Suhm's "Very Disappointed" By Turn of Events as Occupy Dallas, City Head Back to Courthouse

Categories: City Hall
occupy_city_hall_camp_2011-19.jpg
Photo by Chris Howell
Below you'll find the original agreement the city of Dallas and Occupy Dallas entered into last month after that trip to the courthouse that was all fist-bumps and high-fives. Problem is, the agreement is affixed as an exhibit to even more legal docs Occupy Dallas's attorneys took to the courthouse late yesterday -- the protesters' response to the city's response to Occupy Dallas's treatment of the campsite behind City Hall, wherein City Manager Mary Suhm and First Assistant City Attorney Chris Bowers give the Occupiers till Saturday at 5 p.m. to straighten up or get out. So much for good vibes; the relationship's gone sour.

The Occupiers' attorney, Jonathan Winocour, wants a judge to keep the city from booting the campers come Saturday evening. Says the request for a temporary restraining order, "harm is imminent because the City has unambiguously threatened to take action to forcibly 'evict' Plaintiffs from an area their use of which is effectively licensed through the settlement agreement." Winocour reiterates what Occupy Dallas media contact Michael Prestonise told Unfair Park yesterday, insisting the terms of the city's agreement are "ambiguous."

Winocour tells Unfair Park that "what turned this around was the letter the city decided to release Tuesday night. It was always the understanding of the Occupants that the license the city granted us was to use this public park overnight. They expanded the contours of the ordinance. It was always our understanding that was unrelated to the exercise of First Amendment rights outside the park. So if they're engaging in protest outside Bank of America or Chase, it's protected speech, and the arrests that have taken place at these public protests are entirely unrelated to the occupancy, if you like, or to the physical location behind City Hall -- the camp. The sentiment from the camp is there's an artificial linkage ... to the arrests."

Suhm tells Unfair Park this morning she's "very disappointed" with the turn of events. Far as she's concerned, "We were trying to protect their First Amendment rights and the citizens and the taxpayers, and we were pleased they understood everyone's rights had to be protected." Bowers's letter, she says, was intended to remind the group that "you're not living up to your side of the agreement, and if you want your rights protected, you have to respect everyone else's. I thought they were interested in protecting people rights, and they're not."

For the last few days, there have been rumblings out of City Hall that some council members, and not just Tennell Atkins, want the Occupiers off City Hall property. Suhm would not dispute that: "When people don't abide by the agreement, it makes lots of people unhappy. The agreement's not being adhered to."

Far as Winocour's concerned, till now relations with the city have been OK; he says there have been several back-and-forths with the City Attorney's Office, and that those discussions have been related to the Occupy Dallas camp and its general assembly. Were it not for Saturday's arrests, he believes, Bowers wouldn't have sent that letter, and Occupy Dallas and the city wouldn't be headed back to court, which will happen once the paperwork's been officially processed (which should be later this morning) and a judge can be found to hear the request for a temporary restraining order.

(Update: The hearing has been set for 1 p.m. tomorrow.)

"The city seems to have pushed back in response to that news story, as opposed to quitely coming down and visiting with the Occupants and saying, 'Let's discuss the problems,'" the attorney says. "But instead they sent an unpleasant letter to me and threatened my clients with revocation of this agreement. ... We recognize the city has concerns, and we have concerns too. The original agreement was negotiated in some haste, and it's time for us to sit down together and iron out some of the ambiguities. If we can do that, that would be great. But I don't see that happening. It makes more sense for an impartial third party -- in this case, a Dallas County District judge -- to look at it and see what it means."

But the city's question is: If the terms of the original agreement were so "ambiguous," as the Occupiers now claim, then why did Winocour sign it in the first place?

"I didn't find them particularly ambiguous," says Suhm. "You have to go back to the fundamental concept: They wanted their First Amendment rights protected, but having First Amendment rights doesn't entitle you to other benefits and entitle you to step on other people's toes. The council, the business people downtown, the people working in City Hall, the convention center have all been gracious and understanding of First Amendment rights. But when you get on other people's rights, that's unacceptable. I'm sad. I'm sad that people take advantage."

To which Winocour responds: "The ambiguity arises in its application."

And so, off to court they go again, "and we'll see from there," says Suhm. "When you make a deal with somebody, you assume everyone will live up to their side of the deal. Those weren't horribly arduous terms."

And while we're on the subject of the initial agreement: It says that the Occupiers "shall not interfere with special events," including those at the Dallas Convention Center. Does that include the opening of the taxpayer-funded Omni Hotel tomorrow? Winocour's not sure -- mostly because the protesters don't tell him everything. But as he puts it, it's certainly "more of a legitimate target" than, say, the Veterans Day Parade, which Occupy Dallas vows it will not interfere with. And, returning to his theme of ambiguity, Winocour asks: "Is the opening of a hotel an event?"

Suhm says, again, that the agreement is quite clear about this, and "I assume people are going to do what they say they're going to do. But we prepare in case they don't. We're all aware we have to consider all the alternatives. But I'm assuming they're going to abide their commitments."OD v City
My Voice Nation Help
75 comments
Sort: Newest | Oldest
Rosco O'Toole
Rosco O'Toole

Stephen Benavides should be released immediately. He was specifically targeted by the police and was physically dragged by the police into the street to be beaten and arrested. It was a blatant attempt by authorities to cut the head off of the beast that is Occupy. Occupy is many things but it is NOT A VIOLENT movement. BTW: I was standing 5 feet from Stephen when he was grabbed so this is EYEWITNESS testimony.

Please join Occupy on their next march...

If you r not Local? MARCH WITH OCCUPY EVERY SATURDAY!!!!

Mike
Mike

Specifically targeted? As opposed to the other people jumping up and down on the planters waving a flag? I am sure his profile was posted down in the locker room where the minimum wage watch persons check in, like they would give a tinker's dam. The next time I jump up on the hood of someone's BMW and they get upset, I will just tell them it was "a natural platform." yeah, that will work.

Denise Aday
Denise Aday

Appreciate the Observer's continued reporting of this!

PS Done feeding the trolls.

ScottsMerkin
ScottsMerkin

trolls?  You have 6 comments here and you call everyone else here a troll? You are the new one here not us, and what are you feeding them, B.S.?  Now that facts have been laid down to you, you want to leave?  Bring it, have a stomach for the fight, or are you going to lay down like the rest of the week ass ODers.  look around the country, your fellow occupiers are protesting and being disobediant.  These schleps are bitching about where the eff they sleep.  Yeah your message isnt getting across

RTGolden
RTGolden

Another first amendment primer for those who think 'anything' can be protected as 'symbolic' free speech.  Taken from the majority opinion of the Supreme Court ruling in Texas v. Johnson:

""The First Amendment literally forbids the abridgment only of "speech," but we have long recognized that its protection does not end at the spoken or written word. While we have rejected "the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled 'speech' whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea,"  we have acknowledged that conduct may be "sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First and Fourteenth Amendments."In deciding whether particular conduct possesses sufficient communicative elements to bring the First Amendment into play, we have asked whether "[a]n intent to convey a particularized message was present, and [whether] the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it.""

The ODers may be able to convince each other that camping in the park conveys a symbolic message, possibly even the media.  I'm not so sure they can convince the courts of that, I know they haven't convinced me.  They need to get rid of their utopian idea that they are a blanket organization accepting any and all who have some sort of grievance and decide upon a clear issue they are protesting by camping there.  Then all they have to do, in my opinion, is abide by their agreement with the city, leave the temp. fencing around the trees alone and keep the park clean. (They're living there, stop blaming others for messing up your house.)

Mott Romney
Mott Romney

You correctly quote Texas v. Johnson, but you're only taking one aspect of their expression -- the campout -- and ignoring the rest.   You have to view the entire message, in context.  The ODers do, after all, claim that America is in the toilet thanks to big banks and the richest 1% of Americans.  Or something along those lines.  They are not just out there roasting marshmallows.  Interesting that you picked Texas v. Johnson, which involves the City of Dallas losing on the issue.  In Johnson, after a march through the city streets, a guy burned an American flag in response to Republicans re-nominating Ronald Reagan in 1984.  Many observers were offended.  The City of Dallas arrested him, citing an ordinance on deseceration of the flag.  (They also claimed he was about to incite a riot, but the Supremes noted there wasn't really any evidence of that.)The Supreme Court tossed his conviction, holding that burning a flag -- and nothing more -- was a form of expression protected by the First Amendment, given the context under which it happened -- outside of the GOP convention in Dallas in 1984.

Mott Romney
Mott Romney

(Hopefully with paragraph breaks this time.  Yes, RT, I can cut and paste from columns, too!)You correctly quote Texas v. Johnson, but you're only taking one aspect of their expression -- the campout -- and ignoring the rest.   You have to view the entire message, in context.  The ODers do, after all, claim that America is in the toilet thanks to big banks and the richest 1% of Americans.  Or something along those lines.  They are not just out there roasting marshmallows.  Interesting that you picked Texas v. Johnson, which involves the City of Dallas losing on the issue.  In Johnson, after a march through the city streets, a guy burned an American flag in response to Republicans re-nominating Ronald Reagan in 1984.  Many observers were offended.  The City of Dallas arrested him, citing an ordinance on deseceration of the flag.  (They also claimed he was about to incite a riot, but the Supremes noted there wasn't really any evidence of that.)The Supreme Court tossed his conviction, holding that burning a flag -- and nothing more -- was a form of expression protected by the First Amendment, given the context under which it happened -- outside of the GOP convention in Dallas in 1984.

RTGolden
RTGolden

By the way, even though we're often in opposition to each other, I enjoy your responses. Very well thought out and clearly articulated.  It's nice to have a battle of wits with someone armed for the cause, for a change.

RTGolden
RTGolden

I didn't take the camping message out of context, The OD lawyer did that before I could get around to it.  He said "... we always understood that was SEPARATE from First Amendment issues outside the campsite..."

Trust me, I place an extremely high value on all 12 clauses in the Bill of Rights.  I am searching for a way to get wherever OD is at with this camping issue from where I am at.  However, if they want my support, they have to follow the law.  The law of the City of Dallas states that camping is prohibited on City property, and the Supreme Court upholds a municipality's legal right to place such restrictions.

As I have said before, do it right, abide by the agreement, keep your campsite clean and orderly and I have no problem with the agreement reached between OD and the city.  And yes, if other people let their dogs crap on the grass or drop trash, OD has the responsibility to pick it up.  You don't let your home go to hell because your guests have poor cleanliness, you clean your home.

heart and soul
heart and soul

Thank you Judge RTGolden for your worthless opinion on the law. They are there. Get over it.

ScottsMerkin
ScottsMerkin

so funny that all the commenters on here defending the ODers and free speech now want us to shut up and get over the fact they are there. no I wont get over it, I wont let a bunch of shitheads w/o jobs live on city property for free, while I work and pay my mortgage and taxes to live on land that supposedly I own, but truly never do here in texas

Scruffygeist
Scruffygeist

Occupy Macaroni Grill!

Trey Parker and Matt Stone effectively killed most sympathy any Occupy group is going to get, at least among educated, working people with cable or streaming internet access.

ScottsMerkin
ScottsMerkin

well we are on the same page possibly, bc if the 99% are those campers at city hall, I want nothing to do with them

heart and soul
heart and soul

Me and the other 99% that know that there is no 99%.

ScottsMerkin
ScottsMerkin

sorry didnt see, I guess you did, so no... they made it just for you!

heart and soul
heart and soul

Did you see the new Southpark about the 99%. It's pretty funny. You would love it. They made it just for you.

ScottsMerkin
ScottsMerkin

never claimed it did, just saying that since they violated a signed agreement, they have no right to be pissed when they are removed.  I dont want to sleep behind city hall, what good will it do me.  My back hurts enough that I dont think sleeping on a grassy hill would help.  And your 99% dont represent the 99% that most of us evision.  They are radical whack jobs of the 99% I consider them the other 1%, the 1% who want to decimate the middle class for their own benefit

heart and soul
heart and soul

You want to live with OD behind City Hall what is stopping you? Get over it or not they are still there. You having a job and having a mortgage doesn't make you special. There are plenty like you and more to replace you when you leave this earth. What is your point?

RTGolden
RTGolden

The legal opinion contained in my post was that of the Supreme Court.  The personal opinions were mine.  I was happy to share both, thus exercising my right to free expression.  Get over it.

Paul
Paul

There have been a lot of comments about 1st Amendment Rights. The OD folks seem to think that the 1st Amendment Rights are completely unfettered.  I wonder if they think the same way about the 2nd Amendment. A little quiz about the 1st Amendment.  Which of the following examples of speech are protected by the 1st Amendment?  A little trick though, is it the government that can restrict your speech or someone else? A)  Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater that is not on fire.  Nope, definitely not protected speech.  Your speech can result in injury to other people in the theater and the government can definitely sanction you (lawspeak for fine your a$$ and toss you into a jail). B) Telling your boss that he is absolutely clueless and doesn't know how to run his business or department.  The government could care less what you tell your boss unless you are a whistleblower on a government contract.  On the other hand, your boss will make your wonderful talents available to other businesses in that economic sector.  Again, not really protected speech, at least as far as your boss is concerned. C) Parading up and down in front of BOA saying the the President of BOA has destroyed the economy and has stolen millions from ordinary consumers.  Well again the govenrment couldn't care less about what you have to say about the President of BOA; however, the government will make sure that you don't block the sidewalk and prevent other people from using the sidewalk or entering the building.  On the other hand; the President of BOA can sue your a$$ for slander if the things that you are saying are false.  So again, not really protected speech. D) Walking in front of the White House saying that President Obama is a poopyhead and doesn't know what he is doing.  Bingo!  This is protected free speech.  Not a thing that the government can do.  Although, the guys in the dark suits and sunglasses with the monoaural head sets just might want to visit with you just to make sure that you don't want to physically harm the President, which by the way is not protected free speech. Hope this helps ... Have a nice whatever behind City Hall ...

heart and soul
heart and soul

I guess I missed the part where anyone ever asked for your help, Paul.

Paul
Paul

Just exercising my 1st Amendment rights .... nothing like a little gum flapping to stir up the masses .... besides do I need to hold up a sign that says "Sarcasm"?

cp
cp

And yet you keep reading and commenting.....

cp
cp

And yet you keep reading and commenting...

Paul
Paul

LOL ... Move along now people, there is nothing to see here ... Move along ....

heart and soul
heart and soul

Hey no thanks needed. I just reply to you because I think it is fun to watch your head spin round.

You sure the hell have been protesting the protesters, Troll, and I am bored with it. Take it downtown. And what difference does it make what they are protesting? They have a right and I would fight for it. Not for them but for the right. Get it. It is called freedom. Americans died for it and that means something to me.

BTW, You want to commend the city then you are a moron. They went down this slippery slope when they cut a deal with these people to let them camp to protect their PR event for the hotel and now it looks like it is all going to backfire. There is some sweet irony here. I find it funny as hell and am enjoying the show. I get that you don't get it but I don't care. So quit bothering me. You are boring me with all your troll clutter.

Paul
Paul

Thank you for your opinion.  Now what is your point?

OK, this proves that "heart and soul" is a troll ... he has pulled out the ad hominen attacks since he cannot articulate his thesis, advocate his viewpoint or adequately express himself.

I don't think that I have "protested" the protesters. My point has been what is their point and how is it expressed by camping out overnight in public contrary to legitimate local ordinances.

What is it that OD expects to accomplish?

I have also said that I have commended the City for how they have suspended the enforcement of legitimate ordinances in order to accommodate these people for whatever purpose they are trying to achieve.

Have a nice whatever there behind City Hall.

heart and soul
heart and soul

OK you are not a troll. You should quit hanging out with them though.

heart and soul
heart and soul

I don't think that you all that informed. I just think you think you are. Also think you folks protesting the protesters on this blog are a bunch of weak sisters. You want to protest them go downtown and do it. I am just sick of hearing you guys belly ache about them. Anyone of them is better than all of you and they already proved it. IMO.

ScottsMerkin
ScottsMerkin

so then why would you call me a troll if you are here quite often.  You would know that I am the farthest thing from a troll here

heart and soul
heart and soul

Uh, I am pretty sure that I have more that 6 posts but who is counting besides you? 1%?

Paul
Paul

Yep, that is right ... the Dallas Observer is pretty much free to do whatever they want to do with the comments that I post here.

I very much appreciate them making this forum available and I refrain from biting the hand that feeds me here. (See B) above.)

I didn't realize that my writings were solely for your excitement, too bad that you are disappointed.

At least us trolls, as you call us, are capable of informed debate following rules of argument, advocacy and logic.  When we disagree, we still generally respect each other's opinions (as misguided as the other guy usually is ... ;-(,) )

Have a nice whatever there behind City Hall.

ScottsMerkin
ScottsMerkin

so this is what it comes to?  you and denise throwing out the troll comment.  Its rather funny that 2 people who have a combined 12 comments on this whole website call 2 people who frequent this blog pretty much from day 1 as trolls.  Now I know whats up

heart and soul
heart and soul

Pretty funny that you and the other trolls are claiming first amendment rights on a blog where I am pretty sure you have no rights. Yeah, Paul. You need to hold the sign up. Your posts are too boring for me.

RTGolden
RTGolden

They actually don't believe in an unfettered First Amendment either.  They believe that the part of the first amendment THEY want to exercise be unfettered.  I'm certain they would complain if First Baptist pastor Jeffress asked for and got city permission to hold an all-night prayer vigil on the grassy area between OD and CH.  Yet the First Amendment quite clearly states "... Congress shall make NO LAW regarding the establishment of religion...".  A literal translation, such as the one OD wants to apply to free speech, would indicate that churches would be allowed to operate politically, in education, whatever, in an unfettered manner.

Fortunately for America, the Supreme Court, through the years, has been wiser than both the radical right and the radical left when it comes to interpreting the Constitution.

Paul
Paul

Oh ... the old "All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

The establishment clause in the 1st amendment is in regards to a state sponsored or sanctioned religion.

Churches and religions can operate unfettered in politics if they so desire.  However, if they do, they may not qualify for an exemption to the payment of income taxes under Section 501(c)(3) of the IRS Code.

The Anglican Church, or Church of England, is the official state religion of Great Britain.

It is only recently that the Commonwealth rescinded the prohibition of the Monarch being married to a Roman Catholic (Papist, in their terms).

Thanks for your comments.

RTGolden
RTGolden

Could we stop pretending now that camping is the 'symbolic speech' of this protest?  OD's own lawyer:

Winocour tells Unfair Park that "what turned this around was the letter the city decided to release Tuesday night. It was always the understanding of the Occupants that the license the city granted us was to use this public park overnight. They expanded the contours of the ordinance. It was always our understanding that was unrelated to the exercise of First Amendment rights outside the park.

DBCOOPA
DBCOOPA

No one is violating any terms. You can't cancel an agreement because someone, who may have had business in the building, used city halls restroom. You can't cancel an agreement because someone's dog pooped on the grass. And if you are going to cancel the agreement over signs, you better be prepared to be labeled as a city that has no respect whatsoever for the first amendment. The city didn't grant that property because they respect the first amendment, they did it because they know what happens when a local government gets sued over the first amendment. They lose, they lose. They win, they lose. Either way, they still look like assholes. They city is going to walk on to the property, find a chair (semi-perminent structure) or a candy wrapper or peice of dogshit and then tell the protesters to leave. When they don't, which based on their track record is highly likely, they'll send in SWAT who will be overly agreesive, pull women's hair and drop people on their faces on the concrete. There will be photographs of bloody protesters on the news, protests will still be going on in the city on a weekly basis, only with more people. Mayor Rawlings is an idiot. And Tennell Atkins is a pimp. I personally plan on being the bane of both of their asses for a long time to come.

cp
cp

Yeah, about those signs.... I'm pretty sure that it's okay to walk around and hold a sign in your hand but not so much sticking it in the ground of or affixing it to city-owned property. 

RTGolden
RTGolden

Good point, Dallas sign ordinance is pretty precise on what is or isn't allowed in the way of temporary signs.  Code compliance often does pull up unauthorized signs.

That would, on the other hand, be using a 4' x 8' sheet of plywood to swat flies.  A lot of effort for a little effect.

Scruffygeist
Scruffygeist

I was unaware the City of Dallas had a stellar reputation at risk. Looking like assholes is status quo.

Paul
Paul

Sounds like someone needs to go to the bad trip tent ...

Sybils_Beaver
Sybils_Beaver

send em home.  Look your right to free speech andto  gather peaceably doesnt include your right to camp overnight.  If you cant follow the rules the city should send you on your way.  Personally they should be charging you to camp, as most other places that you can camp you have to pay to camp at that spot, and if you are doing it free, you are probably camping illegally.

Denise Aday
Denise Aday

You're wrong. The US Constitution guarantees us the *unrestricted* right to peaceably assemble.

Mott Romney
Mott Romney

*Unrestricted*?  Can I peaceably assemble folks in your backyard?

Mott Romney
Mott Romney

Depends if you make us cookies or not.

Paul
Paul

I didn't know that effectiveness was a prerequisite for free speech.

Sounds like you are wanting to restrict Mott's 1st amendment rights.

1%er
1%er

sure it would, I'm a 1%er I protest you trying to money out of my pocket!  Cant you see you are tyring to cost me money, money that I can use to fill my Lambo, money that I can use to import Kobe beef for my family to eat, money that I can use to build a guest house for my friends to stay in

Denise Aday
Denise Aday

Wouldn't be a very effective place to assemble for this, now would it?

heart and soul
heart and soul

Seeing how OD's current back yard is the sidewalk around City Hall I would say go for it Mott. Protected speech 100%!

Sybils_Beaver
Sybils_Beaver

of course not, you can only do it where she says you constitutionaly can

Paul
Paul

True; however the SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly that cities are allowed reasonable control over "time, place and manner" for free speech exercise.

Look particularly at Nationalist Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (432 U.S. 43 (1977)) as a precedent for "time, place and manner" control.

Do you have a specific goal in mind for your protests?  Or are you protesting just to be protesting?

After all Rosa Parks just wanted a seat on the bus.

Have a nice day.

cp
cp

Did you happen to read Beaver three posts above? Camping is not speech and it's not protesting and it's not protected. Got that? M-A-R-C-H-N-G D-O-W-N T-H-E S-T-R-E-E-T is a protest and it's protected. Camping is not that. I mean, by your logic, people would be able to rape, murder and steal, as long as they claim to be protesting something. 

Albert
Albert

Then why not just jooin the Tea Party?

Paul
Paul

Belt fed fully automatic weapons aren't any good for deer hunting as they tear up the meat too much.

On the other hand, if every 10th round is a tracer, they are really fun for duck and goose hunting.

Paul
Paul

Denise, please go read the various cases decided by the SCOTUS on free speech.

Are you saying the Nationalist Socialist Party of America had its 1st Amendment rights infringed by the SCOTUS decision?

In the restoration of the democracy of our Founders, does this mean that you intend to restrict voting rights to only white male property owners?

The Observer as a right wing media outlet, I don't think so.

Why not take the opportunity to give us a succinct summary of what you are trying to accomplish?

Have a nice whatever behind City Hall.

Sybils_Beaver
Sybils_Beaver

the democracy our founders created wont work in the 21st Century, why cant you people see that.  Sure lets go back to 1776, give up you cars your house your jobs, hunt for your food, farm your land for money and build you own place to live.  No loans, no government handouts to the unemployed.  Enjoy your protest

RTGolden
RTGolden

You really need to look into the definition of powers allotted by the Constitution.  SCOTUS is granted the authority to interpret the laws, and through case law and precedent, decide if something is unconstitutional or not.

Speaking of which, LITERALLY, the first amendment protects free SPEECH, not symbolism masquerading as speech.  It also says Congress shall make NO law regarding the establishment of religion.  Which would indicate that keeping prayer out of schools would be outside the purview of the SCOTUS, as well.  The 2nd amendment says "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms will not be infringed.."  It doesn't mention anything about magazine capacity and cyclic rates of fire.  But I'm certain you, as a strict literalist in Constitutional interpretation are a full supporter of people who want to use belt-fed, fully automatic machine guns to hunt deer with.

Denise Aday
Denise Aday

SCOTUS does not get to rewrite the Bill of Rights, which says Congress will make NO law prohibiting the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. It doesn't say, oh, ok, maybe a few laws.  If you are actually paying attention to the protests and protesters, not relying on right-wing media outlets, you would have read about the demands, which are many but boil down to a restoration of the democracy of our Founders instead of the perverted, in name only, version we have now -- ruled by corporations.

Sybils_Beaver
Sybils_Beaver

fine assemble as humans, not assemble tents and set up tent neighborhoods.  you fall asleep, you are removed from the property. no more of this free rent on city property.  You want to gather and protest and march fine.  But you ar enot protesting and marching while you sleep in your tent.

Sybils_Beaver
Sybils_Beaver

what a joke, are you as ignorant as the ODers?  Camping is not protesting, your freedoms and right to speech are being shutdown by them telling you to pick up your tents and move.  Hell as someone else said, their own lawyer admitted that camping wasnt part of constitutional rights they were arguing about.  Anyhow, I guess Ill head on down to you house tonight with my group of friends.  we are going to pitch some tents in your yard and crap in your yard. Cool?

heart and soul
heart and soul

Send them home? Just when they are starting to be effective? No way. I think we should give them the Deck Park! LOL

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...