Seven of the cases against OLA protesters were dropped, but not because of the misdirected efforts of Carmen “Nuch” Trutanich. The cops messed up some paperwork so the facts of the cases have not been a factor. Not yet anyway. Anyone that might have been present prior to the November 30 raid is encouraged to attend the trials and serve as witnesses. It has been reported that the public defender seeking friendly witnesses and several defendants will be in court today at 210 W. Temple on the seventh floor, department 46 or contact public defender Alisha Singh who should be there today.
“While dismissals aren't unusual in mass arrest situations, officials in the City Attorney's Office said they are frustrated with the LAPD's handling of the Occupy L.A. arrests.”
From David Harris Gershon:
“As a civil rights attorney working with some of the approximately 350 protesters who have been arrested in recent weeks noted, the offer is nothing short of "patronizing."
“However, it's much more than that. It's a disgusting and cynical way to alleviate the strain on city courts by having protesters pay for an unofficial guilty plea.
“In short, the city is offering protesters the chance to purchase courses in which they will learn about the free speech LAPD officers stripped from them.
“Apparently, in L.A., you can pay to learn about the free speech you don't actually have.
“I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.”
Someone finally noticed:
And even more good news from the state of Montana where someone finally figured out that the Citizens United decision was, uh, unconstitutional. This was an important step in the right direction at the very least.
“This week, the Montana Supreme Court stood up to the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision . . .”
Back to poltiics:
Maybe all of this is politics, especially the bogus charges brought by “Nuch” Trutanich. But there is no doubt that the issues we have been discussing resonate throughout the voting population. The President has made varying statements, but here is another example of his quasi-support for the Occupation Movement:
“By the time President Obama, at a December speech in Osawatomie, Kan., identified inequality as 'the defining issue of our time,' he was not leading the charge, but joining the chorus - the Occupy Wall Street protesters had been saying the same thing for nearly three months.”
Some old warhorses have teamed up with those who have the most to lose if the movement does not succeed in bringing substantial reform to the financial services industry. The younger generation will be paying for the losses caused by the 2008 meltdown for their entire working lives because of the interest that has accrued on the bailout funds. Somehow the money that disappeared from public coffers due to the criminal tendencies of Wall Street doesn't make as much of an impact as the other losses, devaluations, disruptions to the credit markets and the drama of the Euro collapse. Famed producer Norman Lear weighs in:
"What better cause. What better time . . . "
As long as we are on the subject of the legal aspects of all of this, the Attorney General had a few things to say about how the trend towards demanding picture IDs to vote is an affront to all the civil rights efforts that have preceded this blatant attempt to restrict voting. Note that the same Republicans that have sponsored these bills didn't ask for these restrictions for their own Iowa caucuses:
Big Dog speaks:
“U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder recently spoke on this alarming trend. He said: 'Our efforts honor the generations of Americans who have taken extraordinary risks, and willingly confronted hatred, bias and ignorance—as well as billy clubs and fire hoses, bullets and bombs—to ensure that their children, and all American citizens, would have the chance to participate in the work of their government. The right to vote is not only the cornerstone of our system of government—it is the lifeblood of our democracy.'”
Here's an observation about the alleged journalism that in many instances has been something less than fair and balanced from Slate.com. (Just a reminder in case it appeared that the lawyers had cornered the news today):
“I confess to being driven insane this past month by the spectacle of television pundits professing to be baffled by the meaning of Occupy Wall Street. Good grief. Isn’t the ability to read still a job requirement for a career in journalism? And as last week’s inane 'What do they want?' meme morphs into this week’s craven 'They want your stuff' meme, I feel it’s time to explain something: Occupy Wall Street may not have laid out all of its demands in a perfectly cogent one-sentence bumper sticker for you, Mr. Pundit, but it knows precisely what it doesn’t want. It doesn’t want you.”
Do not disturb?
“Citizens and leaders are at one on the issue: people don't want to hear nasty truths and politicians don't want to tell. Out damned Occupy! Don't mess with our consciousness.”
And to those that have chosen to stand up for their civil rights in court, I would like to add the following commentary, separate from the reporting above of course, Give em' hell you brave bastards! Tell “Nuch” to get a real job and quit impersonating fascist dictators.