Deep Politics Forum

[video=vimeo;32597394]http://vimeo.com/32597394[/video]

Repeal the Farce of 'Corporate Personhood'

Let's take back the country starting now, by planning a tour to occupy the country
01.17.12 - 2:05 pm | Steven T. Jones, Tim Redmond, and Yael Chanoff |

Guardian illustration by Eric Drooker

news@sfbg.com

The Occupy movement that spread across the country last fall has already changed the national discussion: It's brought attention to the serious, systemic problem of gross inequities of wealth and power and the mass hardships that have resulted from that imbalance.

Occupy put a new paradigm in the political debate the 1 percent is exploiting the 99 percent and it's tapping the energy and imagination of a new generation of activists.

When Adbusters magazine first proposed the idea of occupying Wall Street last summer, kicking off on Sept. 17, it called for a focus on how money was corrupting the political system. "Democracy not Corporatocracy," the magazine declared but that focus quickly broadened to encompass related issues ranging from foreclosures and the housing crisis to self-dealing financiers and industrialists who take ever more profits but provide fewer jobs to the ways that poor and disenfranchised people suffer disproportionately in this economic system.

It was a primal scream, sounded most strongly by young people who decided it was time to fight for their future. The participants have used the prompt to create a movement that drew from all walks of life: recent college graduates and the homeless, labor leaders and anarchists, communities of colors and old hippies, returning soldiers and business people. They're voicing a wide variety of concerns and issues, but they share a common interest in empowering the average person, challenging the status quo, and demanding economic justice.

We chronicled and actively supported the Occupy movement from its early days through its repeated expulsions from public plazas by police, particularly in San Francisco, Oakland, and Berkeley. We supported the right of the protesters to remain even as we understood they couldn't and shouldn't simply stay forever. Occupy needed to evolve if it was to hold the public's interest. The movement would ultimately morph into something else.

That time has come. This spring, Occupy is poised to return as a mass movement and there's no shortage of energy or ideas about what comes next. Countless activists have proposed occupying foreclosed homes, shutting down ports and blocking business in bank lobbies. Those all have merit. But if the movement is going to challenge the hegemony of the 1 percent, it will involve moving onto a larger stage and coming together around bold ideas like a national convention in Washington, D.C. to write new rules for the nation's political and economic systems.

Imagine thousands of Occupy activists spending the spring drafting Constitutional amendments for example, to end corporate personhood and repeal the Citizens United decision that gave corporations unlimited ability to influence elections and a broader platform for deep and lasting change in the United States.

Imagine a broad-based discussion in meetings and on the web to develop a platform for economic justice, a set of ideas that could range from self-sustaining community economics to profound changes in the way America is governed.

Imagine thousands of activists crossing the country in caravans, occupying public space in cities along the way, and winding up with a convention in Washington, D.C.

Imagine organizing a week of activities not just political meetings but parties and cultural events to make Occupy the center of the nation's attention and an inspiring example for an international audience.

Imagine ending with a massive mobilization that brings hundreds of thousands of people to the nation's capitol and into the movement.

Occupy activists are already having discussions about some of these concepts (see sidebar). Thousands of activists are already converging on D.C. right now for the Occupy Congress, one of many projects that the movement can build on.

Article continues[URL="http://www.sfbg.com/occupyamerica"] here.
[/URL]

[video=youtube_share;dK7MWRMN_l4]http://youtu.be/dK7MWRMN_l4#t=4m35s[/video]

Occupy Wall Street West Plans Day Of Disruption, Activism In S.F. [Livestream]

http://sfist.com/2012/01/20/occupy_wall_..._day_o.php

At around 6 a.m. Friday, Occupy Wall Street West began its day-long, rain-soaked protest, which, if all goes according to plan, will disrupt business as usual in San Francisco's Financial District. First on the agenda, at least according to the OWSW itinerary, was to fry up some squid in front of Goldman Sachs. Why? Well, as OSW points, "[b]ack in 2009 Matt Taibbi referred to Goldman Sachs as 'a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.' "

Today's protest, as OWSW notes, "will stop business as usual in the San Francisco Financial District and the Federal Courts that protect corporate interests."

Other events planned for the day include: a sit-in in front of Bechtel (45 Beale Street), something called a "carnival against capitalism: im/mobile street part" (Market and Drumm), "creative action" at Wells Fargo (420 Montgomery) featuring "street theatre and high energy chanting," and more. Visit Occupy Wall Street West's schedule of events for more details.

Alert SF sent out the following message this morning: "Occupy Wall Street West demonstrations will take place throughout the day in the Financial and South of Market Districts; culminating with a march from Justin Herman Plaza to the United Nations Plaza this evening. The San Francisco Police and Sheriff's Departments will be on-hand to ensure the event is peaceful. It is unknown how many people will take part in the demonstrations. The demonstrators have the potential to disrupt the evening commute along Market Street. Please consider alternate commuting routes."

If you are at work or at home and cannot attend today's festivities, please check out SFSU Journalism School professor Justin Beck's live video stream the Occupy Wall Street West demonstrations. So far we see a band playing, fire trucks and cops, and loads of protesters holding signs and chanting, "We are the 99%" and "We are Occupy, We are never gonna die, Every time you beat us down, We are gonna multiply!"

SFist will continue to update throughout the day.

Update 8:50: According to Beck, "Occupiers blocking BofA entrance at 345 Montgomery." Said occupados are also speaking some sort of mantra or prayer or chant right now. Anyway, you can't get into that BofA today.

9:05: Martha Graham is the inspiration (or so we want to believe!) for this black blog-like performance piece oozing around Occupy Wall Street West today. We're sure it's ripe with meaning, of course, but we'll allow you to interpret it for yourselves. Martha would've wanted it that way.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3528[/ATTACH]

9:15: Scores of employees stuck in the rain outside BofA. Why won't their managers just send them home? Seems cruel to leave workerbees out in the rain.

9:20: Drama! Riot police have arrived at the scene.

10:40: A dance party has broken out with horrible rave music. Ugh.

11:00: Some sort of skirmish on California Street with protesters. One surly protester got bonked with a police baton. But the scene fizzled soon thereafter. Cops are pushing people. Things appear to be heating up. Arrests being made.

11:33: Somebody is playing Nelly Furtado's "Say It Right."

12:55: Lots of yelling and shit talk about cops.

1:29: Protesters briefly using Snonymous' slogan about not forgiving or forgetting. Huh. Seems a but off-putting for a group allegedly trying to gain a larger following, but there you have it.

7:40: According to a slew of occupiers on Twitter, police have pepper sprayed non-violent protesters. Also, several occupiers have taken over Cathedral Hill Hotel.

8:07: For another choice livestream, check out punkboyinsf:

Streaming video by Ustream

News
Eighteen Wall Street West Occupiers Arrested (Livestream)

by Eve Batey

January 20, 2012 6:56 AM

Elsewhere: Occupy Wall Street West Plans Day Of Disruption, Activism In S.F. [SFist]
Protesters close Wells Fargo headquarters branch [Biz Times]
Occupy Wall Street West Trying Hard to Occupy the Financial District [Weekly]
Arrests start early for daylong Occupy SF protest [Chron]


Last update: 4:47 PM

Officials in San Francisco are warning residents of disruptions to their usual activities due to today's Occupy Wall Street West demonstrations, planned for all day today.

Alert SF this morning sent a message to subscribers warning that "Occupy Wall Street West demonstrations will take place throughout the day in the Financial and South of Market Districts; culminating with a march from Justin Herman Plaza to the United Nations Plaza this evening."

"The San Francisco Police and Sheriff's Departments will be on-hand to ensure the event is peaceful." SFPD chief Greg Suhr echoed Alert SF's sentiments Wednesday, saying "we will facilitate ... civil disobedience as long as it doesn't cross the threshold and become criminal."

"We will be patient, as we always are, but if we get to the point where they're affecting the rights of others, we will make arrests as appropriate," he said.

Occupy Wall Street West has posted a complete list of their actions planned for today here.

"Collectively," they say on their site, "the actions will stop business as usual in the San Francisco Financial District and the Federal Courts that protect corporate interests."

The actions began this morning with a "squid fry" outside the offices of Goldman Sachs at 555 California, a reference to Rolling Stone contrib Matt Taibbi's description of Goldman Sachs as "a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity."

As of 7:49 AM, protesters have chained themselves to the entrance of Wells Fargo Bank's SF corporate headquarters at 420 Montgomery St. near California Street, said protester Pete Woiwode.

"We are trying to shut down the bank," Woiwode said.

Protesters had blocked entrances on all four sides of the Wells Fargo building earlier this morning and a large yellow banner was put up on a window of the building saying "We are unstoppable."

A 45-year-old Berkeley man named Cheche, who did not want to give his last name, said he showed up outside the Wells Fargo building at about 6 AM today.

"We didn't know what to expect from the cops, and they stayed neutral," he said.

However, police in riot gear began to move in on the protesters shortly after 9 AM, 11 protesters were arrested on suspicion of trespassing on private property, police spokesman Sgt. Daryl Fong said.

Despite the nearly dozen arrests made, protesters were still blocking two of the four sides of the Wells Fargo building and about 50 people remained in front of the Bank of America as of noontime.

Multiple blocks of California Street and Montgomery Street were blocked for hours this morning because of the demonstrations and the ensuing response by police in riot gear.

Many of the streets had reopened and all the riot police had left the area, but Montgomery Street remained closed between California and Pine streets as of 11:45 a.m.

While some protesters began marching through the Financial District later in the morning, others pitched a tent and placed tables and chairs on Montgomery Street, but began picking up the gear shortly before noon.

In a related action, more than 100 people have gathered outside a federal courthouse in San Francisco this afternoon to call for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to overturn the legal doctrine of corporate personhood.

The "Occupy the Courts" event, one of more than 100 taking place across the country today, started around noon at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Seventh and Mission streets in San Francisco.

Abraham Entin, one of the organizers of the event, spoke to the assembled crowd about the proposed amendment, which the group plans to deliver to officials at the courthouse.

"Corporations work very hard to convince us that we cannot do without them and the products they produce," Entin said. "They tell us they are too big to fail and that our survival is dependent on theirs."

He said, "We are here not to protest but to proclaim a truth that should be evident even to the Supreme Court: corporations are not people, money is not speech."

The "Occupy the Courts" events come a day before the second anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case.

The high court ruled in that case that the Constitution's First Amendment prohibited the government from limiting spending by corporations for political purposes.

Entin said there are 135 "Occupy the Courts" events in 46 different cities throughout the U.S.

"We can do this, we can amend the constitution without Congress," he said.

According to a press release sent by SFPD spokesperson Sgt. Michael Andraychak at 4:47 PM, "18 misdemeanor trespassing arrests were made this morning at the bank building on California / Leidesdorf. There were a total of 18 arrested for trespassing (blocking the doors to the bank building). Warnings were given as the protestors were blocking egress from then building and creating a fire hazard. The protestors refused to leave and were subsequently arrested."

"One additional male was arrested for possessing a police officers baton," says Andraychak. "The baton had been taken during an incident at California / Montgomery Streets between 1100am - 1200 noon. The baton was recovered. In that incident, protestors blocked the roadway and later left the area. No arrests were made in connection with the street closure."

A large labor protest in support of workers at Hyatt hotels in the city is scheduled for 4:30 p.m., and there will be a 5 PM march from Justin Herman Plaza, where protesters camped out for about two months before being evicted on Dec. 7.

"The demonstrators have the potential to disrupt the evening commute along Market Street. Please consider alternate commuting routes," Alert SF warned today.

The SFMTA cautions that "There will be unanticipated traffic and Muni delays throughout the day especially in the Financial District. Motorists should allow extra travel time."

For more details on Occupy Wall Street West, you can visit their site here, follow them on Twitter @owswest, and on Facebook here.

Zack Farmer, Dan McMenamin, and Sasha Lekach contributed to this reporthttp://sfappeal.com/news/2012/01/occupy-wall-street-west-activities-kick-off-in-sf-livestream.php

http://www.occupythebanks.com/2012/01/wh...s-otb.html

SHOUTOUT #ANON #ANONS #ANONYMOUS PROTECT #WHISTLEBLOWER PLEASE!! RT
This brave hero - an ex-veteran of the British Armed forces, no less - need YOUR support, and RIGHT NOW. This truth hero wishes to NAME NAMES and NEEDS A DEFENCE IN LAW for having done so, so Operation Occupy The Banks - The White Rabbit - Rides to the rescue and asked EVERYONE WHO TOUCHES THIS PAGE TO CLICK THE LINK UNDER THE VIDEO! We simply must get this HERO his 250,000 hits AS FAST AS POSSIBLE, before the banksters do what they always do to those who courageously oppose them - silence them, for good. We don't know about you, but we want those names public domain, so we know who the REAL CRIMINALS are in LLOYDS and can get them in the only place they belong - serving very hard time with SERIOUS criminals. Bend over boys - the public in Great Britain would love to hear you're getting it where you've been giving it, you FUCKING CRIMINAL MORONS - we're coming for you, and we're going to get you!

[video=vimeo;30881657]http://vimeo.com/30881657[/video]

The Guardian is a world respected quality UK paper who lead on important social justice issues.

This is my edited posted comment;-

Dear Joris,

A good article and timely too.

However you will be interested to know there is a Whistle Blower who worked for Lloyds Private Bank and Wealth Division, who has a website dedicated to relating his experiences whilst working at Lloyds,2005-2010.

This whistle blower is me,and should you want further information- then please contact me.

The site can be found by searching Lloyds Bank ethics.The site is a public interest site.

In 2012,I plan to disclose the actions and identities of certain Senior Directors-which will be done in a legal manner and such disclosures,will not breach any UK or US publishing laws.The disclosures will be supported by hard facts and letters and e-mails from Lloyds Bank will be faithfully reproduced.Any opinions will be honestly held.

In late 2009 and early 2010,I submitted evidence to Lloyds Bank,examples of what I believe are instances of Bank staff acting in a dishonest manner contrary to UK law.I also submitted examples of what I believe are incidences of widespread mis-selling in the retail branches of Lloyds TSB contrary to UK regulatory law.

This mis-selling has been caused by a sales system which can be seemingly manipulated by dishonest sales staff and their managers.This sales system is also inherently unfair and non-transparent to the Banks Retail clients and therefore breaches UK regulatory law -the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

My Complaints were escalated up the hierarchy of the bank from Divisional Sales Directors,to the Divisional Managing Director,onto the Group Compliance Directors,the Executive Board and CEO. Each and everyone of the Senior Directors who were approached and thus became involved because of the bank's processes and Compliance System have refused to properly investigate my Formal Complaints.This is despite such Senior Directors being provided with robust evidence of allegations of dishonest staff and managers-abusing the trust of the Banks retail clients-the British public.

Also robust evidence has been presented to these Senior Directors about the sales system the bank applies throughtout it's network of Lloyds TSB branches-as being unfair ,non-transparent and which allows,seemingly,easy manipulation by Bank staff of the Bank's clients.

Such manipulation by unscrupulous bank staff may result in overcharging,and the provision of inappropriate advice to clients of LLoyds TSB across the UK.

I also have robust evidence which points to the fact that the Bank uses such a system to maximise charges and hence bonuses for staff,in a unfair and non-transparent;contrary to UK Law embedded in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

I have thus presented the CEO and Senior Compliance Directors with such robust evidence and proof of Senior Directors obstructing me and then acting in a bullying and intimidating manner-whilst I was making such Formal complaints concerning these alleged breaches in UK Regulatory Law.

The Bank have offered to settle with me on at least 2 occasions , implying that I drop my complaints.I refused to consider a settlement-unless my Complaints were properly dealt with.I also decided not to seek redress through an employment tribunal,because this dispute is about the abuse of clients and not about the employment issues.

My Member of Parliament,Theresa May,has written 4 times to the CEO,who refuses to properly investigate my formal complaints.

There is also evidence that staff at Theresa May's office have been subject to intimidation by a senior Lloyds Bank staffer.

There is also evidence that a senior Lloyds Bank staffer replied to a letter from Theresa May MP in a misleading manner and in such a way I believe,which suggests a deliberate attempt to conceal major breaches in UK law.I have the evidence of this behaviour in the letters and e-mails,which staff and Senior Directors at Lloyds Bank sent to the Member of Parliament.

Advice has been sought from the regulators-the Financial Services Authority(FSA);and complaints submitted to the FSA-concerning the actions and conduct of Senior Lloyds Directors,will be lawfully posted on the website.This to my knowledge has never been done before.

Should you wish to have further contact with me about this alarming example of corporate behaviour in UK banking then please contact me via the site.You should be aware that 2 national press editors have been in touch,as has a news producer from a major UK news channel.All have been watching this story unfold.

I read the Guardian everyday and it is a paper I respect to tell the truth.

Yours sincerely

Ian Taplin.
---------------------------------------


"The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people verses the banks." Lord Acton. Historian. Politician. Writer. 1834-1902

Protesters occupy city building
Press AssociationPress Association 48 minutes ago

Email
Print

Related Content

Occupy London protesters take over Roman House in the BarbicanEnlarge Photo

Occupy London protesters take over Roman House in the Barbican

Occupy London protesters have taken over an eight-storey office building in the City despite warnings it is unsafe.

The economic justice campaigners entered Roman House in the Barbican at about 3.30am on Saturday, the fifth occupation they have carried out to date.

They vowed to remain at the abandoned block until the City of London Corporation publishes full details of its City cash accounts. But Berkeley Homes, which owns the building, described the occupation as "potentially dangerous".

A spokesman said: "We urge the protesters to vacate this building site as quickly as possible as we are very concerned that they are putting both themselves and members of the public in real danger.

"It is not safe for public use, there are holes in the floors and we are in the early stages of asbestos removal.

"The protesters are misguided in their actions, which are sadly preventing Berkeley Homes from implementing their planning permission and so providing not only 90 much-needed new homes, but also a significant number of key construction jobs during an economic crisis.

"We hope the protesters will therefore voluntarily leave the building shortly, given that it has no link whatsoever to their objectives. In the meantime we are taking legal advice, particularly given the safety concerns, to ensure this potentially dangerous occupation ends quickly."

Announcing its latest occupation, the campaign group said the building had previously housed financial service companies.

The protesters are calling for the Corporation to "become a more transparent public body like every other public body in the country".

Supporter Bryn Phillips, 28, said: "The Corporation has undermined our democracy through the power of its lobbyists and must submit to public scrutiny. If the City agrees to publish its City cash accounts, future and historic, we will leave the building immediately. If does not, we will take appropriate action until such time as it does."

The Constitution of No Authority
[[URL="http://www.occupythebanks.com/p/treason-banks-were-never-constitutional.html"]from a very interesting website ]
[/URL]I.

The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no
authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and
man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between
persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract
between persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have
been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years
of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory
contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion
even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or
asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any
formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent
formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty,
sixty, or seventy years. _And the Constitution, so far as it was their
contract, died with them._ They had no natural power or right to make it
obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in
the nature of things, that they _could_ bind their posterity, but they
did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does
not purport to be an agreement between any body but "the people" _then_
existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right,
power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves.
Let us see. Its language is:

We, the people of the United States (that is, the people _then
existing_ in the United States), in order to form a more perfect
union, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common
defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings
of liberty to ourselves _and our posterity_, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It is plain, in the first place, that this language, _as an agreement_,
purports to be only what it at most really was, viz., a contract between
the people then existing; and, of necessity, binding, as a contract,
only upon those then existing. In the second place, the language neither
expresses nor implies that they had any intention or desire, nor that
they imagined they had any right or power, to bind their "posterity" to
live under it. It does not say that their "posterity" will, shall, or
must live under it. It only says, in effect, that their hopes and
motives in adopting it were that it might prove useful to their
posterity, as well as to themselves, by promoting their union, safety,
tranquility, liberty, etc.

Suppose an agreement were entered into, in this form:

We, the people of Boston, agree to maintain a fort on Governor's Island,
to protect ourselves and our posterity against invasion.

This agreement, as an agreement, would clearly bind nobody but the
people then existing. Secondly, it would assert no right, power, or
disposition, on their part, to compel their "posterity" to maintain such
a fort. It would only indicate that the supposed welfare of their
posterity was one of the motives that induced the original parties to
enter into the agreement.

When a man says he is building a house for himself and his posterity, he
does not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought of
binding them, nor is it to be inferred that he is so foolish as to
imagine that he has any right or power to bind them, to live in it. So
far as they are concerned, he only means to be understood as saying that
his hopes and motives, in building it, are that they, or at least some
of them, may find it for their happiness to live in it.

So when a man says he is planting a tree for himself and his posterity,
he does not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought of
compelling them, nor is it to be inferred that he is such a simpleton as
to imagine that he has any right or power to compel them, to eat the
fruit. So far as they are concerned, he only means to say that his hopes
and motives, in planting the tree, are that its fruit may be agreeable
to them.

So it was with those who originally adopted the Constitution. Whatever
may have been their personal intentions, the legal meaning of their
language, so far as their "posterity" was concerned, simply was, that
their hopes and motives, in entering into the agreement, were that it
might prove useful and acceptable to their posterity; that it might
promote their union, safety, tranquility, and welfare; and that it might
tend "to secure to them the blessings of liberty." The language does not
assert nor at all imply, any right, power, or disposition, on the part
of the original parties to the agreement, to compel their "posterity" to
live under it. If they had intended to bind their posterity to live
under it, they should have said that their object was, not "to secure to
them the blessings of liberty," but to make slaves of them; for if their
"posterity" are bound to live under it, they are nothing less than the
slaves of their foolish, tyrannical, and dead grandfathers.

It cannot be said that the Constitution formed "the people of the United
States," for all time, into a corporation. It does not speak of "the
people" as a corporation, but as individuals. A corporation does not
describe itself as "we," nor as "people," nor as "ourselves." Nor does a
corporation, in legal language, have any "posterity." It supposes itself
to have, and speaks of itself as having, perpetual existence, as a
single individuality.

Moreover, no body of men, existing at any one time, have the power to
create a perpetual corporation. A corporation can become practically
perpetual only by the voluntary accession of new members, as the old
ones die off. But for this voluntary accession of new members, the
corporation necessarily dies with the death of those who originally
composed it.

Legally speaking, therefore, there is, in the Constitution, nothing that
professes or attempts to bind the "posterity" of those who established
it.

If, then, those who established the Constitution, had no power to bind,
and did not attempt to bind, their posterity, the question arises,
whether their posterity have bound themselves. If they have done so,
they can have done so in only one or both of these two ways, viz., by
voting, and paying taxes.http://www.occupythebanks.com/p/treason-...ional.html

[this piece written in 1870 in Boston is MUCH longer and can be followed on the url given at the top!]