Much of the recent news on the legal front has provided the Occupy movement with bursts of momentum. The first victory was the acquittal of Alexander Arbuckle, an NYU student arrested in January (ironically while completing a photojournalism project aimed at exploring the NYPD’s side of an Occupy Wall Street protest). Charged with disorderly conduct for standing in the middle of the street and blocking traffic, Arbuckle was vindicated by considerable photographic and video evidence showing that it was police, not protesters, blocking traffic. The protesters, including Arbuckle, are shown to have remained on the sidewalk.
Two days later, a similar ruling came down in favor of OWS protester Jessica Hall.... [Continues at website...]
Jim Payne, local activist on the Citizens United v. FEC issue has requested that you consider signing this petition in support of repealing this odious decision by the Supreme Court:
A victory? This is weird, I can't remember when the causes of the 1%, greed, injustice, repression and war did not prevail. The NDAA can still become law if the Gov't appeals to the Appellate Court and the Supreme Court after that. The tools at the Supreme Court would almost certainly come down wrong on it
In January, attorneys Carl Mayer and Bruce Afran asked me to be the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit against President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta that challenged the harsh provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). We filed the lawsuit, worked for hours on the affidavits, carried out the tedious depositions, prepared the case and went to trial because we did not want to be passive in the face of another egregious assault on basic civil liberties, because resistance is a moral imperative, and because, at the very least, we hoped we could draw attention to the injustice of the law. None of us thought we would win. But every once in a while the gods smile on the damned.
U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest, in a 68-page opinion, ruled Wednesday that Section 1021 of the NDAA was unconstitutional. It was a stunning and monumental victory. With her ruling she returned us to a country where—as it was before Obama signed this act into law Dec. 31—the government cannot strip a U.S. citizen of due process or use the military to arrest him or her and then hold him or her in military prison indefinitely. She categorically rejected the government’s claims that the plaintiffs did not have the standing to bring the case to trial because none of us had been indefinitely detained, that lack of imminent enforcement against us meant there was no need for an injunction and that the NDAA simply codified what had previously been set down in the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force Act. The ruling was a huge victory for the protection of free speech. Judge Forrest struck down language in the law that she said gave the government the ability to incarcerate people based on what they said or wrote. Maybe the ruling won’t last. Maybe it will be overturned. But we and other Americans are freer today than we were a week ago. And there is something in this. [continues at website...]
A pre-emptive raid by the Chicago Police Department (CPD) on the home of two Occupy Chicago activists may have happened without a search warrant, said the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), and led to the disappearance of nine activists into police custody without charge for almost 24 hours.
"I'd like to stress that we have done nothing wrong," said Zoe Sigman, an Occupy Chicago activist whose home was raided. "We have been planning to protest NATO and there is nothing illegal about expressing our feelings about a war machine. Now we're being treated as mere criminals. As if we're part of an organized crime that they're trying to take down. Who knows what they're going to pin on us. We're terrified."
The raid of an apartment on Chicago's Southside Bridgeport neighborhood occurred on Wednesday evening around 11:30 PM. So far, none of the activists have been charged and four were released Friday morning. According to witnesses, the raid was conducted by the Organized Crime Division of the CPD and a warrant produced at the site didn't have the signature of a judge. (Emph.: RGD) [Continues at website..]
TED curator Chris Anderson seemed most concerned that "business managers and entrepreneurs would feel insulted" by some remarks about income inequality.
We've long heard complaints that TED is elitist. The annual conference in California costs $7,500 to attend and is nearly impossible to get into, even for those who can afford the price tag; it is widely considered to be "unofficially invite-only."
Still, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who hasn't gone down a TED video rabbit hole at least once. Snobby as they may be, those TED folks sure know how to pull together some fascinating speakers and share their talks online in a compelling way. [Continues at website...]
It is insidious how mealy mouthed President Obama will go insipid TV shows like The View and bandy about the terms reform and regulation. Robert Scheer details the very deep connections between President Obama and JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon. He is they and they are he.
How did we end up with such smart scoundrels? Even after it was known that Jamie Dimon’s bank blew more than $2 billion on the same suspect derivatives trading that has bankrupted the world’s economy, Barack Obama still had praise for the intellect of his political backer and the integrity of the bank he heads: “JPMorgan is one of the best-managed banks there is,” the president told the hosts of ABC’s “The View” in an interview televised Tuesday, adding, “Jamie Dimon, the head of it, is one of the smartest bankers we got. And they still lost $2 billion and counting.”
A lesser bank would have gone under and needed to be bailed out, Obama argued: “That’s why Wall Street reform is so important.” But even when fully implemented, Obama’s tepid reforms would not have stopped this scam and will not stop the others that are sure to follow. Being one of the smartest bankers means you are among those who best know how to skirt the law or, if that cannot be done, how to successfully lobby to gut it. [Continues at website...]
By the Alternative Banking Working Group of Occupy Wall Street
Dear Jamie Dimon:
We, the Alternative Banking Working Group of Occupy Wall Street, are staging an intervention on your behalf. Unlike many in the financial industry and press, we will not be deceived by attempts at misdirection and we are not intimidated by complexity. Your days of gambling with taxpayers’ money and pressuring the regulators to let business go on as usual are over. It’s not good for you, it’s not good for us, and it’s not good for our country.
It’s been a good ride, and we’ve been impressed with how long you have managed to keep it up. The incredible complexity of the financial system helped, of course, just as it helped obscure countless other crimes and frauds.
It’s truly a work of art how you and your enablers have created a system that nobody fully understands. It’s the perfect cover for your continuing addiction to risk, power, and money, and it keeps everyone confused just long enough, well past any statute of limitation for criminal prosecution.
Now your addiction is out of control. Rather than quitting while you and JPMorgan Chase were ahead (if you ever were), you’ve been driven to inhale every last dollar, no matter the risks involved for you and for all of us. What has really worked for you personally, and has allowed you to remain credible for so long, is your intense denial as to the underlying question of what year it is.
You seem to live in a time warp where it is still 2004, the housing market is booming, along with the associated securities market, and you and your friends are printing money with no downside in sight. But it turns out that ’04 model was a bit of a lemon — or, to borrow your words, “poorly conceived, poorly vetted, and poorly executed.”
Here is some sobering news: You are, in fact, living in 2012, leading an enormous, too-big-to-fail bank, which is being continuously bailed out by the Fed’s unlimited loans at 0% interest, on the taxpayers’ dime. In a reasonable world, under these conditions, JPMorgan Chase would be a utility bank focused on the public good, and you would be merely its custodian. You would not be incentivized to take crazy risks to chase yield. Your job would be incredibly boring and your bank only very mildly profitable.
But, sadly, the addiction is still doing the talking. So we’re here to say “no more.” It’s time to put down that fifth drink and walk away from the baccarat table, because no matter how many martinis you have and no matter how much money you lose, you’re still a glorified accountant, not a secret agent. And that’s fine. There’s nothing that JPMorgan Chase, and the world economy for that matter, needs more than a very good accountant.
Perhaps you will protest that you don’t need this intervention. In fact, over the past few days you have repeatedly acknowledged your sloppiness, stupidity, and bad judgment. And though that sounds compelling and humble, as we know you expect it to, you haven’t gone far enough to demonstrate that you understand just how deeply in trouble you are. And don’t claim stupidity – “stupid” isn’t a word associated with Jamie Dimon. You need to admit that you are powerless over your addiction and that your bank has become unmanageable.
Here is what we ask of you:
First, stop gambling with our money and our futures. Stop lobbying for deregulation — we are way past that now. Stop lying to us all by doing silly things like pushing proprietary trading into the treasury office and renaming it, or by pretending that there are no losses when there very clearly are, to the tune of $2,000,000,000 and growing. And, please, stop trying to convince us that nobody at JPMorgan Chase saw this coming. Ina Drew was offering to resign in April but you kept telling the world that nothing serious was amiss, a lie which could get you serious jail time.
Second, admit that your bank is too big to take risks that neither you nor anyone in your bank understands or is able to handle, and that the only thing that will stop you from misbehaving is strong, enforced, and uncompromised regulation.
Third, resign as Director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. It is inappropriate, and dangerous to us, for you to oversee the banking system or the economy when you have proven incompetent at overseeing your own bank — particularly since the Federal Reserve is investigating your bank and your behavior.
Because this in an intervention, you’re going to need to get used to a lot of new folks who will challenge the bad decisions that have become habit for you. The SEC should be facilitating the first step by getting you into a full in-patient rehab program, where the Fed, the FDIC, and every other regulator who has an interest in your bank’s good health can help you make a searching and fearless moral inventory of your bank and its choices. Although the “revolving door” connecting Wall Street to the Beltway has turned our regulatory agencies into the Keystone Kops of the 21st century, your crisis should serve as a wake-up call and put an end to their denial as well.
When you reach your twelfth step, you can help the regulators write tougher regulations based on the knowledge you acquired during your efforts to undermine them.
After all, if you can’t manage the risk, then nobody can. And you’ve taken the first step by admitting that you can’t. Now take the other eleven.
Best regards, The Alternative Banking Working Group
TED, the sleek pioneering giant of the online video salon, boasts the tagline: “Ideas worth spreading.” But the group declined to post a talk by Seattle-based venture capitalist and Amazon.com investor Nick Hanauer, who said the middle class, not wealthy financiers like himself, were the nation’s real “job creators.”
The organization invited Hanauer, the first non-family investor in Amazon.com, to speak about inequality at its university conference March 1. Hanauer told the audience that rising income inequality was harmful to society and that the rich should pay more in taxes.
But statements like that won’t do in an election year. Although one organizer told Hanauer in late April that TED “wants to put this talk out into the world!” the group later deemed the speaker’s remarks too “political” to post.
In an email to colleagues in early April, TED curator Chris Anderson wrote that Hanauer’s lecture “probably ranks as one of the most politically controversial talks we’ve ever run” and that the group needed to be “really careful” about when to post it. [See more at the Truthdig website...]
Prepare to meet Nick Hanauer. He's a venture capitalist from Seattle who was the first non-family investor in Amazon.com. Today he's a very rich man. And, somewhat jarringly, he's screaming to anyone who will listen that he, and other wealthy innovators like him, doesn't create jobs. The middle class does - and its decline threatens everyone in America, from the innovators on down.
You'll read a lot more about Hanauer in the next installation of Restoration Calls, which drops tomorrow. In the meantime, check out the full text of a speech Hanauer gave in March at the TED University conference. You can't find the talk online, because TED officials have declared it too politically controversial to post on their web site. You be the judge:
It is astounding how significantly one idea can shape a society and its policies. Consider this one.
If taxes on the rich go up, job creation will go down.
This idea is an article of faith for republicans and seldom challenged by democrats and has shaped much of today's economic landscape.
But sometimes the ideas that we know to be true are dead wrong. [Continues at website...]
Matt Renner: In your introduction to the book, you discuss New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's "cleanliness" excuse for clearing the original Occupy Wall Street encampment at Liberty Square. Why do you think so many public officials and right-wing pundits describe the occupiers as "unclean"?
Richard D. Wolff: Their problem has been, and continues to be, that they have no response to Occupy's basic attack on the inequity and antidemocratic social conditions summarized in the confrontation of, "1 percent against 99 percent." They know that the vast majority of Americans feel the truth of Occupy's social criticism, experience it in their lives, and sympathize with protest against and efforts to change a system with such unjust outcomes. So, they can refute little and need instead to distract public opinion from what Occupy focuses on.[Continues at website...]
A federal district judge today, the newly-appointed Katherine Forrest of the Southern District of New York, issued an amazing ruling: one which preliminarily enjoins enforcement of the highly controversial indefinite provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act, enacted by Congress and signed into law by President Obama last December. This afternoon’s ruling came as part of a lawsuit brought by seven dissident plaintiffs — including Chris Hedges, Dan Ellsberg, Noam Chomsky, and Brigitta Jonsdottir — alleging that the NDAA violates ”both their free speech and associational rights guaranteed by the First Amendment as well as due process rights
guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.” [Continues at website...]
Welcome to OCCUPY BEND Community, a hub for all of the events springing up in solidarity with Occupy Wall Street. The news of Occupy events on facebook, twitter and live feeds across the globe inspired us to take local action and to build a site that would help spread the word and organize the movement here in Central Oregon.
This is a place to share information about events that are being organized, in progress, and building. Together, we, the 99%, will take action to overcome the greed and corruption of the 1%. We must return the power of democracy to the people and away from corporate interests. We will make a difference starting in our community.
Our strength is in our solidarity and also in our diversity. Please join us. Share your knowledge, opinions and experiences to guide this local movement so we can shape the best possible future together.
