^ 1 & 2 can't and won't happen. Aside from the first amendment issues involved, there's the fact that advertisements and campaign spending are bells you can't un-ring. Certainly you can stop them from continuing to ring, but by then damage has already been done. Consider how many currently elected politicians have had their campaigns investigated only to turn up illegal funding and use of those funds. Now, how many of those politicians have been removed from office for those violations?

As for #3, it would only be effective with also a complete dissolution of most of the federal laws, because you're never going to find a group that large of honest, uncorrupted men who want that much control over other people and the government. By also dissolving the laws, you at least remove the amount of damage a corrupted politician can do. I've always wondered how things would be if we made all federal laws expire after some short time like 5 or 7 years, forcing congress to continue to re-evaluate all the laws they pass.

12/4/2011 10:17:27 AM

The Wells Fargo Mic Check video is now at about 13,000 views and counting. Many who are currently commenting are chastising those in the reserved section and students for clapping like sheep in support of the CEO.

12/5/2011 8:26:14 PM

I like this headline:
"Property-Is-Theft Movement’s Property Destroyed"
http://reason.com/blog/2011/12/05/property-is-theft-movements-property-des

12/5/2011 8:35:48 PM

More than 200 Occupy L.A. protesters remain in jail

Quote :

"More than 200 people arrested during the Occupy L.A. sweep remained in jail Thursday night, drawing protests from civil right attorneys who said many may not face charges and should be freed immediately. As the total of nearly 300 arrestees began moving through the criminal justice system, Los Angeles Police Department records offered a more detailed portrait of those involved in the final throes of the two-month demonstration. They show that the arrestees skewed young, white and male, but included a wide spectrum of races and ages. Most came from the Los Angeles area. DATABASE: Searchable list of arrestees Prosecutors have filed criminal charges against 19 protesters, most of whom were released without bail Thursday after appearing before Los Angeles County Superior Court judges. One condition of their release was that they not return to the City Hall area, where the protesters had camped. One civil rights attorney present at the court proceedings said the release condition was unfair. "But more unfair are the folks who had no prior convictions, who will not be charged and who are still in jail," said Cynthia Andersen-Barker. About 50 protesters without criminal records who may qualify for a diversion program were ordered released from jail — though some remained in custody late Thursday. More are likely to be released under that program in the coming days, officials said. Chief Deputy City Atty. William Carter said he expects more protesters to be criminally charged, particularly those with criminal records. The length of protesters' jail stays was not unusual, he said. "It's an unfortunate fact of life in this country," he said. "Perhaps this will sensitize people to what it means to get arrested." But Carol Sobel, an attorney who has advised the protesters, said: "They're being punished for being a part of Occupy L.A." Most of those arrested ultimately will qualify for the diversion program and will not face charges, she predicted. The arrestees face potential charges of failure to disperse and, in a few cases, resisting arrest. They faced a minimum bail of $5,000. About 40 had been bailed out Thursday. The arrest records show that the median age of the group is 26, and men outnumber women nearly 3-to-1. Forty-eight are not old enough to legally drink alcohol. The oldest, 79-year-old Dorothy Sarnoff of Highland Park, turned 21 during the Eisenhower administration. Most were local, although 20 arrestees told police they live outside the state, listing hometowns as far away as Roopville, Ga., and Ithaca, N.Y. No occupation was reported for about 100 arrestees. Others listed varied jobs, including actor, architect, barista, pizza deliveryman, poet and taxi driver. Twenty-eight-year-old Christopher French was among them. He was taken into custody for remaining in City Hall park even after police issued a dispersal order early Wednesday. He was holding a white rose in his hand — a scene captured by several photographers. French said he was released from jail after a sympathetic bail commissioner reduced his bail. He has been given a Jan. 5 trial date. He complained about the way protesters were treated after they were arrested, saying he and others were kept in plastic handcuffs for seven hours. Occupy L.A.: Photos | Video | 360° photos In the days since their eviction, protesters have collected money for a bail fund. At least one protester, 35-year-old Tyson Header, was charged with battery and assault on a peace officer after he allegedly spit on an officer during his arrest, according to records. City Atty. Carmen Trutanich has complained in the past about "career protesters," whose actions he says drain city resources and disrupt the lives of average citizens. Trutanich, who may run for county district attorney, has said his office does not prosecute protesters' for the content of their demonstration, only their conduct. Carter, the chief deputy city attorney, said Thursday that even though many city officials embraced the message of Occupy L.A., the city had not suspended a ban on overnight camping on City Hall grounds. "The laws on the books never changed," he said."

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/02/local/la-me-occupy-arrestees-20111202


$5,000 bail for protesting? Being held for nearly a week? Seems excessive

[Edited on December 6, 2011 at 12:31 AM. Reason : ]

12/6/2011 12:15:23 AM

5,000 bail isn't actually paying $5,000, usually they'll pay $500 or so to a bail bonds company

12/6/2011 12:02:23 PM

^^ Protest and go to jail. Crash the economy on the account of fraud and walk freely.

12/6/2011 12:25:19 PM

^^ or if they weren't broke dirty hippies, just put up $5000.

12/6/2011 12:40:16 PM

lmao conservatives don't give a rats ass about civil liberties or the bill of rights as long as the protestor getting beat and imprisoned don't look like Richie Cunningham

12/6/2011 1:20:34 PM

top that off with salivating with almost sexual glee over violence against those "hippies". oh yeah, beat that hippie, cuff him and gag him, put him a jail cell, mmmm yeah

12/6/2011 1:21:27 PM

Quote :

"or if they weren't broke dirty hippies, just put up $5000."

Doesn't being held for 6 days without being charged bother you? And some of them will likely be released without being charged, and the rest of them will likely get $5,000 bail for a misdemeanor after being held for days.

That doesn't bother anyone? $5,000 bail and being held for almost a week for a FAILURE TO DISPERSE charge? Might as well start locking up Jaywalkers and people with multiple speeding tickets.

12/6/2011 1:43:03 PM

I'm sure they could have shot the protestors point-black, execution style in the streets and the right would be cracking jokes about dreadlocks soaking up blood

12/6/2011 1:57:28 PM

in all fairness, that would be pretty clever of them.

12/6/2011 2:01:12 PM

^^ Where does it say they were held for 6 days without being charged?

12/6/2011 2:02:11 PM

the LA camp was cleared 6 days ago...so if they're still in jail...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/11/occupy-la-non-violent-dismantling-deemed-a-success.html

[Edited on December 6, 2011 at 2:21 PM. Reason : ]

12/6/2011 2:19:35 PM

Again, where does it say they weren't charged?

12/6/2011 2:28:26 PM

7th paragraph and again on the 12th

I mean, maybe they've charged them now with loitering or some shit, if that makes you feel better.

[Edited on December 6, 2011 at 2:40 PM. Reason : ]

12/6/2011 2:36:22 PM

I'm assuming that to mean they were charged, but the charges will be dropped.

12/6/2011 2:38:58 PM

soooo... are you cool with frivolous charges and excessive bail?

12/6/2011 2:41:50 PM

5000 is hardly excessive.

What would you recommend to do with someone with just broke the law, bring them to jail, inprocess them, and just let them go? I mean that's what a 5,000 dollar bail is essentially.

12/6/2011 3:00:47 PM

you show me a case in California where a misdemeanor is met with $5,000 bail and a few nights in jail, and you might have an argument.

12/6/2011 3:06:52 PM

^ if you believe the judge or magistrate is posting excessive bail for any matter in any case in the country, then you appeal the bail and fight back with a lawyer.

1) appeal decision
2) get a loan on the bail
3) get a lawyer and fight back
4) win and get a refund on bail and more!

good luck to them if they have been mistreated.


[Edited on December 6, 2011 at 3:21 PM. Reason : ,]

12/6/2011 3:12:00 PM

^^ http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/bail/pdf/misd.pdf

Look at that!

12/6/2011 3:22:05 PM

Refuse to Obey Order Regarding Lead Hazard is $5000 bail???

HOLY SHIT!!

12/6/2011 3:31:30 PM

you just linked to a 92 page PDF. and on the 4th page, straight misdemeanors have bail at $500, and violations of county ordinances are only at $125-$250.


Sooo, wanna point me to the part where it says $5,000 bail for protesting or failure to disperse?

12/6/2011 3:32:18 PM

sure. that took about 9 seconds with the awesome pdf search feature

Trespass to Injure Property/ Interfere With Business - $5000
Fail to Disperse From Riot: $5,000
Prevent, Hinder, Obstruct Access to or Egress From Property: $5,000

take your pick



[Edited on December 6, 2011 at 3:42 PM. Reason : ,]

12/6/2011 3:35:51 PM

Quote :

"The arrestees face potential charges of failure to disperse and, in a few cases, resisting arrest. They faced a minimum bail of $5,000"

again, $5,000 for failure to disperse. I'm not seeing it. The people also charged with resisting arrest probably got that tacked on and an even higher bail. So.....


Fun fact, cock-fighting also has a $5,000 bail. cock-fighting.

[Edited on December 6, 2011 at 3:41 PM. Reason : ]

12/6/2011 3:39:29 PM

^ Page 15:

Fail to Disperse From Riot: $5,000
Prevent, Hinder, Obstruct Access to or Egress From Property: $5,000

Now we can argue whether or not the protest counts as a riot, but if that's what they're charged with, then that's what the statutory bail is.

[Edited on December 6, 2011 at 3:41 PM. Reason : sdgh]

12/6/2011 3:40:22 PM

From the PDF document, search for 'disperse'

Failure to disperse 5000

ZOMG

12/6/2011 3:41:23 PM

the originally point i think made was "why are the police illegally inventing HUGE bail amounts on OWSers"

the real point should be "why is the bail ONLY $5000"

you could nail them on any of those 3 charges. but yeh. hopefully though we've helped you find the answer.

[Edited on December 6, 2011 at 3:43 PM. Reason : ,]

12/6/2011 3:41:30 PM

Quote :

"From the PDF document, search for 'disperse' Failure to disperse 5000 ZOMG "

ZOMG, the actual line is FAILURE TO DISPERSE FROM RIOT.

Not the same thing. Unless we're redefining riot. What, you think I didn't already find that exact same line on page 18 of your PDF?

[Edited on December 6, 2011 at 3:43 PM. Reason : ]

12/6/2011 3:42:52 PM

Quote :

"(a) Any use of force or violence, disturbing the public peace, or any threat to use force or violence, if accompanied by immediate power of execution, by two or more persons acting together, and without authority of law, is a riot. (b) As used in this section, disturbing the public peace may occur in any place of confinement. Place of confinement means any state prison, county jail, industrial farm, or road camp, or any city jail, industrial farm, or road camp, or any juvenile hall, juvenile camp, juvenile ranch, or juvenile forestry camp. "

Yeah, by law, I'd call it a riot.

12/6/2011 3:45:24 PM

^^to your point. I hope they aren't just 'inventing reasons' to arrest these protestors. and then making up outrageous bail amounts on them simply 'because they feel like it'

that would be horrible.

we can't fault the LA justice system yet. unless there are some individual cases that can be proven false.


[Edited on December 6, 2011 at 3:47 PM. Reason : ,]

12/6/2011 3:46:02 PM

Hahaha...okay. Have at it, hoss. Call that a riot.

12/6/2011 3:47:50 PM

It's disturbing the peace. Yes they have the right to protest, no one is saying they don't, but look at when all those folks in Oakland blocked a major roadway to a port...are you telling me that isn't disturbing the peace?

12/6/2011 3:49:00 PM

If this is a riot, then LA is straight up bitch-made

12/6/2011 3:49:55 PM

trespassing private property (1st offense) is $1000

12/6/2011 3:50:37 PM

If they're charging them with Failure to Disperse, they're using section 409 of the penal code.

Quote :

"407. Whenever two or more persons assemble together to do an unlawful act, or do a lawful act in a violent, boisterous, or tumultuous manner, such assembly is an unlawful assembly. 408. Every person who participates in any rout or unlawful assembly is guilty of a misdemeanor. 409. [bEvery person remaining present at the place of any[/b] riot, rout, or unlawful assembly, after the same has been lawfully warned to disperse, except public officers and persons assisting them in attempting to disperse the same, is guilty of a misdemeanor. "

[Edited on December 6, 2011 at 3:53 PM. Reason : Reading law is not that hard]

12/6/2011 3:52:32 PM

I like how you keep leaving out the whole charge.


Failure to Disperse from Riot. Are we calling this a riot, now? I mean, if we are, just let me know, so I can stop responding. Pretty sure if this was a riot, we would have heard about it by now on the news.


Christ, the fucking link that has the info is titled "Occupy L.A.: More than 200 arrested in peaceful sweep

In a peaceful sweep, where 200 people were then charged with failure to disperse from a riot? Yeah, that makes sense.

[Edited on December 6, 2011 at 4:02 PM. Reason : ]

12/6/2011 3:56:03 PM

Failure to Leave Campus 626.7 - also $5000

Entry to Campus to Disrupt 626.6 - $5000 as well


It's pretty cut and dry.

12/6/2011 4:03:43 PM

I'm not leaving out the whole charge. I quoted the whole charge, specifically Section 409 of the California Penal code. I know this is difficult for you to comprehend, but the common name for a law is not the actual text of the crime you have committed. When the TSA arrests you for being a damned dirty terrorist, you won't be charged with PATRIOT ACT, though people might say you were brought up on PATRIOT ACT charges. You will be charged with violating a specific law. In this case, assuming we have the right charge, they are being charged with violating Section 409.

12/6/2011 4:05:23 PM

Quote :

"Doesn't being held for 6 days without being charged bother you? And some of them will likely be released without being charged, and the rest of them will likely get $5,000 bail for a misdemeanor after being held for days. "

it's not like any of them missed work a day of work because of this.

besides, they got free room and board for almost a week; isn't that what they're protesting for? Or have they still not figured that part out yet?

12/6/2011 4:13:16 PM

Apologists for state oppression itt.

12/6/2011 4:51:25 PM

To be fair, that's almost every thread.

12/6/2011 5:28:28 PM

^^ Not really. JHC came complaining about trumped up charges and excessive bail. People pointed out that over all, the charges aren't really trumped up, and the bail was not excessive. JHC declared this not to be so and demanded proof. Specifically he asked people to:

Quote :

"show me a case in California where a misdemeanor is met with $5,000 bail and a few nights in jail"

In response he was provided with the statutory bail amounts for most of the misdemeanor charges in LA, a number of which were over $5,000, including the specific charge the protesters were charged with.

On the whole, I think that list should serve as a good reminder to everyone about just how massive the state really is. Read through that entire list of misdemeanors and then remind yourself that's only state charges, and doesn't include felonies you could be charged with.

As to whether the OWS protesters should have been told to disperse in the first place and arrested for failing to comply, that's another question that was not addressed.

12/6/2011 6:29:30 PM

so now they want crime-commission forgiveness as well?

12/6/2011 6:40:46 PM

How Federal Regulation Screws Over Small Businesses: A Story of Cupcakes

http://www.mightyheaton.com/2011/12/06/how-federal-regulation-screws-over-small-businesses-a-story-of-cupcakes/

Pretty good read. You might think that the federal government is capable of regulating industry. In reality, the worst offenders happen to be the most capable of co-opting government to do their bidding, and that's almost always what happens.

[Edited on December 6, 2011 at 7:36 PM. Reason : ]

12/6/2011 7:28:45 PM

^^^
Those are fair points, but the LAPD's use of a riot statute to punish participants of a peaceful protest seems a bit excessive to me.

12/6/2011 7:53:27 PM

wait so somebody found a copy of the charges that proves they are using that very specific 'riot' charge?

12/6/2011 9:32:15 PM

If they're being charged with failure to disperse, I find no other statutes that fit. That said the statute covers more than just riots. NC has a similar statute, GS 14-288.5, which covers both riots and "disorderly conduct by an assemblage":

Quote :

"§ 14-288.5. Failure to disperse when commanded a misdemeanor; prima facie evidence. (a) Any law-enforcement officer or public official responsible for keeping the peace may issue a command to disperse in accordance with this section if he reasonably believes that a riot, or disorderly conduct by an assemblage of three or more persons, is occurring. The command to disperse shall be given in a manner reasonably calculated to be communicated to the assemblage. (b) Any person who fails to comply with a lawful command to disperse is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor. (c) If any person remains at the scene of any riot, or disorderly conduct by an assemblage of three or more persons, following a command to disperse and after a reasonable time for dispersal has elapsed, it is prima facie evidence that the person so remaining is willfully engaging in the riot or disorderly conduct, as the case may be. (1969, c. 869, s. 1; 1993, c. 539, s. 190; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)"

12/6/2011 9:39:48 PM

I must have been confused. I thought that the disagreement regarded whether or not $5000 was a steep cost for peacefully protesting. When it was pointed out that $5000 was the standard amount attributed to riot dispersion misdemeanors, I assumed that the protesters had been charged with that?

So were you not even addressing the question of whether or not that the amount was excessive? You were merely pointing out that there are actual misdemeanors that warrant that amount?

Personally, I feel like $5000 is excessive for Failure to Leave Campus and Entry to Campus to Disrupt charges.

12/6/2011 10:57:24 PM