Notes from the
Occupy Delaware
General Assembly (GA)
2012-04-25
Spencer Plaza, Wilmington
Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, they’ll probably rule the same.
We live in a society now where many of us can afford
to distance ourselves
from the pain that others are feeling.
Occupy is basically saying, no, you have to look.
~~~~~~~~~~
Meeting started: 1912 hr
Report Backs
Good economic meeting last Sunday. The next one will be at a house we can talk about more things.
Actions Garden project: Councilman Sammy Prado is with us tonight. 5th and Harrison, Nzinga, Hilltop Neighborhood and ODE are a perfect combination. It’s important for people to see ODE visibly working in the city, this will get the message out better. Councilwoman Loretta Walsh sends her support. They both agree the last article in the paper was unfair, a stretch to link crimes in the city to the camp. There are council members who do support ODE. The Hilltop is usually forgotten by the city and council members.
I spoke with Richard Morse, our ACLU lawyer representing us against the city. Before the proposals later, we need to rebut the city’s letter (I have copies). We came up with a response, going through their letter point-by-point. Morse needs that from us. 2nd, we need to decide that if the city rejects our counterproposal we’re going to sue the city, the same process we went through to get to Spencer Plaza. 3rd, Morse recommends we reduce our footprint on the plaza so that it matches more the number of residents who are currently staying here, that’s part of the city’s argument. If we show a good faith effort to get rid of structures we don’t need that’ll show we’re good neighbors and are sharing the plaza.
There was a second letter from the city, today, asking…
“Please inform by close of business Friday the names of the owners of the structures on the camp…”
Morse response, asked why city lawyer wanted with the information. Response was so he knows he’s communicating with the responsible parties.
We can comply, not comply, or comply partially. Legal advice is to comply, so if we go to court it can’t be used against us. However, there may be people who would be uncomfortable with this. Morse said is would be appropriate for him to say that he knows he’s talking to the responsible parties, that is, the GA, and we don’t want to provide the info because we fear retaliation by the city.
We could say the structures are owned by ODE and maintained by the Infrastructure committee, and provide the committee members’ names.
If we decide to sue the city we could be required to give names to the city anyway, as part of the normal process of suing, they have a right to know who is suing them. They could ask to volunteer them, as Morse to suggest them, or use other information. These individuals could then be deposed.
Point of Information: Someone will have to sign the suit. My name is Steve Fox and that is my tent.
Questions
Why wouldn’t we want as much publicity as possible? I have no problem with my name (Andy) out there, that’s my tent. I’d love to be on the stand to be deposed.
Becky doesn’t have a problem giving her name either. What do they consider responsible? I have had a life and experiences…
Morse’s email, “It’s possible the city would want the ….”
The rebuttal letter and deciding whether we’d sue, we need that tonight. The names and how we’d proceed with that we don’t need by COB Friday.
What we do about providing the names would have to be in the form of a proposal, so we’ll need to decide that tonight too.
It seems that it’s the spirit of Occupy is that we’re all equals so I would like to see that our response to ownership and responsibility is the GA, and then they get all the names who are willing to give them. [twinkle fingers all around]
Is this proposal to prevent the eviction on Monday? We’re planning to go to NY on Tuesday if there’s no need for people at the camp.
We’re going to respond to the letter saying we won’t leave the plaza we’re helping the city. It won’t necessarily be resolved by May 1. Last time the city settled out of court so our suit didn’t go to court.
Is there a time Tuesday? There was no time in the letter. We also don’t know what they will do Tuesday.
Since we don’t know what their tactics will be on Tuesday and they’ve been very rude to us I am prepared if anybody wants to join me in civil disobedience action. Locking arms, getting arrested, standing up for my Constitutional rights and not being lied to by the city. I’m prepared to let the process work but other Occupies have gone through the same thing and it will eventually come down to whether or not the site comes down, with or without cooperation. I’m also very ticked off about the newspaper, my life is community and to help each other out, and to be accused of being a grave desecrator is outrages. The mayor should be sued, this is nothing but a bunch of fcking hype and it’s got to be stopped. We’re good people and I’m not going to be abused for helping the city and the residents in it.
I totally agree but maybe we should have some delaying tactics.
To finish on the garden, Prado may scare up $300 for the fence. We’ve built the raised beds. We need people to help move compost tomorrow 10 am 10th and Clayton. We’ll do fun outreach stuff on May 5, city project day.
Tonight before we leave we have to create an addendum for the document we’re sending to the city outlining what we’re going to do by when to the camp.
We’ve had some discussion about doing an op-ed or long letter to give our side of the story. I’d like to put together a group tonight to put this together, to use our own frame, we’re here as good citizens upholding the law and bringing attention to what the banks are doing. That’s what it’s about, with respect for the spirit of Peter Spencer, and the churches that were wiped out when the banks came to town. We know who the real desecrators of the churches are.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
After the meeting we need folks willing to help with PRT stuff [Peace Resolution Team].
Infrastructure, it is time for Spring cleanup. We need to beautify the place, starting with the supply tent’s removal. We’ll talk about this after the GA.
Shoveling tomorrow, show of hands: 6 people.
PROPOSALS
1) Approving the letter response to the city. [the letter was read aloud, see below]
Factual Information
On the dates listed that some sort of crime may or may not have happened there are crimes elsewhere in the city they are completely ignoring.
We did move the portapotties so we could control them better and the city ordered us to move them back.
The fact that we publish our meeting minutes shows our openness to everyone, including the city.
Our GAs are open to everybody and we have invited city and county officials, police, fire and safety to participate in the meetings.
There we only 3 or 4 occasions when any public official, except for Walsh and Prado, who have come to the site.
Police have said this is one of the few places in the city attempting to be drug free in the city.
Clarifying Questions
This document is going to whom? Yes, to our attorney to be sent to their attorney.
We should be more specific about dates and time frames. We are answering direct points of their lawyers.
Concerns
The document is awesome, near the end in the summation “many of these accusations are hearsay…and notes from our GA minutes…” I would remove that “taken from the GA minutes” it makes us look like we’re putting out false information. Actually what it says is hearsay, inference, taken from the notes…the point is that none of it is hard evidence.
As we do publish the minutes we are making the public aware of the things that are happening on the city’s streets and that we’re dealing with them by calling the police. Also we would do well to say that the tents represent the enslavement of the people by the corporate state and that continues Peter Spencer’s work.
The document as is provides the information the lawyer needs to rebut the city’s complaint but the rest is statement of our purpose and not strictly necessary for this letter.
I think the letter is great the way it is but these point are important for us to take forward to future discussions.
I started my own letter to the mayor so I suggest anything additional you want to say put it in a letter to the mayor.
I appreciate the strength, position of the letter and it’s a good move.
Amendments
[We can address details after the GA.]
No amendments.
Straw Poll [no need to reread the proposal]
in favor passing as is — no opposed
Binding vote — all in favor.
The proposal passed.
Proposal 2: Do we want to sue the city to remain at Spencer Plaza if they do not accept our rebuttal and try to evict.
Factual Information
It’s a fact that we sued that got us to the plaza.
Clarifying Questions
Would this be a no-cost-to-us lawsuit, would there be filing fees? As far we we know the ACLU has taken this on pro bono. No fee was indicated to me when Morse made is clear we had to make this decision for him to move forward. Historically the ACLU does not charge for its services.
Would we be allowed to use our generally funds for any filing fees? This is a civil issue, so why not?
What’s the time frame? It has to be submitted tomorrow, to be filed before May 1. We don’t know how long the mayor’s office would take to respond.
Did Morse give any indication once filed whether that might cause the city to move? No. But what happened the first time we sued the city we got a restraining order.
Should we get a restraining order? We’ll talk to Morse about that.
Concerns
[none]
Amendments
[none]
Straw Poll: In favor of suing the city if they decide to reject the letter and go through with eviction. In favor 20, opposed 0
Binding Vote + 20, – 0
The proposal passed.
Proposal 3: We respond to today’s letter asking for names by saying all the structures are the property of ODE, including …[a list] and signed by GA members, and we say we’ll decline divulging names of anyone protesting in the camp.
Factual Information
We will say the structures are owned and have been erected and are maintained by the GA of ODE.
The GA is the bearer of decisions, we don’t name names. The GA is the interface.
Names give it more credence, power. I have no problem giving names, this a very intelligent and powerful group here and we should have no problem giving names.
We have committee organizers, I don’t have a problem giving my name and we should have an opportunity to do that.
14 people here are willing to put there names on the list.
Many many names would create a scenario where they can’t do anything with them, we should outreach to as many people as possible to get 150 names…
This is not for the suit, this is strictly just for “they know they are speaking to the responsible persons.”
When we were discussing with the attorney for the fiscal agreement we could have had everybody at the GA sign for spending approval, so that’s a precedent.
Will they be able to use any fact about these people against us? That is unclear. Morse’s email, “it’s possible that the city will want to name the people in legal proceedings.”
In a civil court of law they are breaking the law if they use irrelevant history against us.
They were here measuring things, it may be they want to connect people to the bill…From our first meeting with the city I seem to recall one of the things discussed was the dimensions of structures, that may be why they were measuring. This wasn’t in our agreement.
Let’s contact Morse and get “responsible” defined, would the undersigned be held responsible for any damage claims.
Concerns
I feel as if we’re getting baited to get names to intimidate us and make the group so small to render us ineffectual. They can also put pressure on us outside the lawsuit and threaten us individually.
It is unlawful to bring up prior charges that are not relevant to the case.
There’s never no risk, but there’s little risk in court here, and if they want to pressure you outside of this they could do that.
It’s possible that the city is asking for the names because they have told us to leave on May 1 and if we do and leave stuff here they’ll want to know who to contact to come get it. It’s possible it’s a legitimate question of disposing of stuff left behind.
If they want to know who we are they already do by now.
“Property of ODE” some has been loaned to ODE, it’s under our care.
If they do attempt to evict the names may be held responsible for abandoned property or littering. It’s going to be difficult to say who owns what.
We’re going to go through the legal process that every other Occupy has gone through throughout the country. If they don’t want to give us the time, assume they’re going to take it down. They would have to raise the issue about giving us enough time to demobilize.
We should assume that anyone who puts their name on this list that will be targeted.
If we give them 100 names it will make their life [more] miserable.
Re dumping, littering, if we leave let’s not leave anything that wasn’t here when we got here.
I don’t think this entire thing will be resolved by May 1, so we will be charged with leaving things here.
The city has asked us to voluntarily leave May 1.
The names could include past occupiers, and challenge the city to find them.
We have until the COB Friday.
Many people have just noms de guerre.
My name is Peter Spencer.
Amendments
Amendment 1: Change “property” to “under the care of.” Seconded.
It does say in the letter to us “and or” so the Amendment as accepted by the proposer.
Re-read proposal: We respond to the letter that the property is in the care of the GA of ODE and that includes but is not limited to the following names. And we decline to share names of the residents of the camp in fear of retribution from the city.
Amendment 2: Use occupiers, not residents. The amendment was accepted as friendly.
Amendment 3: Just say we decline to provide the names, no fear of retribution.
Amendment 4: The last part about not sharing the names be removed. Seconded.
Proposer would accept this because they are asking for “or” so we don’t need to give them this. The amendment was accepted as friendly.
Proposal: We respond to the letter that the property is in the care of the GA of ODE and that includes but is not limited to the following names.
Straw Poll: unanimous in favor of accepting proposal
Binding Vote: “” “” “”
The proposal passed.
FURTHER ANNOUNCEMENTS
Think about how we may defend the camp in the future.
Op-Ed meeting, PRT, sign the proposal after the meeting. And we need an addendum list of infrastructure to remove.
There is Rockabilly night at HomeGrown in Newark.
And we’re still shoveling at 10 am tomorrow.
Infrastructure meeting after the GA.
Meeting adjourned: 2056 hr
Proposal 1: {redacted} This will be brought up at the next GA. Please speak to Jen or Dassi in the meantime, if you have any questions.