prev
next
Judge: Gov't must give Occupy DC eviction notice
A demonstrator removes his belongings from the Occupy DC encampment at Freedom Plaza on Jan. 30, 2012 in Washington, DC. / Win McNamee/Getty Images
WASHINGTON - A federal judge said Tuesday that the U.S. government must notify one of the last major Occupy encampments if it intends to clear a downtown park of protesters.
The decision from U.S. District Judge James Boasberg means the protesters will have an opportunity to challenge their eviction beforehand.
Protesters remained Tuesday at McPherson Square, the city's main Occupy site, a day after the National Park Service began enforcing a ban on camping on federal park grounds. Officials have not said when or if they will clear the park of protesters, though a lawyer for the government said in court Tuesday that she was unaware of any imminent plans to do that.
VIDEO: Occupy DC faces eviction
Occupy D.C. protesters in standoff with Park Police
Cops to enforce no camping at Occupy D.C. sites
The U.S. Park Police would, however, be permitted to clear the park without notice if there's an emergency or urgent health concern. D.C. health officials and Mayor Vincent Gray have cited a rat infestation in McPherson Square as a continuing concern.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Marina Braswell said authorities did not plan to seize the tents of protesters who are complying with the camping ban, which prohibits the use of bedding materials, and other laws.
Occupy Wall Street eviction Instragrams
Jeffrey Light, a lawyer who is representing two of the protesters and is seeking class action status for his case, argued that the National Park Service does not have clear standards for deciding when and how to seize tents and how to ensure that seized belongings are returned to their owners. But Braswell said those concerns were hypothetical because she said there's no evidence that protesters' property has been destroyed.
"The plaintiffs have supplied no evidence that anyone has tried to get property back from the Park Police and has been unable to do so," she said.
Protesters appeared to expect a confrontation after the park service announced on Friday that it would enforce the camping ban, effective noon Monday. A sign advertised a "high noon" showdown, though that never happened. The demonstrators put up a blue tarp over most of a statue of Major Gen. James McPherson, a Civil War general for whom the park is named, and gathered underneath the tent.
Popular on CBSNews.com
- TWA Flight 800 gets another look 17 years later
- America's endangered historic places 11 Photos
- Reporter Michael Hastings dies at 33
- FBI: No sign of Jimmy Hoffa's body in Detroit suburb
- Taliban: We killed 4 U.S. troops at Afghan air base
- Scientists say shipwreck timber in Lake Michigan centuries old
- Google asks FISA court to lift gag order on NSA requests
- Girl who lost feet in lawnmower gets prosthetics
Most Popular
-
01
-
02
-
03
-
04
-
05
Most Shared
Most Discussed
Wouldn't that assume that the occupiers have met the existing permit requirements? I don't know, but expect they haven't.
No American sentiments wasted here, right chief? Only purest Marie Antoinette (of "Let them eat cake!" fame). Although the self-satisfied love to talk about their own enterprise and initiative, many also do their best to deprive others of the same opportunity, time after time.
This is the hypocrisy the "Occupy" movement condemns. And no, "Occupy" is not about being rowdy after curfew. The Occupy movement condemns an American system built by insiders to favor insiders, and with not only tax breaks but pet congressmen and senators (on retainer) in the best congress money can buy. You already know many of them, or will.
Corporate America is awash with $2 trillion in funds and other investments, all because the average American taxpayer had pity on Wall Street banks and gave them the money for a $700 billion cup of coffee. But by a strange accident, only the Wall Street banks survived and prospered into their present wealth, while the economy they left behind went down. American middle-class taxpayers lost jobs and homes in the financial chaos created by Wall Street games of the wealthiest one percent.
So, your comments are instructive. You remind us of how the British troops felt about those rowdy colonials protesting in Boston. And how Gen. Douglas MacArthur must have grinned to see American battle tanks and US cavalry breaking up Hooverville in the Depression-- an impromptu community in Washington begun by his fellow soldiers in the "Bonus Brigade" who insisted that congress keep its promise to them. http://www.politicaldog101.com/?p=39119
So, the Hoovervile of 1932 was the first "Occupy" encampment. Today, that same Occupy movement celebrates the vital American right to protest and peacefully* challenge the system.
* Almost all violence has come from police ranks, from officers who knew better but did not care about abusing fellow citizens. The violence, much of it on camera, is without justification, and came from officers who hail from the same 99 percent as protesters. Although law enforcement officers are trained to consider themselves professionals, a few unprofessional cops is all it takes to ruin everything.
@rockychance said, "The democrats need to be careful for what they have wished for as most Americans see these occupiers in a bad light and they are tied to the democratic party."
--
Both claims are false.
1. A survey of New Yorkers and other Americans found that most asked about Occupy Wall Street did (a) understand what Occupy criticized and (b) agreed with their criticism.
2. A few critics polled did not like the fact the Occupiers did not pack up and leave at sundown, but stayed in the face of Wall Street. Yet, staying in the face of those responsible for the rigged, undemocratic American system is exactly the point raised by Occupy Wall Street.
3. While foreclosures on middle-class Americans peak, and when the economy is left in intensive care as bankers give themselves bonuses and trade "high-fives", something is very wrong with the current system.
When corporate America has assets totaling nearly $2 trillion-- and no jobs are available on Main Street while the unemployment figure bounces around 9 percent, Occupy rejects the false notion that corporations are job creators. Corporations serve their own narrowly-understood interest, whereas American public policy demands more than such economic mercenaries at the helm.
By the same token, Occupy rejects the special treatment and insider access given by congress and regulators to (less than) one percent of taxpayers.
4. Occupy is particulary angry that it was a demand for taxpayer money, a demand originating with Bush and Paulson, that bailed out the banks and their corporate shareholders under the TARP program. This is called "lemon capitalism"-- the idea that when banks win, they keep the money, but when banks lose their gambles on Wall Street, they run to taxpayers to bail them out. ("Brother, can you spare $435-780 billion?")
We see that hypocrisy play itself out, day by day. When unemployment benefits run out for Americans who once had jobs, but lost them in the recession, the usual corporate and bank stooges in congress stand up and protest "we" really cannot afford these social expenses. But never mind about the massive tax breaks quietly, routinely issued to corporate America, the world's most lavish system of public subsidy.
After that regular corporate subsidy, about 67 percent of US companies pay no tax. The effect is devastating-- the households of the one percent get a yearly average of $27 million per household, while the "bottom" 90 percent make a yearly average of only $31,244.
Basically, with such a system in place, most Americans do not have much influence on their economic lives, and cannot see the future very clearly-- if at all. The Occupy movement speaks for most Americans-- for their political future, and their financial stake in creating a fair and just economic system.
5. Democratic figures, including Obama, Pelosi and Israel, have issued broad statements of sympathy for Occupy, but concrete specifics or a party endorsement of the movement is not forthcoming. This represents neither formal sponsorship nor actual support by the Democratic Party.
In fact, the Democratic Party's "arm's length" treatment is the reason Occupy has been generally hostile to the Democratic Party leadership, and demonstrated outside a Democratic Party function in Washington, DC, in November, 2011. At that time, an Occupy website stated that the exclusive Democratic party event was "indicative of how the Democrats represent a major part of our government's failure to represent 99% of its citizenry."
Talking Points Memo--
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/occupiers-go-after-the-democrats-who-praised-them.php
And to a lamentable degree, Occupy may be correct. The Occupy complaint about the Democrats is simple enough-- Occupy points to problems, and the Democratic leadership praises the movement, but ignores them. Many in the Occupy movement do not see a great deal of difference between leaders in either Democratic or Republican parties (although when specific leaders are discussed, that claim is difficult to defend).
@sirmarion-2009 said, "They get their day in court for breaking the law.Court is not for a slackers forum about people who do not want to work."
---
What even fellow poster js2212 understands is the Occupy movement protests in exercise of American constitutional rights.
Specifically, Occupy uses the constitutional provisions for freedom of speech and public assembly for redress of grievances s-p-e-l-l-e-d o-u-t in the US constitution.
Apparently, you will be delighted to learn your own country's constitution provides such freedoms. But don't wait-- check the US constitution, yourself.
And weren't you in support of those who in 2009-2010 called themselves members of the Tea Party, and shouted slogans on street corners in Washington, DC, and elsewhere?
Meanwhile, it is a well-established legal principle the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. That is why the matter has been taken to court for a determination of whether any law has been broken.
As for wanting to work, the absence of jobs is well-documented by official figures on unemployment, as is a corporate ocean of $2 trillion in cash that might be used to create jobs, but is not.
Both the top .01 percent of taxpayers whose household average income is $27 million. and the 67 percent of US corporations not paying a dime in income tax, want the Bush-era tax-break subsidy to continue-- as long as the American middle class pays for it.
They-- and those who speak for them-- are the slackers.