Update: Santa Ana Occupy’s camping bid is D.O.A.

View Comments

• "This is no revolution. Just a bunch of nutty wankers".... Hmmm

  Admin, the American revolution was won with much lesser number per capita.

  Besides, it will take many attempts with a ram to brake the old wall -- this is just first wave.

  As we know the movement will become in full swing when you will proclaim to be a part of it and apologize for your current opposition...... as you always do.

  • The Founding Fathers were brilliant hard-working men who sacrificed everything for freedom. These anarchists couldn't carry their water. A year from now we won't even remember Occupy. And to add salt to the wound, I expect the Republicans to beat Obama. Imagine how mortified this unwashed crowd will be when that happens? I voted Libertarian last time and expect I will do so again next year.

• I have a degree in political science Admin so trust me when I tell you that a concept of revolution was taught left, right, up and down in CSSR military academy.

  Give it time!

  I do not agree with their demands ether, Nelson, Diamond and that bolshevistic crowd?..... NO!

  It is a cycle and the beginning of the American Renaissance and it must go on.

• I will definitely urge the Council to allow overnight stay based on Tobe v. City of Santa Ana, 9 Cal. 4th 1069, 892 P.2d 1145 (1995)[In 1995, the California Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The court held that the challenged ordinance, which may have an incidental impact on travel, does not violate the right to travel as it has a purpose other than the restriction of travel and does not discriminate among classes of persons by penalizing the exercise of the right to travel for some. In addition, the court found that the ordinance penalized particular conduct as opposed to status and thus did not violate plaintiffs’ rights under the Eighth Amendment, and was not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. However, the Court noted that the result might be different in an as-applied, as opposed to a facial, challenge.]

  NLCHP filed an amicus brief in support of plaintiffs-appellees, as did the U.S. Department of Justice.

  In the OCCUPY movement the constitutionality facial challenge is prima facie case.

  Note: In the context of American jurisprudence, a facial challenge is a challenge to a statute in court, in which the plaintiff alleges that the legislation is always, and under all circumstances, unconstitutional, and therefore void. It is contrasted with an as-applied challenge, which alleges that the statute may be, in part, unconstitutional, in redress of specific and particular injury.

• Stanley, Tobe is mostly an adverse precedent, denying a facial challenge, though it does leave open the possibility of an as-applied challenge (which is what I'd expect to see.) So you wouldn't file a case "based on" Tobe.

  WTWE, WTF?

  Now that you mention it, I vaguely remember some discussion of a ham sandwich. I don't recall following it closely. I'm not usually one to get outraged and call for the suppression of anti-Semitic slurs (assuming that this was one), because I think that it's helpful to have this sort of behavior on display. Stanislaw, for example, has been a godsend in this respect.

  You show me the links. If I think it should be condemned, I will condemn it. And then ... ???

  Yes, I was able to remember a single post of yours where JEW was written in caps because it was the post to which I was replying. That was not a huge feat of memory.

  I'm a member of the DPOC (for which I do not speak); I don't know about "important." Nope, I don't know Dan C'ski. Maybe we've been in the same room, maybe we've spoken, but if so I didn't know that that was him.

  When have you seen me "hide when [I] get called out"? The reason you don't see my comments sooner is that Art still has me on "moderation" status.

  Most lawyers wouldn't bother with this. You want me to read about the dreaded "ham sandwich" comment, post the links. My experience, by the way, is that even most non-observant Jews don't crave ham or pork. (Bacon, though, is another story. Seriously -- here's a link: http://www.forward.com/articles/139697/.)

• Art, you can't judge public interest just by how many people walk on Saturday night. It's easier to pull off a march when one has an encampment to serve as a focal point for people to meet and plan. That's why I hope that the Council gives Occupy OC - Santa Ana at least a two week trial to see how this affects the movement. It's better for it to be channeled into something productive -- as you and I apparently agree that it is (or should be) during the daylight hours -- then to see it deteriorate into a more freewheeling anarchistic movement. Ask Irvine.

  • I am making my assessment based on the people I interact with here in Santa Ana, at church, at my kids' schools, at Little League and at Cub Scouts. Most folks agree that this is a waste of time.

• There is not much to those Occupaiers at the Civic Center in Santa Ana.

  Some times there may be a dozen, but most times I walked by and talked to them, there is no more than 3 to 5 people.

• "Stanley, Tobe is mostly an adverse precedent, denying a facial challenge, though it does leave open the possibility of an as-applied challenge (which is what I’d expect to see.) So you wouldn’t file a case “based on” Tobe."....... Hmmmmmm

  I do appreciate your mal-advise Esq. Diamond.

  Since I have left the OJB based on your turning it into a Zionist and Bolshevistic propaganda blog, which makes me vomit every time I log in, I do not plan to get into any discussion with you here either.

  However, I will make an exception re Tobe because you err to interpret the Tobe in proper context to the OCCUPY movement.

  The most important part is that the California Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals based on a facial, challenge. [The court held that the challenged ordinance, which may have an incidental impact on travel, does not violate the right to travel as it has a purpose other than the restriction of travel and does not discriminate among classes of persons by penalizing the exercise of the right to travel for some.]

  However, the Court noted that the result might be different in an as-applied, as opposed to a facial, challenge.

  Based on the above, the court examined the same ordinance as applied here against the OCCUPY movement as to freedom to travel [NOT] freedom to protest.

  Since the the freedom of protest is constitutionally protected right, even City agrees that it is from 6:00 am to 10:00 pm a facial, challenge of the ordinance is "moot".

  Therefore, if anyone like ACLU would bring suit against city it is essentially decided by substituting freedom of travel with freedom of protest 24/7 cause of action.

  The court must rule against the city if retesting the ordinance constitutionality against freedom of the 24/7 protest.

  That is my argument tonight in the chamber re the OCCUPATION, item 85B.

  In addition, if allowed, in public comets item 90, I will briefly revisit my prior demand to amend rules of meeting and ethics by presenting recently filed ACLU lawsuit against the County re Cal. Civil Code section 47(b) which provides that a speech in the chamber is "privileged" even if offensive or malicious, in support of my prior demand.

• "I don’t know Dan C’ski. Maybe we’ve been in the same room, maybe we’ve spoken, but if so I didn’t know that that was him."

  So you're saying that you wouldn't know him from a ham sandwich - is that right?

• junior, I presume that Dan is bipedal, so I could tell them apart. But I wouldn't know him from you without an introduction, assuming that you too are bipedal.

• Art: So we have a good sample of people who talk to Art. That's called "selection bias" and it is not how popular opinion is measured.

  But even if it is, and even if you gave no indication of your own views on the issue -- that's called "demand characteristics" -- then all we know is that many people are not on board, either yet or ever. So? Social progress always has naysayers and sideline-sitters. Many more people in Manhattan are not taking part in their protest than people in Santa Ana are not taking part in this one. These things take time.

  How many people do you think took part in the Montgomery bus boycott when it began? Not nearly as many as those who, as it became understood that it had been the right thing to do, claimed to have supported it. (I'd talk about involvement in the union movements for minimum wage and against child labor and such, but I don't want to provoke you.)

  It's OK that you don't get it, but I am disappointed. See that -- that I'm disappointed with you is a mark of respect; I thought that you'd be on board. Oh well.

  • I knew you would say that. The fact is that my city is a city of working families. And we have more churches than any other OC city. This is a decent community that is just trying to survive. These folks don't have time for silly protests. They are trying to save their homes, feed their kids and still find some shred of enjoyment in life.

    The Occupiers mostly don't live here - and of those that do the majority are artsy types. They don't reflect the people at large in my city.

    I live here. I have lived here for over 15 years. I know this community like you and Vern never will. The only way you will ever understand this community is to live here too. Don't worry, we have plenty of nice lofts you can invest in if you are interested.

    Sorry but I don't buy into protests as a way to change things. I started this blog so I could inform the people of my city and really foster change. That is a lot more effective than endless protesting, IMHO.