracy8]

realtimecoffee: Your posts are so ignorant and off-base that it's not even funny.

[sandiegopete]

Most of those in the Occupy LA camp are poor people. Rich people do not like to look at poor people. Poor people are usually more soiled than rich people and they usually smell worse than rich people. For that reason the rich are relocating the demonstrating poor from the areas frequented by the rich to areas where there are other poor people. This is good strategy for the rich. They don't have to be annoyed by the sight and smell of poor people and demonstrations in the slums are unlikely to have much effect on the media. It is a win-win for the rich and a lose-lose for the poor. And, as the rich say, that is the way God intended it. After all, in the poor were not meant to be sheared God would not have made them sheep (Calvera in the Magnificent Seven).