Documents: Law Enforcement Instructed to 'Stand Down,' Not Arrest Occupy Lawbreakers
Evil 1
2012/08/08 15:58:46
In a press release today, watchdog group Judicial Watch announced that their Freedom of Information Act request of documents related to the Occupy movement revealed the Obama administration’s role in giving quarter to Occupy Portland protestors violating the law on Federal land. In Judicial Watch’s statement, they say:
Judicial Watch announced today that it has obtained records from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) indicating that the General Services Administration (GSA), with the blessing of the Obama White House, instructed law enforcement officers to “stand down” and not arrest “Occupy Portland” protestors who were in violation of the law.
Read More: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/07...
Next.
"Some crimes have national significance and, to reflect the public interest, their investigation and prosecution will fall to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and/or the Department of Justice. This creates tensions between the two systems because the individual states in which aspects of the criminal activity have taken place may wish to assert jurisdiction over that part, whereas the federal authorities will wish to consolidate the wrongdoing across several states into a single trial."
This happens to be one of those times.
As I said before, your witch-hunt will have to continue, because this isn't anything to get all up in arms about.
Protestors were VIOLATING LAW on FEDERAL LAND. Why did the DOJ not have a right to say anything, again?
"Judicial Watch announced today that it has obtained records from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) indicating that the General Services Administration (GSA), with the blessing of the Obama White House, instructed law enforcement officers to “stand down” and not arrest “Occupy Portland” protestors who were in violation of the law.
The records, obtained pursuant to a November 11, 2011, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, include internal DHS correspondence. One November 6, 2011, e-mail exchange between DHS/National Protection and Programs Directorate Chief of Staff Caitlin Durkovich and GSA Public Buildings Service Commissioner Robert Peck (who has since been fired) specifically related to Occupy Portland protests taking place on federal property in Portland:
'I am sorry to be emailing you on a Sunday night, but wanted to let you know our Press Shop has received a couple of calls from Portland media outlets about a group of 11 protesters who again set up camp at Terry Shrunk Plaza in Portland last night. They have chained themselves to a large drum filled with concrete. GSA controls the permits and has asked FPS [Federal Protective Services] not to enforce the curfew at park and the prohibiti...
"Judicial Watch announced today that it has obtained records from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) indicating that the General Services Administration (GSA), with the blessing of the Obama White House, instructed law enforcement officers to “stand down” and not arrest “Occupy Portland” protestors who were in violation of the law.
The records, obtained pursuant to a November 11, 2011, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, include internal DHS correspondence. One November 6, 2011, e-mail exchange between DHS/National Protection and Programs Directorate Chief of Staff Caitlin Durkovich and GSA Public Buildings Service Commissioner Robert Peck (who has since been fired) specifically related to Occupy Portland protests taking place on federal property in Portland:
'I am sorry to be emailing you on a Sunday night, but wanted to let you know our Press Shop has received a couple of calls from Portland media outlets about a group of 11 protesters who again set up camp at Terry Shrunk Plaza in Portland last night. They have chained themselves to a large drum filled with concrete. GSA controls the permits and has asked FPS [Federal Protective Services] not to enforce the curfew at park and the prohibition on overnight encampments. Reporters have asked if we will be arresting the protestors as FPS did last week."
Why were these protestors given preferential treatment over the ones who were previously arrested? It smells of corruption no matter how you look at it. If the week before they were being arrested for violating curfew and overnight encampments why did the DOJ suddenly decide to ignore the infractions?
If your quote didn't end at the third paragraph, you'd see the following:
"the arrests last week were carried out despite our request that the protesters be allowed to remain and to camp overnight"
This means that the arrests the week before weren't supposed to have happened at all.
So, yeah... I'm not sure how anyone's been given preferential treatment from one week to the next, as by what's in that article, it shows that one group was actually imprisoned AFTER calls were made to halt the arrests, the other group finally got the treatment they were supposed to have gotten from the beginning.
So, by your own article, it wasn't the fault of the administration that people were getting away with breaking the law, but the fault of the police handling the issue to arrest anyone at all for either week.
How that wreaks of corruption is still beyond me. Explain.
I think the DOJ averted a very real threat. And, considering that those people aren't sill in Schrunk Plaza today, I'm not so sure anyone should care.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.c...
Yeah, it wasn't a huge riot. It was a bunch of people that, instead of going home after a peaceful protest, held up in a building.
Now, there were some idiots that set garbage on fire, and the fire was shortly put out, but... instead of being allowed to sleep it off an go home in the morning, the riot police came in.
And, then it was a huge problem.
I think the DOJ handled the 11 citizens perfectly, assuring there wasn't a violent clash between citizen a government for anyone to martyr for the cause.
Not like what happened to Scott Olsen.
In any case, it was DOJ's right to make the call anyway they saw fit and no corruption can be called legally against the department.
http://commoncts.blogspot.com...
And I adamantly disagree with the DOJ condoning breaking the law in any capacity.
You can disagree with the call all you want but that's not making said call a corrupt one.
Definition of CORRUPTION
1
a : impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle : depravity
b : decay, decomposition
c : inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (as bribery)
d : a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct
I think it falls under the definition of corruption especially when pertaining to a and d.
And when the DOJ makes a call that condones and endorses breaking the law they have violated the trust of the American people as well as broken the law themselves. Just because they choose not to enforce the law doesn't make it right.
In order for corruption to be used in regards to the DOJ, you'd have to prove something illegal was done by the DOJ.
The burden of proof is on you. The DOJ made a call allowing those people to stay overnight, as many other protester had the right to do all over the nation. Therfore, the people that were about to break the law, weren't breaking the law, thanks to the DOJ.
Since no laws were broken, what's the charge of corruption for? I'm not sure.
You'd have to prove there was some wrongdoing here, and I'm not inclined to see it.
Also show me the statute where the DOJ has the right to selectively enforce the laws that are written.
That's not illegal. If it was, someone would've been fired about as soon as the information was released.
The DOJ has the ability to step in on matters of national importance and decide what the final call is all the time.
Remember the civil rights movement and the sit-ins that were staged all over? In every instance, there weren't arrests made. Do you happen to think corruption is the reason for that? No. Officials made the call to not arrest. It's their job to make that call if they feel it's needed.
Police don't arrest everyone for every infraction of the law, either. They give people a chance every now and then for minor infractions.
That's just how the law works within enforcement.
Nothing corrupt about it, either. That's America.
You have a naive sense of how things work in this country, and I'd love you to press a case against the DOJ for this and see how soon it goes nowhere because you have no illegal action occurring at all.
There were arrests left and right during the civil rights sit ins. And I never remember the DOJ stepping in and telling law enforcement to ignore the violations. Please provide me proof that they did this. Show me where they notified any law enforcement agency to ignore the violations.
You're right police don't arrest everyone for breaking the law. But when they do and it makes the news they are held responsible for their actions. In many cases the office and/or his superiors are terminated as they to are not allowed to overlook the written law unless it is a judgement call such as in a speeding ticket where they don't have sufficient evidence. And again I doubt if any superior or the DOJ gave them written notice to ignore the law, that is why they open themselves up for termination.
That may be how the law works in your opinion but not in...
There were arrests left and right during the civil rights sit ins. And I never remember the DOJ stepping in and telling law enforcement to ignore the violations. Please provide me proof that they did this. Show me where they notified any law enforcement agency to ignore the violations.
You're right police don't arrest everyone for breaking the law. But when they do and it makes the news they are held responsible for their actions. In many cases the office and/or his superiors are terminated as they to are not allowed to overlook the written law unless it is a judgement call such as in a speeding ticket where they don't have sufficient evidence. And again I doubt if any superior or the DOJ gave them written notice to ignore the law, that is why they open themselves up for termination.
That may be how the law works in your opinion but not in mine as I believe in the laws. I also believe that the laws pertain to every citizen of the United States and if they violate the law it is not up to the DOJ or any law enforcement agency to give them a pass. That is what the legal system is for. It is up to a judge or jury to rule if the arrest for the violation as justified. If we allow law enforcement or the DOJ to decide if and when someone will be charged we no longer have laws.
And whether you want to accept it or not the action by the DOJ was corrupt based on the definition of corruption. But then again I base my opinion on integrity and following the law.
And the only one with naive understanding of how things work in this country appears to be you as you make excuses for the DOJ's failure to enforce the law and total lack of integrity. And it isn't up to me to push the case that will be up to Congress and you nor I have no idea if it will go forward or not. But to condone blatant impropriety and failure to enforce the law by the DOJ shows where your values stand.
If that wasn't the case, they couldn't have stopped people from getting arrested.
There were also sit-ins where people weren't arrested. There were protests that were done peacably and didn't result in police action. This is all done through calls made at city, state and government level.
The DOJ acted within their legal authority, which is why it was even done inthe first place. If it wasn't legal, there'd be no precedent for anyone to follow those orders.
The DOJ overstepped their bounds by telling law enforcement to ignore the written law. If you believe that have that power then there should be no laws and you may as well rename the DOJ the Gestapo as that is exactly how they operated. When they can break the law or supersede the law there is no law.
Unless you are saying that all of them were corrupt, your idea that the power doesn't exist is baseless.
Are you alleging that nobody ever has the right to stay past curfew in that park?
Because, we both know that park curfews are allowed to be broken, with permission from the State. People get permits to camp overnight in state parks all the time. This is national ground, and much like any other park, the ability to get permission from the state to break curfew and camp can be granted.
Your ability to understand basic concepts like that obviously wasn't a problem for all the law enforcement that took the orders to not arrest the protesters that night.
So, either the whole system is corrupt, or the DOJ acted with proper authority.
Make a decision.
Also I would still like to see the statute, written mandate or Supreme Court ruling giving the DOJ the right to supersede and override the written law. I'll be waiting for that one.
That means that they were no longer in violation of the law.
The are granted the right to supersede state dealings all the time. They do it all the time. You might want to brush up on what exactly they CAN and CANNOT DO.
The DOJ is a pretty powerful office and makes calls to enforce or not enforce law all the time.
Most notably, the DOJ stated it wouldn't enforce DOMA on certain issues, as they found it unconstitutional in its discriminatory clause.
They aren't held on corruption charges for that, either.
Precedent was set for that move the DOJ made. You don't understand how law works, so you should look up on it. If you have a case, then people will get fired soon.
Wait and see. Nothing in your report seems to show that, though.
You may want to brush up on when the DOJ can supersede state law as I am very cognizant of when they can and this is not one of the instances.
You need to do some research on the DOJ as they are the most powerful justice system in the US. But it is not in their scope of operation to decide if written laws and mandates are to be enforced. Only since Holder has taken the position of head of the DOJ has this become an issue. And it is becoming more apparent on a daily basis. He is overstepping the bounds of the agency and using for political gain. Case in point was the New Black Panther voter intimidation case. A federal court recently ruled that the DOJ interfered with the prosecution of the NBP's.
http://washingtonexaminer.com...
When the DOJ states they will enforce laws on certain issues they are selectively enfor...
You may want to brush up on when the DOJ can supersede state law as I am very cognizant of when they can and this is not one of the instances.
You need to do some research on the DOJ as they are the most powerful justice system in the US. But it is not in their scope of operation to decide if written laws and mandates are to be enforced. Only since Holder has taken the position of head of the DOJ has this become an issue. And it is becoming more apparent on a daily basis. He is overstepping the bounds of the agency and using for political gain. Case in point was the New Black Panther voter intimidation case. A federal court recently ruled that the DOJ interfered with the prosecution of the NBP's.
http://washingtonexaminer.com...
When the DOJ states they will enforce laws on certain issues they are selectively enforcing the written law which they do not have the right to do. Again if you think they do you are wrong and if they choose to do so they are nothing but the Gestapo. Stating they will selectively enforce written law is blatant corruption. They should enforce all the laws and the judicial system decides if the enforcment was correct. That is why we have courts.
And I know exactly how the law works. I just choose to follow it according to our Constitution and legal system. This is something the DOJ has decided not to do and I won't condone nor support their actions or corruption. I hold myself to a higher standard and possess integrity something Holder is void of. So if you choose to support his corrupt and vile actions they be it, but to try and justify them is futile as there is no justification.
Much like a manager giving you a ticket for a movie, when you found out you don't have one and thought you did. No law was broken.
You'd have to prove the DOJ doesn't have the right to authorize what goes on when it's done on National Ground. Wasn't it the DOJ that just allowed people to carry firearms on National Ground? Should all those people walking around with guns on National Ground now be arrested because the DOJ has no say in it at all?
"The U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division develops, enforces, and supervises the application of all federal criminal laws in the United States, except those specifically assigned to other divisions. Criminal Division attorneys prosecute many nationally significant cases and formulate and implement criminal enforcement policy. Division attorneys also provide advice and guidance to the Attorney General of the United States, the United States Congress, and the White House on matters of criminal law."
The DOJ has it well within their rights as long as it's on federal land.
Your assertion that's not the case hasn't been backed up by any legal method at all. Your case has no precedent legally. Look for it, and it's not there.
You compare the DOJ sidestepping the written law like a manager giving away tickets at a movie theatre. Get serious. Do you really understand how ridiculous that comparison actually is? That is grasping at straws at best.
Prove to me that the DOJ has the legal right to override written law. Again, provide the statute, mandate or Supreme Court ruling stating they have that right or what you are stating is nothing more than opiniated BS. And your BS about guns on national ground holds no basis to their breaking the law. Nice try but the spin doesn't hold up.
"The U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division develops, enforces, and supervises the application of all federal criminal laws in the United States, except those specifically assigned to other divisions. Criminal Division attorneys prosecute many nationally significant cases and formulate and implement criminal enforcement policy. Division attorneys also provide advice and guidance to the Attorney General of the United States, the United States Congress, and the White House on matters of criminal law." Where does that even insinutate that the DOJ has the right to override written law? Again nice try but the spin doesn't hold up. The DOJ has no right to override or rei...
You compare the DOJ sidestepping the written law like a manager giving away tickets at a movie theatre. Get serious. Do you really understand how ridiculous that comparison actually is? That is grasping at straws at best.
Prove to me that the DOJ has the legal right to override written law. Again, provide the statute, mandate or Supreme Court ruling stating they have that right or what you are stating is nothing more than opiniated BS. And your BS about guns on national ground holds no basis to their breaking the law. Nice try but the spin doesn't hold up.
"The U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division develops, enforces, and supervises the application of all federal criminal laws in the United States, except those specifically assigned to other divisions. Criminal Division attorneys prosecute many nationally significant cases and formulate and implement criminal enforcement policy. Division attorneys also provide advice and guidance to the Attorney General of the United States, the United States Congress, and the White House on matters of criminal law." Where does that even insinutate that the DOJ has the right to override written law? Again nice try but the spin doesn't hold up. The DOJ has no right to override or reinterpret written law. Again, which you seem to be overlooking, that is why we have a Judicial Cour System. Try telling the Supreme Court that the DOJ has the right to say when and when not law should be enforced and see what they say. But then again if you are a supporter of socialism and the Gestapo I understand where you are coming from. Hitler would love your logic.
The DOJ has the right to enforce laws on federal land and override state laws that are trumped by federal law. They do not have the right to selectively enforce the written laws. Again, provide me the proof that they do. Until you do so you are totally wrong and are doing nothing but showcasing your foolishness. Provide the proof that the DOJ has the right to override written law. I'll be waiting as I have been. You won't be able to provide it as it doesn't exist and you have no factual basis to support your claims.
And your assertation that the DOJ has the right to override written law and ignore the legal system is at best ridiculous. Provide the proof to back up your claims, otherwise it is nothing but opiniated BS.
They did exactly what is in their right to do.
You prove they broke the law. If you can, then people go to jail. Enjoy.
The DOJ overstepped their bounds and you cannot prove otherwise. They had no authority to do what they did and there is not statute, mandate or Supreme Court ruling to state they do (I'm still waiting for you to produce one of these).
I know they broke the law and anyone with any semblance of intelligence, basic understanding of the law and common sense can see it. And based on the fact that you are now fabricating BS in a feeble attempt to support your incorrect analysis it proves your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on and you are emphatically incorrect in your assessment. So no matter how you try to spin it or how much BS you fabricate you will still be wrong and there is nothing you can do to prove otherwise.
Have a great day.