St. Louis Journalists Take Cheap Shots at Occupy STL

Just another day for the "liberal" media.

Craig Cheatham, reporter at KMOV:


And David Sheets, an editor at the Post-Dispatch:



To be fair, Sheets is a sports editor, so a bias (if there really is one) wouldn't exactly signal the ruin of the republic. Nevertheless, it's worth noting.

h/t to @Taunia_Adams, @jeffreed and @Trianglman for catching the Sheets tweets.

Legal Analysis of Mayor Slay's Decision to Remove OccupySTL

Fox 2 News had lawyer Chet Pleban on yesterday to analyze the legality of Mayor Slay removing the occupiers from Kiener Plaza. For some reason I can't embed the video, but you can watch it here. It's pretty clear both people on the program have a lot of biases about the occupiers. The clip starts with them linking the Anonymous hacking to the St. Louis group, despite the fact that the Mayor's spokesperson Richard Callow said he didn't think the hacker was part of OccupySTL. They also call the part of the legal interpretation that says Slay is justified in kicking the occupiers out "the good news," later suggest that they're worried about riots from the group, and lament that horrible time in U.S. history known as the 60s. So yeah, it's pretty clear who they're rooting for.

However, what I thought was interesting is that Pleban suggested that while St. Louis City would normally be justified in removing they occupiers (a claim I'm sure Occupy STL disagrees with), the city is now in a pickle because they waited a full month to take any action. So it sounds like he thinks they need to provide some legal justification for why they made the change. I find this interesting because it seems to track the trajectory of my own thoughts.

I previously stated that I could understand why the city felt like it had to enforce the codes on the books. However, I objected when Slay's Chief of Staff Jeff Rainford suddently tried to suggest (on Dana Loesch's radio show) that something had changed and that the occupiers were no longer "not harming anyone." It seems to me that he has not provided sufficient justification for that claim, and if the decision really was the result only of complaints from groups like Bank of America, then it does seem like a change in policy based on a decision to prevent the occupiers from speaking out (quite effectively) against corporatism run amok. Thus, following policy consistently from the beginning might not have been a violation of First Amendment. But changing how they enforce the policy based on the fact that the message was offending local businesses seems like it would be a restriction of free speech.

This is why last night I filled a Sunshine law request with the Mayor's office to try to ascertain what the actual complaints were, and to compare them to statements in support of the occupation. I'll let you know what I find out.

Former St. Louis Police Officer To Make Statement In Support of OccupySTL

Press advisory:

Occupy Police Stands in Solidarity With Occupy St. Louis

Former St. Louis County Police Officer to Make

Public Statement of Support While Denouncing Brutality

What: A Public Speech delivered by a former St. Louis Officer, directed to both officers and citizens of St. Louis. Topics covered in short will be: The officers history with St Louis Police, brutal tactics used against protesters by some departments, and what can result from it, including the officers own firsthand experience with police brutality. Oakland PD's open letter to the citizens of Oakland where they openly state "We are part of the 99%" Bad department leadership in a time when true leaders are needed, and finally Occupy Police's mission and position in the Occupy movement, which in less than 10 words is that "Police are part of the 99% too" and communities across the nation are needing them to stand openly with the rest of the 99, now more than ever -

Goal: To call out Mayor Slay and put an end to the planned raid @3 - To let it be widely known that officers are part of the 99% and that they don not have to obey commands put forth by unstable leaders who represent the interests of the 1% and not that of the common man or woman. Lastly to let it be widely known that Occupy Police supports officers and entire departments who protect their communities without the use of brute force or violence.

When: Today, Friday November 11th at 2pm sharp - Before the impending raid @ 3pm

Where: The corner of Market and 7th on the stage at Kiener Plaza in St. Louis

-Occupy Police Team & Officers of the 99

KMOX reported on this development earlier today.

Statement From OccupySTL On Their "Eviction Notice"

Press release:

Hey Hey, Ho, Ho: The Occupiers Will Not Go!

On November 10, 2011 Occupy St Louis received notification from the city of St Louis that we have 24 hours to remove all structures and obey the city curfew laws before they would forcibly remove our non-violent occupation from Freedom Square (formerly known as Kiener Plaza). Since October 1st, we have maintained a peaceful occupation in this public space, founded on the principle that large corporations have too much influence in the actions of our government. Mayor Slay and his Senior Staff have once again validated this by bowing to pressure from the Downtown Partnership of St Louis to restrict our First Amendment Rights to peaceably assemble.

Since its inception, Occupy St Louis has been a model of cooperation and non violence, and has made Freedom Square a safer, cleaner place. The city claims that in addition to violation of curfew that the tents and supplies we have in Freedom Square are a direct violation of city ordinance and provides a safety concern. We strongly disagree and believe that our encampment is a valid form of political speech justified by the First Amendment. Additionally this precedent has been set in other occupied cities across the nation.

On November 10, 2011 Mayor Slay stated in his personal blog that the city would be creating a space for a 24/7 public demonstration. On November 9th, senior members of the Mayor’s staff attended our General Assembly to propose this space to us as a possible alternative to Freedom Square. This was not a proposal, but rather an ultimatum to Occupy St Louis. The City had already made up its mind on the course of action that it would be taking. This new space would not allow for tents or occupation, which we feel are a valid forms of political speech. This proposal was blocked by a consensus of our General Assembly. The General Assembly uses consensus as our decision making process. It allows for all participants to have an equal voice. Occupy St Louis maintains that just because one states they are using the consensus process, does not mean that they are actually using it.

Occupy St Louis hopes that Mayor Slay realizes that our freedom to assemble is not limited to one space, but guaranteed to all people, in any public space, at any time. We believe that we are engaged in a vital attempt to restore the cornerstone of American ideals: equality, unity, and social mobility. St Louis City must recognize that Occupy St Louis is not mutually exclusive with public safety and the common good, but an ally in promoting social justice and in preserving order downtown. The medium is the message and our medium is occupation.

Todd Akin Seems Proud of His Ability to Convey False Information

First Todd Akin's senate campaign sent out a press release that strongly implied, without actually saying, that he had been endorsed by Paul Ryan.

Then his political director tweeted that he had been endorsed by Paul Ryan:

And on Mark Reardon's show, Akin clearly dodged Reardon's question about whether Ryan's statement was actually an endorsement:



By the way, Todd Akin was not endorsed by Paul Ryan.

What seems so strange to me is that pretending it's an endorsement seems to have so little added value (assuming you think being endorsed by a guy who wants to end Medicare as we know it is valuable) over just saying that Paul Ryan likes Akin's Congressional record. Why not just be honest and upfront about the fact that it wasn't an official endorsement? And it's not like he could possibly think that no one would find out that it wasn't a real endorsement. The only explanation I can think of is that he's trying to prove to the tea party types that he can play that "passing on wildly false information without technically lying" game they're so found of. But even so, he failed, because his political director falsely claimed that he was endorsed by Ryan.

Todd Akin Campaign Falsely Claims Paul Ryan Endorsement

Earlier today, it was reported that Paul Ryan (the Republican who wants to end Medicare as we know it) endorsed Todd Akin in the GOP Primary. Then it was reported that Ryan didn't actually endorse Akin, but was just saying that he thought he was a swell guy. Reporters chalked this up to some creative wording on Akin's press release. However, it turns out that it wasn't just "creative wording;" members of Akin's staff falsely claimed that Ryan had endorsed Akin.

Here's Akin's Political Director explicitly claiming that Ryan had endorsed Akin:

And here's her profile:


The Republican Senate primary in Missouri is almost as much of a circus as the Presidential primary, and that's saying something.

Slay Spokesperson Doesn't Think Hacking Was Done By Member of OccupySTL

As previously noted, Mayor Slay's website was hacked by a person claiming to be a member of Occupy St. Louis. However, Richard Callow, a spokesperson for Slay's campaign, doesn't think the hacking was actually done by an OccupySTL member:

Slay campaign spokesman Richard Callow said no financial info was leaked.

"It gave our web guy a chance to earn his retainer," Callow said. "I sort of doubt it was done by a member of Occupy St. Louis. Our experience with them has generally been more positive."

Any guesses as to whether Gateway Pundit will correct his post?