Oct 13 2011
Does the Occupy Movement Influence Policy? Activists Express Long Term Vision and Goals
While media comparisons between the Occupy movement and the Tea Party abound, one major difference between the two groupings is the Occupy movements’ general refusal to be embraced by elected officials. But the Democratic Party is hoping to cash in on growing discontent, with it’s fundraising committee, circulating a petition to gather 100,000 signatures from party members in support of the Occupy Wall Street movement. However, the Democratic Party and President Obama are seen by many as part of the problem. Senate Democrats were unable to unify their ranks this week in support of Obama’s weak jobs act that included a surtax on millionaires. It is perhaps too early to determine how the Occupy movements will influence the political machinery in Washington DC.
On October 13, 2011, Uprising host Sonali Kolhatkar interviewed Mark Lippman, member of the General Assembly, organizing for more than 20 years; Elise Whitaker, 21 year old member of the General Assembly and first-time activist.
Watch a video of the interview here:
Laura Mann recorded this interview.
3 Responses to “Does the Occupy Movement Influence Policy? Activists Express Long Term Vision and Goals”
We live in a country no longer represented by the people but by the interests of major corporations and the money they use through lobbying to pay off our elected officials. These politicians no longer voice the opinion of the voters who put them in office but instead speak for the special interests which pay them more and more money to turn a blind eye to the destruction of our environment and the extinction of the middle class. How long will the occupations have to last before a SINGLE government official asks what WE the PEOPLE want changed? Visit my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2011/09/occupywallstreet.html to see my art for the movement and also see videos of the protests and police brutality as well as get other sources for coverage of the movement.
SBX211 Retro Active Immunity given to California judges for openly taking bribes. Judges are employees of the state they receive their pay and benefits from the state. The Los Angeles Superior court judges are currently receiving an additional $57.688,00 from the county of Los Angeles. there is no bigger user of the court than L.A. County (A party to the case and has a financial interest in most cases in the courts) Those payments were found to be unconstitutional / illegal in Sturgeon vs Los angeles County. After that decision the judges paid a lobbyist to pass SBX211 ( RETRO ACTIVE IMMUNITY )
SBX211 does not restore due process
SBX211 violates Article 1 section 9
SBX211 violates the 14th amendment (no equal protections)
SBX211 violate checks and balances between legislative and Judicial powers.
Judges do not disclose the county payments at the onset of any trial where the county is either a party to the case or has a financial interest. (Judges violate Judicial codes of ethics)
Judges refuse to recuse themselves when requested under CCP170
Judges find themselves unbiased and then file an order striking statement.
Not only do judges get paid a state salary of $178,789.00 a year with medical and retirement benefits up to 75% of their salary, with the county payments the Los Angeles Superior court judges are the highest paid judges in the Nation. Los Angeles County takes tax payer money and then gives the judges that money to only have the judges rule against the tax payer in favor of L.A. County or the County’s interest.
SBX211 is evidence of conspiracy of the California legislative branch of government to cover up the multiple felony’s committed by the Judicial branch of government. By an act of Legislation, California’s judicial branch has admitted to be corrupt.
SECTION FROM SBX211
This bill would provide that no governmental entity, or officer or employee of a governmental entity, shall incur any liability or be subject to prosecution or disciplinary action because of benefits provided to a judge under the official action of a governmental entity prior to the effective date of this bill on the ground that those benefits were not authorized under law.
I brought a law suit against the judge in my case for the loss of due process and the bias created by the county payments. I requested a judge that has never received the county payments and a demand for a jury trial. I was denied both. I sued the judge as an individual on the basis that the taking of a bribe was not in his official duties and therefor he is not entitled to state representation. I stated that the judge could not here my case on the grounds that he has a personal interest on the grounds that my case revolved around the issue that SBX211 in unconstitutional, He had received that county payment and he would not be able to find himself guilty for multiple felony offenses of taking bribes. The judge declared himself not biased and he denied my request and ruled in favor of the judges demurrer. case over. (judge O’bien: total amount received $230,000.00 from the county)
Please help to bring the courts back to full constitutional compliance. Repeal SBX211
If government would only adhere to their sworn oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws we would not be in this horrible mess. But instead they take bribes/ campaign contributions and either give massive bail outs or they violate the Constitution by granting Retro Active Immunity from prosecution.
Robert kennedy spoke out against retro active immunity…”QUOTE” (The very idea of “retroactive immunity” … is so radical, so repugnant to the most basic principles of the “rule of law,” that only one prior attempt can be found in recent history (at least from my research): the efforts by some in Congress (in 1965) to enact a law retroactively legalizing the mergers by six large banks which clearly — as a federal court found — were illegal under our nation’s antitrust laws.
The banks knew when they merged that they were almost certainly violating anti-trust laws. But they did it anyway. And when courts began ruling that their behavior was illegal, they ran to Congress to demand that a law be passed granting them amnesty, claiming that the consequences would be ruinous if they were held accountable under the law. ) But the very concept of retroactive amnesty, the idea that corporations could break the law and then have Congress pass a special law legalizing their lawbreaking conduct, was so profoundly offensive to Sen. Robert Kennedy (who had been the Attorney General when the banks broke the law with their mergers), as well as then-Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, that they engaged in extraordinary efforts to try to put a stop to this Congressional travesty.
If Robert Kennedy was able to stop them at that time in our history then we would most certainly not be in this position today. What will happen in the future now that it is legal for judges to take bribes? How could you bring evidence of corruption and violations of the LAW when you have a court that has been granted RETRO ACTIVE IMMUNITY for taking bribes.
HISTORY OF RETRO ACTIVE IMMUNITY IN THE UNITED STATES
1. given for illegal use of torture
2. given for illegal merger of banks (we can see the effects of that now)
3. given to telecom company for illegal wire taps. (Fisa bill that led to the patriot act)
4. given to Judges for taking bribes. (SBX211)