Olbermann Destroy's Breitbart's Smears On The Occupy Movement (VIDEO)

So, as I'm sure you've seen by now, there was a video posted over the weekend of Breitbart completely losing it at the CPAC convention after consuming some amount of red wine greater than or equal to one glass:


In response to people commenting on how unhinged Breitbart was, his employees started trying to defend him by saying his "Stop Raping People!" screams were justified by a serious problem at Occupy Camps. His sites published a list of 17 incidents of "rape or various sexual assaults" they claimed occurred at Occupy.

But Keith Olbermann decided to actually read the news stories associated with Breitbart's claims, and he found that in almost every single case the Breitbart crew was twisting reality. Here's the devastating segment from his show:


I should say that there have been some crimes, including sexual assaults, at Occupy encampments around the country. This is not surprising, since we live in a culture with a serious problem of violence against women, and it's not going to be any less of a problem in communities that provide food and lodging for those who need it and are extremely open and accepting almost anyone who wants to participate. From what I've seen, the Occupy groups have been very proactive in working to make their areas safe and welcoming for women. This is not to excuse any of the assaults, but rather to point out that they are not reflective of the occupy movement or most of the people involved. And I take the point that sexual assaults should not be used as a weapon for "the Right" or for "the Left."

But what I think is so valuable about Olbermann's research is that it shows, quite dramatically, just how morally bankrupt the Breitbartian version of "journalism" really is. In basically every case, Breitbart bloggers twisted reality to fit their narrative. A real journalist would wait for conclusive evidence before declaring that some person or movement was responsible for rapes or sexual assaults; at Breitbart's sites, they throw out the charges almost daily based on their own interpretations of limited and ambiguous information. It's very much like the Kenneth Gladney case; the video was anything but conclusive; all it showed was Perry Molens pulling Gladney away from McCowan at the end of a fight. Yet Breitbart's gang of hacks declared that the video provided conclusive proof that McCowan and Molens had severely beaten Gladney, and they steadfastly refused to engage in an honest assessment of the evidence.

The "point-by-point response" at Breitbart's sites to Olbermann's segment only helps to reinforce this point. In almost no case do they provide conclusive evidence that an Occupier was responsible for the crimes they are alleging. Rather, they rely on thoughts like, "well, why would someone be at the park at that time," to suggest that one possible interpretation of the limited information is that a person might have been involved. The fact that they're willing to take such limited information and use it to make hyper-dramatic proclamations about entire groups of people shows just how depraved the Breitbart model of "journalism" really is. A real journalist wouldn't make an accusation about a single person without conclusive evidence; Olbermann showed that the Breitbart gang made these unsupported accusations in at least 15 different cases. That's just embarrassingly bad, and should be fifteen times more information needed for credible news groups to realize that they shouldn't give Breitbart's gang the time of day.

OccupySTL to Protest Lowes

From an email:

[Join OccupySTL] this Sunday, January 22nd in Solidarity with the boycott of Lowes by the Council for American-Islamic Relations(CAIR: http://www.cair.com/) and Occupy Saint Louis (OSL: http://www.occupystl.org/) to protest Lowes bowing to pressure from southern hate-groups to divest millions of ad-dollars from the TLC program All-American Muslim, which was the first major offering on network television of a positive portrayal of the everyday lives of average American Muslims in Detroit....

Occupy Saint Louis Outreach is requesting that all recipients stand in Solidarity with our picket outside the Kirkwood Lowes, to join our mobilization and forward this message to further allies in the struggle against bigotry, xenophobia, and discrimination and ignorance so we all can show that the political forces of the 1% and the politics of division and hate will not be allowed to single out any-one population in our community. We implore you to spread the word and invite you to join us on the picket lines this Sunday, January 22nd.

You can read their full statement on Lowes here.

Washington University Warned International Students Not To Participate in Occupy

A friend sent me this link of a message sent to international students at Washington Unviersity about the Occupy movement:

The Occupy Protests and Illegal Activities: Implications for International Students

The Occupy Wall Street protests that began in September have since spread throughout the United States and around the world. St. Louis even has a small Occupy movement centered around Kiener Plaza, with support coming from students from local campuses, including Washington University. The Occupy protests, both here in St. Louis and elsewhere, have mostly complied with local laws and ordinances. However, the number of arrests for Occupy-related crimes has increased in recent weeks as local governments and police agencies seek to enforce laws and, in many cases, quell the protests.

The Occupy protests may appeal to students for several reasons. It may be that the goals of the movement resonate with students. On the other hand, students may view the movement with curiosity. Students may even see the protests as a way to experience the American political process firsthand. In our view, however, the decision to participate in the Occupy Protests must not be taken lightly.

In order to participate, one must accept the possibility of arrest. Even in St. Louis, Occupy Protest-related arrests have been made. Arrests can have severe consequences for American students. However, international students face an even greater level of risk. International students who are arrested may face long term immigration consequences, including the loss of immigration status and even deportation, depending on the circumstances.

And, with news coverage of the Occupy Protests being broadcast around the world in a 24-7 newscycle and on the internet, an international student may face problems back home. Governments, and even perspective employers, may access information from online sources regarding activites that would viewed negatively in the home country. For example, background checks increasingly rely on information from online sources.

For more information on visa regulations and the consequences of an arrest, please consult an advisor in the OISS.

Now, the letter makes some valid points and I don't think this message was intended to be threatening for the sake of shutting down political opinions, but it does seem to me to strongly discourage international students from participating and to do so in a way that doesn't really make clear what things would and would not be problematic. Obviously, getting arrested is a problem for people here on a visa. However, there could be ways of participating that don't, as the letter claims, carry, "the possibility of arrest."

I've noticed first-hand that a lot of international students were pretty disturbed by this letter, and have been especially afraid of getting involved in any sort of political activity (specifically citing the letter as a reason). This seems like a real shame for academia, a place that is supposed to encourage free thinking.

Bill McClellan Unaware That Policy Is Sometimes Set in St. Louis?

Today's Post-Dispatch includes a column from Bill McClellan about Occupy St. Louis, or at least about some clown who spray-painted the word "Occupy" on a sign in Frontenac. Though I agree with McClellan that it was dumb to vandalize the sign, it probably was slightly over-the-top (as noted by @nextstl on Twitter) for McClellan to compare this to the Taliban blowing up 1,500+ year old statues. And then there was this amazing gem from McClellan:

Actually, I never quite understood the Occupy St. Louis part of the movement. Occupy Wall Street, I got that. I would have been fine with Occupy Washington. Maybe even Occupy Palm Beach.

But Occupy St. Louis? Who around here sets policy?

I'll have to consult with some local experts and historians on this, but I'm pretty sure there are, in fact, policies that are set in St. Louis. Some people refer to these as "local" or "St. Louis" policies. And on occasion, these policies might be thought to favor the interests of big businesses and the wealthy over the interests of the general public, which is exactly what the Occupy movement opposes.

Tea Party Fan Tells Occupy St. Louis He's "Having Serious Thoughts" About Becoming a "Sniper for the 1%"

For some reason, a St. Louis area man thought it would be a good idea to tweet this:

I looked him up on Facebook, and, sure enough, he's a fan of the "Tea Party Patriots."


In fairness, I don't see any indication that he's connected to the local tea party. But it's another great example of the type of deranged thinking the modern day Right celebrates nowadays.

Did the City Decieve Occupy St. Louis About Helping the Homeless?

Last weekend, shortly after the city decided to kick Occupy St. Louis out of Kiener Plaza, I saw the following post on facebook:

I generally like Eddie (who used to work for the Post-Dispatch and now works for Slay), so I decided to investigate what this claim was about. According to the occupiers, Roth and city officials had promised that when they evicted the Occupy St. Louis group from Kiener, they would make sure to find housing for the homeless who had flocked to the Occupy demonstration because it provided a safer and friendlier environment than living on the street (and because housing was not available through the city). Yet, when last Friday rolled around and the police arrested anyone staying in Kiener past curfew, the only thing the homeless received was a slip of paper with the same old phone numbers to call. When they called, they were told there was no new space available.

The claim that Roth promised to provide an alternative came from a general assembly on Wednesday of last week where Roth and fellow Slay representative (and former union supporter) Mary Ellen Ponder were there to present their non-negotiable proposal. As can be seen from this video, there was already tension regarding the city's proposals about the homeless at Kiener, with one of the occupiers asking Roth why the homeless were being used as a bargaining chip by the city:


The comment in question from Roth, however, came earlier in the meeting in response to a different question from one of the group's longtime members, Cheryl, who also happens to be homeless. Roth says in the following video, "I'll be happy to come down with some people tomorrow to make sure to check with you and others."


This, as noted above, apparently did not happen. However, in my Sunshine Law request, I did see an email from Roth to Bill Siedhoff (who coordinates the city's response to homelessness) where Roth specifically mentioned a commitment to two men from the Occupy St. Louis group.

Here's the relevant text:

Hi Bill,

Mary Ellen and I were at Kiener Plaza last night for a second consecutive
night. We presented a proposal we hoped they might agree could serve as an
alternative to the encampment. One element is your stepped up effort,
already underway, to connect the homeless men and women who are participating in
the Occupy St. Louis demonstration with housing and other services.

Durin the back and forth with the demonstrators some, who said they were
homeless, disputed what you had said at Tuesday's meeting and claimed that the
City and other service providers have not been a presence at Kiener Plaza in
behalf of the homeless. I said that I believed the city could find through
its network of providers temporary shelter to all who wanted it.

Two men came up to me at the end of the evening and said they wanted to be
connected to housing and services. I said I would help them. One is going
to call me at 10 a.m. - and said he does not have a phone but will find one to
call me then.

Bill, could you please help me with these two guys--and use them to show the
group what we are capable of doing?

Please give me specific advice on how to simplify the path for these two men
that I can use for one of them when he calls at 10 a.m.

Many thanks,

Eddie

I checked with several members of the group and as far as they knew none of the homeless people at Occupy St. Louis had been helped out. It's still possible that Roth dropped the ball in following up with Siedhoff, but it certainly looks like he made an effort to help. Nevertheless, as far as the people I spoke with have heard, there has been no actual help. Whatever the exact story is, it seems clear to me that the Occupy encampment, just like Hopeville, is exposing some very serious problems in the City's ability and/or willingness to provide the homeless with adequate resources.

Did St. Louis City Cave to Downtown Partnership Requests? New Evidence Suggests Yes

Occupy St. Louis has previously alleged that St. Louis City's decision to evict them from Kiener Plaza was prompted by a meeting with the Downtown Partnership, a St. Louis business partnership whose board includes representatives from Bank of America, Wells Fargo, US Bank, Peabody Coal, and many others. Reporter David Hunn of the Post-Dispatch followed up on this suggestion by asking Mayor Slay's Chief of Staff Jeff Rainford about the allegations, but the city apparently would not answer his question:

Jeff Rainford, Slay's chief of staff, refused to say if the city met with the Downtown Partnership last week, but insisted that the complaints are coming from many, not only the Partnership.

"There are lots of people complaining. I'm not going to point at one versus the other," he said. "I'm not going to get into it. What I would prefer not to happen is to have this personalized."

The city, he said, would not meet with occupiers today, nor would it discuss the issue in the press.

In documents obtained from a Missouri Sunshine Law request, I have found conclusive evidence that officials from the Mayor's office did meet with the Downtown Partnership to discuss OccupySTL. In fact, an email sent from Maggie Campbell, the President and CEO of the Downtown Partnership, suggests that the St. Louis group had been communicating with "counterpart organizations" around the country with the express goal of "unoccupying public parks." Campbell is forwarding an email from Jane Jenkins of Downtown Oklahoma City, Inc. about a man found dead in a tent at Occupy Oklahoma City. Here's the exact quote from Campbell's Oct. 31st email to Jeff Rainford (Chief of Staff for the Mayor) and Sam Dotson (Director of Operations for the City of St. Louis):

Fyi - newsflash from Oklahoma City - we are talking weekly with counterpart organizations in dozens of American cities, learning that more of them are moving forward with local plans to unoccupy local parks and return them to a condition that everyone can use them, while still allowing for the right to assemble and protest without taking possession of public space. We look forward to our meeting tomorrow to discuss this issue further, and we appreciate your support and thoughtful guidance.

I've uploaded the document to DocStoc, blocking out emails and phone numbers for the people involved. I can make the original, unaltered version available for any press who are interested in following up. Here's the document:

DowntownPartnrship


If it is true that the meeting with the Downtown Partnership is what promted the City to evict Occupy St. Louis from Kiener Plaza, this seems like an important example of exactly what the movement is complaining about: city policy being determined by business elites. Why should the city of St. Louis bow to pressure from groups like Bank of America who have a vested interest in shutting down protests that remind the public of their unethical and likely illegal behavior?

I think this also suggests that people in other large cities should also start investigating the communication between their city governments and the local downtown association. It sounds like St. Louis was just one of any number of city's where local business groups pressured the city's to crack down on protesters.

KMOV's Relentless Smear Campaign Against the 99% Movement

KMOV already has a horrible track record of ideological axe-grinding on behalf of the 1%. They've ignored 4,300 person rallies against corporate greed while hyping 700 person tea party rallies as evidence of a "populist uprising." They've run numerous hit pieces on the recipients of food stamps, while ignoring the actual causes of our country's financial troubles. And they regularly take cheap shots at local universities with lazy and petty "reports" that sound like they came straight from the mouth of Rush Limbaugh. In short, it's basically impossible at this point to regard KMOV as a trustworthy source of information, since it's clear that prefer to push their own confused beliefs on viewers while posing as "objective journalists."

With this in mind, it really should be no surprise that KMOV would openly display their bias against the members of the 99% movement who protest the status quo that KMOV desperately strives to protect. Nevertheless, the consistency of their skewed reporting on this issue has been a sight to behold. Some recent examples:

As already reported on this blog, KMOV reporter Craig Cheatham decided to use his coverage of the arrests last Friday as an opportunity to make "smelly hippy" jokes.

In the courtroom on Tuesday, KMOV reporter Mark Synder's story was dripping with sarcasm and derision:

Both Mills and the next occupy witness, Chrissie Brooks made it clear occupying Keiner 24 hours a day IS their political expression. If they can't do that, their free speech is being violated.

This brought approval from a dozen or so occupiers in the gallery. I know this because some held their hands up wiggling their fingers. That's the sign for, "we agree, we have consensus." I learned that on the Colbert Report.

Brooks provided another memorable moment when the attorney for the city asked her about occupiers trying to get a permit from the city to be in Keiner 24 hours a day indefinitely. She couldn't get one.

The attorney for the city asked her, "Were you told your political message was the reason you were denied a permit?"

Brooks answered, "No," then added, "but it felt like it."

And reporter Maggie Crane said that if you were stuck in traffic on Thursday on the MLK bridge, you should "blame" Occupy STL:
But what really took the cake was Marc Cox's tea party hit job on Occupy St. Louis yesterday, perfectly symbolic of the disrespect KMOV regularly shows for people who are outside of the establishment they lazily cater to.

KMOV has updated their story at bit since the original hack job, but I took a screen shot of the original story:

The real story is that a homeless man who was not a regular member of the Occupy encampment followed a woman into a tent and groped her breast. The police were called right away and the man was arrested. So it seems to me like (1) this story offers zero support for the tea party narrative that the actual occupiers are violent criminals and (2) offers very little support for the idea that the encampments are particularly dangerous places.

But this is not the impression you would get from watching KMOX's original coverage. Unlike KSDK, they did not report that the assaulter was a homeless man who was not part of the movement. Now, it's worth noting, there are several homeless people who are active and contributing members of the encampment, so just because someone is homeless does not mean that they're not part of the group. But the key distinction here is that the guy was not an active participant in the group, but rather was someone who just came by for the resources that the occupiers provide.

Second, in a complete violation of the rules of basic journalism, the reporter Mark Cox did not even bother to get a quote from a member of Occupy St. Louis. He just posted his smear piece and only later wrote a new story that included quotes from the occupiers, which as it happened provided the important context that the assaulter was not a part of the actual movement.

And finally, KMOV included a video of tea partier Gary Wiegart looking like Nosferatu, claiming that this incident proved that the darn hippies should have been immediately kicked out of Kiener Plaza.

"I vant to suck your blood. Also: white people are oppressed!"

KMOV in the original story referred to Wiegart only as a police officer, and only later noted that he's actually a registered lobbyist for the St. Louis Tea Party. In fact, Wiegert has a long history of extremism and conspiracy theories; he was the guy who invented the race-baiting conspiracy theory that Republican House Speaker Steve Tilley was in league with the New Black Panther Party because Tilley supported local control.

Just imagine if this were a story about a different institution. If an alleged sexual assault had taken place at a Bank of America, and a liberal activist made a video claiming that this proved that Bank of America creates an environment that encourages sexual assault, can you envision KMOV, under any circumstances, pushing this story without even asking Bank of America for a comment or doing basic research into the person making the claim? Of course not. They would never do it; they reserve their scorn and derision for people they think can't fight back.

What's worse, after KMOV wrote up this pathetic excuse for journalism, they then, from their main news Twitter feed, begged right-wing activist Dana Loesch to promote it for them:
Reporter Mark Cox then appeared on Loesch's radio show, and pretty clearly indicated that he didn't believe the Occupiers:


When I criticized KMOV on Twitter, they couldn't defend the fact that they didn't get quotes from Occupy St. Louis, nor that they were directly lobbying a right-wing activist to push their hatchet piece. But they did hilariously claim that their reporter had "uncovered" the story (actually, all he did was write down the tea party spin) and informed me that the Occupy St. Louis folks were welcome to try to track down the reporter if they wanted to be represented in his hit job on them.


So, in addition to an already horrible track record, we have three KMOTea reporters who made snide, condescending comments about Occupy St. Louis, and now an absolutely pathetically lazy smear piece by Marc Cox. This is not a case a "few bad apples" or careless mistakes; it pretty clearly represents a culture of bias and ideological axe-grinding at KMOTea. Why would anyone trust them as a news source?

1,000 People March For Jobs With Occupy St. Louis and Labor Groups

1,000 people marched today with OccupySTL and various labor groups for the November 17th Day of Action, marking the two month anniversary since Occupy Wall Street began. The protesters in St. Louis, as well as many other cities, marched to a local bridge to remind our legislators that we could put a lot of people to work by fixing our crumbling infrastructure.

The Fox 2 helicopter had some cool footage (make sure you see then end where it pans out on the whole crowd; sorry the resolution is so bad... oh, and the sound is strange too):



Fired Up has more on the declared economic emergency for the 99%.

Slay Obeyed: Mayor Slay Messaged Dana Loesch to Tell Her He Was Arresting Protesters

Yesterday, I pointed out that Mayor Slay's office said one of the reasons they decided to arrest protesters was because of feedback from "talk radio." Apparently, they think it's good city policy to try to appease the furthest right-wing fringe that carries coffins to local congressperson's yards, calls USDA officials "racist" based on doctored videos, and regularly attacks St. Louis institutions like UMSL and SEIU.

And thanks to a helpful tip from a commenter, it sounds like Mayor Slay was so eager to appease the right-wing fringe in St. Louis, he sent Loesch a personal message on Friday to let her know that he was going to be arresting protesters. She couldn't just wait to read about it on the news like all of the other rubes; nope, she's gets a special message so that she could cheer about those darn hippies getting their due.

Here's the clip of Loesch telling her rabid audience that Slay sent her a personal message on Friday:


Throughout the occupy protests, protesters have often chanted the following to the police: "Who do you protect? Who do you serve?" I think it might be more appropriate to ask the Mayor these questions.

Slay's Representative Cites "Talk Radio Complaints" And "Newspaper Comments" As Reason For Evicting OccupySTL

Prior to last Friday's mass arrests by the city of St. Louis of people engaging in political activism in Kiener Plaza, Mayor Slay's representatives Eddie Roth and Mary Ellen Ponder went to the Occupy encampment to make a non-negotiable proposal. While they were there, they were asked why, after nearly a month, they all of a sudden decided to kick the occupiers out of Kiener Plaza.

Here's Cathy asking the question:

And here's Eddie Roth's response:

He went on to note that in his impression it wasn't a decision made by "the plutocrats."

Roth worked for the Post-Dispatch editorial team. He knows better than to take those comments seriously.

And, in what can only be described as a remarkable coincidence, Jeff Rainford was on Dana Loesch's show today to receive her congratulations for kicking the violent dirty hippies out of Kiener Plaza (more on this later). It was the third time in less than a week that a representative from Slay's office was on her show.

St. Louis City Violates Their Own Rules During Occupy Eviction

For a group that decided that all-of-a-sudden they needed to follow the precise dictates of every rule and ordinance, the Slay administration didn't do a very good job of following their own rules. Here's the text of the eviction notice they sent to OccupySTL:

PUBLIC NOTICE: The City of St. Louis has a policy in place for handling and storing unattended property in downtown parks. The parks dept will gather up the property, put it in bags, tag it and store it in a secure place. To retrieve any items you leave in a downtown park, go to 1212 N. 13th between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m, this Saturday Nov. 12th or Sunday, Nov. 13th. After that, you can call the Parks Department at 314-289-5300. You are responsible for securing your valuables and personal belongings. We will use our best efforts to return belongings you leave behind.

Yet during the raid they threw signs and tarps into a garbage truck to be crushed:

In fact, they even destroyed and trashed the media tent:


Lesson for the day: following the rules is really, really, really important... except when it isn't.

Video From Arrests at Occupy STL

I tried out UStream on my relatively new Android phone today. Here's some video of the arrests of the St. Louis Occupiers after Slay decided he wouldn't let them stay in the part anymore (for reasons that so far are still not entirely clear).





It really was pretty tame, in its own way. In contrast to a lot of other peaceful protests I've been at, the police were not wearing riot gear. And while there was a small group of people who wanted to antagonize the police, they were greatly outnumbered and didn't really have much influence on how things went down.

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.

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?

Video: Rainford Dodges Request for City To Divest From Bank of America

As an update to my previous post, here's video of the exchange where OccupySTL asked the Mayor's staff about divesting from Bank of America.

Here's the initial question:

And here's Rainford's non-response response:

Notice that, despite saying he didn't want to give a "mealy mouthed answer," he didn't actually explain why they need to keep their money in one of the worst banks in the country rather than a local credit union or even to a bank like Commerce or Pulaski which doesn't have the same horrible track record as BoFA.

Wagman Blames Occupy For Hacking That Took Place A Month Before Occupy Movement

Update: Wagman's post has now been corrected, though without noting that it was corrected, as is standard practice.

Someone hacked Mayor Slay's website yesterday and claimed to do so in support of Occupy St. Louis (which seems pretty ridiculous considering that Occupy St. Louis is currently negotiating with Slay's office). This was clearly a counterproductive move, and as far as I can tell was done with absolutely no consultation of the people who are involved in the Occupation.

However, leave it to Post-Dispatch reporter Jake Wagman to invent new facts that make the story better right-wing link bait. Wagman claimed in the post that Anonymous's hacking of the Oakland BART system was "linked" to the Occupy movement:

The poster claimed affiliation with the hacking network Anonymous, which has taken credit for infiltrating the computer network for the transit system in Oakland, a move also linked with the Occupy movement.

But, as Trianglman on Twitter points out, the hacking of BART took place on August 14, a full month before the Occupy movement even started. Nothing in the article Wagman linked to in order to support his claim mentioned anything about Occupy, which makes sense given that Occupy didn't exist then.

By the way, in my opinion David Hunn has being doing a great job covering the Occupy STL movement, and in general has been much less of a uncritical mouthpiece for the Slay administration than Wagman was when he covered City Hall. It's not clear why Wagman took the day off from his usual job of butchering stories about statewide politics to write about this story.