Archive for the ‘Law’ Category

Publishing

Saturday, July 7th, 2012

It is impossible to unpublish something. Unpublish is not even a word.

To attempt to unpublish something is worse than futile. Please, just consider the last of the famous to try.

Book burning – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_burning

Book burning (also biblioclasm or libricide) is the practice of destroying, often …. A much-quoted line in Mikhail Bulgakov’s The Master and Margarita is Fahrenheit 451, stating, “It follows then that when Hitler burned a book I felt it as keenly,

Then, please consider basic human law:

First Amendment to the United States Constitution – Wikipedia, the

en.wikipedia.org/…/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constit…

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an

My suggestion: if you do not like the truth that has been published, please create a better reality for us.  Thank you.

by Daniel Brouse

Australia Carbon Tax

Tuesday, June 19th, 2012

On July 1, 2012 Australia will impose a price on carbon emissions.

A price on carbon is the most environmentally effective and economically efficient way to reduce pollution. This means our economy can continue to prosper – without our pollution continuing to grow. The Government’s plan for a clean energy future includes four key components. Firstly, the establishment of a carbon price. Secondly, support for renewable energy. Thirdly, to support improvements in energy efficiency. And fourthly, to store carbon through changed land-use practices. So, they’re the four key foundations, if you like, of our plan for a clean energy future. A carbon price has got a very important role to play because it puts a price tag on pollution. For the first time in our economy, the largest polluters will have to pay a price for every tonne of pollution that they put into the atmosphere, and that creates the incentive to cut pollution and it also creates the pressure to innovate, the pressure to invest in cleaner energy sources. And that’ll be very important for the future of our country and our economy and our living standards, because it’s the countries in the 21st century that have innovated and that have got clean energy as a key part of their economic future that will be the most competitive, and that’s very important for our future as well.

More on Carbon Taxes, Cap and Trade and Emissions Trading
More on Global Warming and Climate Change

Questions Answered

Q. Where will the money raised from the carbon price go?

A.

More than half of the money raised will be used to assist households. The majority of households will receive tax cuts, increased assistance payments  or both. With the rest of the money, the Government will be supporting jobs in the most affected industries and investing in our clean energy future. Find more questions about: Carbon Price , Household / Family

Q. Will I have to pay the carbon price?

A.

No, it’s not a tax on households or small businesses - Australia’s biggest polluters will be required to pay for their pollution under the carbon pricing mechanism. They account for around 60 per cent of our carbon pollution. For more information on Australia’s biggest polluters. Find more questions about: Carbon Price , Household / Family

An environmental problem with an economic solution

Putting a price on carbon is the most environmentally effective and cheapest way to cut pollution. This is a fact that is well recognized by economists from around the world, and respected institutions such as the OECD and the Productivity Commission. Currently, releasing carbon pollution is free despite the fact that it is harming our environment. A carbon price changes this. It puts a price on the carbon pollution that Australia’s largest polluters produce. This creates a powerful incentive for all businesses to cut their pollution, by investing in clean technology or finding more efficient ways of operating. It encourages businesses across all industries to find the cheapest and most effective way of reducing carbon pollution, rather than relying on more costly approaches such as government regulation and direct action.

A carbon price means a strong and growing economy

The economy will continue to grow as Australia embraces a clean energy future. Treasury modelling estimates that under a carbon price:

  • Average incomes grow strongly under a carbon price. Average incomes are expected to increase by about 16 per cent from current levels by 2020, an increase of around $9000 in today’s dollars. By 2050, the increase is expected to be more than $30,000.
  • National employment is projected to increase by 1.6 million jobs by 2020.


Breaking the link between emissions and economic growth

The carbon price is the first element of the Government’s plan for a clean energy future: it will trigger a broad transformation of the economy. Our economy has successfully handled comparable structural changes over its history. In fact, transformative changes – new products and technologies, and the integration of our economy into the global economy set in train by the reforms of the 1980s and 1990s – have underpinned rising prosperity and sustainable growth in Australia. Treasury modelling shows that, under a carbon price, the economy continues to grow.

Figure 1: Gross National Income with and without the carbon price

Breaking the link between emissions and economic growth For more information see: Chapter 3 – Putting a price on carbon pollution. For further details about a carbon price see:

↑ Back to Top

Australia: top judge to face court over sedition charge

Thursday, May 24th, 2012
  1. News for charged with sedition australia


    Fijivillage
    1. Restraint urged after PNG charges judge

      The Australian‎ – 6 hours ago
      JULIA Gillard has urged political parties in Papua New Guinea to show restraint after police arrested the country’s chief justice and charged him
    1. Radio Australia‎ – 17 hours ago
  2. Australian sedition law – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_sedition_law

    Lance Sharkey, then General-Secretary of the Communist Party of Australia, was charged that, in March 1949 he: uttered the following seditious words: “If Soviet

  3. Sedition – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition

    Australia’s sedition laws were amended in anti-terrorism legislation passed on 6 were sought to be charged with sedition for advocating independence for the

  4. PNG’s chief justice charged with sedition – ABC News (Australian

    www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-25/…charged-with-sedition/4032678

    2 hours ago – Radio Australia’s Pacific correspondent Campbell Cooney discusses the arrest of chief justice Sir Salamo Injia in Papua New Guinea.

  5. PNG chief justice charged with sedition – ABC News (Australian

    www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-24/png-deputy-pm…/4031378

    22 hours ago – Police in Papua New Guinea have charged the country’s chief justice with sedition after a dramatic attempt to arrest him in court.

  6. PNG top judge charged with sedition | ABC Radio Australia

    www.radioaustralia.net.au/…/2012…charged-with-sedition/949652

    14 hours ago – News, current affairs & topical conversations from Australia, Asia and the Pacific He was then charged with sedition and released on bail.

  7. Political turmoil in PNG as Chief Justice is charged with sedition | Asia

    www.radioaustralia.net.au/…in…charged-with-sedition/949858

    16 hours ago – News, current affairs & topical conversations from Australia, Asia and the Guinea have charged the country’s chief justice with sedition after a

  8. Australia Network News:Stories:PNG top judge charged with sedition

    australianetworknews.com/stories/201205/3510337.htm?desktop

    10 hours ago – Police in Papua New Guinea have charged the country’s chief justice with sedition after a dramatic attempt to arrest him in court.

  9. Papua New Guinean chief justice charged with sedition – China Daily

    www.chinadaily.com.cn/xinhua/2012-05-25/content_6006431.html

    2 hours ago – He was then charged with sedition and released on bail, the ABC reported. Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr has contacted the PNG

  10. Sky News: PNG top judge charged with sedition

    www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=753823&vId=

    7 hours ago – Local media says Papua New Guinea’s chief justice has been charged with sedition and will appear in court this morning. Chief Justice Sir

Mortgage Bankers Paying for Fraud and Crimes

Tuesday, May 15th, 2012

Even foreign companies have to pay for crimes committed in the good ole US of A.

HUD, HUD INSPECTOR GENERAL AND U.S. ATTORNEY ANNOUNCE
$202 MILLION SETTLEMENT WITH DEUTSCHE BANK AND MORTGAGEIT
Civil Fraud case alleged reckless mortgage lending and false claims

Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Stuart F. Delery, the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, Helen Kanovsky, General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), and David A. Montoya, Inspector General of HUD, announced today that the United States has settled a civil fraud lawsuit against DEUTSCHE BANK AG, DB STRUCTURED PRODUCTS, INC., DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES, INC. (collectively “DEUTSCHE BANK” or the “DEUTSCHE BANK defendants”) and MORTGAGEIT, INC. (“MORTGAGEIT”).

The Government’s lawsuit, filed May 3, 2011, sought damages and civil penalties under the False Claims Act for repeated false certifications to HUD in connection with the residential mortgage origination practices of MORTGAGEIT, a wholly-owned subsidiary of DEUTSCHE BANK AG since 2007. The suit alleges approximately a decade of misconduct in connection with MORTGAGEIT’s participation in the Federal Housing Administration’s (“FHA’s”) Direct Endorsement Lender Program (“DEL program”), which delegates authority to participating private lenders to endorse mortgages for FHA insurance. Among other things, the suit accused the defendants of having submitted false certifications to HUD, including false certifications that MORTGAGEIT was originating mortgages in compliance with HUD rules when in fact it was not. In the settlement announced today, MORTGAGEIT and DEUTSCHE BANK admitted, acknowledged, and accepted responsibility for certain conduct alleged in the Complaint, including that, contrary to the representations in MORTGAGEIT’s annual certifications, MORTGAGEIT did not conform to all applicable HUD-FHA regulations.

MORTGAGEIT also admitted that it submitted certifications to HUD stating that certain loans were eligible for FHA mortgage insurance when in fact they were not; that FHA insured certain loans endorsed by MORTGAGEIT that were not eligible for FHA mortgage insurance; and that HUD consequently incurred losses when some of those MORTGAGEIT loans defaulted. The defendants also agreed to pay $202.3 million to the United States to resolve the Government’s claims for damages and penalties under the False Claims Act. The settlement was approved today by United States District Judge Lewis Kaplan.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara stated: “MORTGAGEIT and DEUTSCHE BANK treated FHA insurance as free Government money to backstop lending practices that did not follow the rules. Participation in the Direct Endorsement Lender program comes with requirements that are not mere technicalities to be circumvented through subterfuge as these defendants did repeatedly over the course of a decade. Their failure to meet these requirements caused substantial losses to the Government – losses that could have and should have been avoided. In addition to their admissions of responsibility, Deutsche Bank and MortgageIT have agreed to pay damages in an amount that will significantly compensate HUD for the losses it incurred as a result of the defendants’ actions.”

Acting Assistant Attorney General Stuart F. Delery stated: “This is an important settlement for the United States, both in terms of obtaining substantial reimbursement for the FHA insurance fund for wrongfully incurred claims, and in obtaining the defendants’ acceptance of their role in the losses they caused to the taxpayers.”

HUD General Counsel Helen Kanovsky stated: “This case demonstrates that HUD has the ability to identify fraud patterns and work with our partners at the Department of Justice and U.S. Attorney’s Offices to pursue appropriate remedies. HUD would like to commend the work of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York in achieving this settlement, which is a substantial recovery for the FHA mortgage insurance fund. We look forward to continuing our joint efforts with the Department of Justice and the SDNY to combat mortgage fraud. The mortgage industry should take notice that we will not sit silently by if we detect abuses in our programs.

HUD Inspector General David A. Montoya stated: “We expect every Direct Endorsement Lender to adhere to the highest level of integrity and accountability. When the combined efforts and attention of the Department of Justice, HUD, and HUD OIG are focused upon those who fail to exercise such integrity in connection with HUD programs, the end result will be both unpleasant and costly to the offending party.

The following allegations are based on the Complaint and Amended Complaint (the “Complaint”) filed in Manhattan federal court by the Government in this case:

Between 1999 and 2009, MORTGAGEIT was a participant in the DEL program, a federal program administered by the FHA. As a Direct Endorsement Lender, MORTGAGEIT had the authority to originate, underwrite, and endorse mortgages for FHA insurance. If a Direct Endorsement Lender approves a mortgage loan for FHA insurance and the loan later defaults, the holder of the loan may submit an insurance claim to HUD for the costs associated with the defaulted loan, which HUD must then pay. Under the DEL program, neither the FHA nor HUD reviews a loan before it is endorsed for FHA insurance. Direct Endorsement Lenders are therefore required to follow program rules designed to ensure that they are properly underwriting and endorsing mortgages for FHA insurance and maintaining a quality control program that can prevent and correct any deficiencies in their underwriting. These requirements include maintaining a quality control program, pursuant to which the lender must fully review all loans that go into default within the first six payments, known as “early payment defaults.” Early payment defaults may be signs of problems in the underwriting process, and by reviewing early payment defaults, Direct Endorsement Lenders are able to monitor those problems, correct them, and report them to HUD. MORTGAGEIT failed to comply with these basic requirements.

As the Complaint further alleges, MORTGAGEIT was also required to execute certifications for every mortgage loan that it endorsed for FHA insurance. Since 1999, MORTGAGEIT has endorsed more than 39,000 mortgages for FHA insurance, and FHA paid insurance claims on more than 3,200 mortgages, totaling more than $368 million, for mortgages endorsed for FHA insurance by MORTGAGEIT, including more than $58 million resulting from loans that defaulted after DEUTSCHE BANK AG acquired MORTGAGEIT in 2007. As alleged in the Complaint, a portion of those losses was caused by the false statements that the defendants made to HUD to obtain FHA insurance on individual loans. Although MORTGAGEIT had certified that each of these loans was eligible for FHA insurance, it repeatedly submitted certifications that were knowingly or recklessly false. MORTGAGEIT failed to perform basic due diligence and repeatedly endorsed mortgage loans that were not eligible for FHA insurance.

The Complaint also alleges that MORTGAGEIT separately certified to HUD, on an annual basis, that it was in compliance with the rules governing its eligibility in the DEL program, including that it conduct a full review of all early payment defaults, as early payment defaults are indicators of mortgage fraud. Contrary to its certifications to HUD, MORTGAGEIT failed to implement a compliant quality control program, and failed to review all early payment defaults as required. In addition, the Complaint alleges that, after DEUTSCHE BANK acquired MORTGAGEIT in January 2007, DEUTSCHE BANK managed the quality control functions of the Direct Endorsement Lender business, and had its employees sign and submit MORTGAGEIT’s Direct Endorsement Lender annual certifications to HUD. Furthermore, by the end of 2007, MORTGAGEIT was not reviewing any early payment defaults on closed FHA-insured loans. Between 1999 and 2009, the FHA paid more than $92 million in FHA insurance claims for loans that defaulted within the first six payments.

***

Pursuant to the settlement, MORTGAGEIT and the DEUTSCHE BANK defendants will pay the United States $202.3 million within 30 days of the settlement.

As part of the settlement, the defendants admitted, acknowledged, and accepted responsibility for certain misconduct. Specifically,

MORTGAGEIT admitted, acknowledged, and accepted responsibility for the following:

MORTGAGEIT failed to conform fully to HUD-FHA rules requiring Direct Endorsement Lenders to maintain a compliant quality control program;
MORTGAGEIT failed to conduct a full review of all early payment defaults on loans endorsed for FHA insurance;
Contrary to the representations in MORTGAGEIT’s annual certifications, MORTGAGEIT did not conform to all applicable HUD-FHA regulations;
MORTGAGEIT endorsed for FHA mortgage insurance certain loans that did not meet all underwriting requirements contained in HUD’s handbooks and mortgagee letters, and therefore were not eligible for FHA mortgage insurance under the DEL program; and
MORTGAGEIT submitted to HUD-FHA certifications stating that certain loans were eligible for FHA mortgage insurance when in fact they were not; FHA insured certain loans endorsed by MORTGAGEIT that were not eligible for FHA mortgage insurance; and HUD consequently incurred losses when some of those MORTGAGEIT loans defaulted.
The DEUTSCHE BANK defendants admitted, acknowledged, and accepted responsibility for the fact that after MORTGAGEIT became a wholly-owned, indirect subsidiary of DB Structured Products, Inc and Deutsche Bank AG in January 2007:
The DEUTSCHE BANK defendants were in a position to know that the operations of MORTGAGEIT did not conform fully to all of HUD-FHA’s regulations, policies, and handbooks;
One or more of the annual certifications was signed by an individual who was also an officer of certain of the DEUTSCHE BANK defendants; and
Contrary to the representations in MORTGAGEIT’s annual certifications, MORTGAGEIT did not conform to all applicable HUD-FHA regulations.

* * *

The case is being handled by the Office’s Civil Frauds Unit. Mr. Bharara established the Civil Frauds Unit in March 2010 to bring renewed focus and additional resources to combating financial fraud, including mortgage fraud.

To date, the Office’s Civil Frauds Unit has brought four civil fraud lawsuits against major lenders under the False Claims Act alleging reckless residential mortgage lending. Three of the four cases have settled, and today’s settlement represents the third, and largest, settlement. On February 15, 2012, the Government settled its civil fraud lawsuit against CITIMORTGAGE, INC. for $158.3 million. On February 24, 2012, the Government settled its civil fraud suit against FLAGSTAR BANK, F.S.B. for $132.8 million. The Government’s lawsuit against ALLIED HOME MORTGAGE CORP. and two of its officers remains pending. With today’s settlement, the Government has achieved settlements totaling $493.4 million in the last three months. In each settlement, the defendants have admitted and accepted responsibility for certain conduct alleged in the Government’s Complaint. The Office’s Civil Frauds Unit is handling all three cases as part of its continuing investigation of reckless lending practices.

The Civil Frauds Unit works in coordination with President Barack Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, on which Mr. Bharara serves as a Co-Chair of the Securities and Commodities Fraud Working Group. President Obama established the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to wage an aggressive, coordinated, and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general, and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources. The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets, and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes.

Mr. Bharara thanked HUD and HUD-OIG for their extraordinary assistance in this case. He also expressed his appreciation for the support of the Commercial Litigation Branch of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Division in Washington, D.C.

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Lara K. Eshkenazi, Pierre G. Armand, and Christopher B. Harwood are in charge of the case.

British Invasion 2012: Stockholder Revolt and Investor Protests

Tuesday, May 8th, 2012

by Daniel Brouse

Occupy Wall Street may want to wake-up and take notice of how to effectively protest and change corporate misbehavior. The bloody limey are taking over the pay of top executives.

Mining company Xstrata, hedge fund Man Group, banks Credit Suisse, UBS and Barclays have had significant *NO* votes on remuneration packages. Today, they ousted the CEO of Aviva.

The London Dow Jones office reports, “Aviva became the fourth FTSE 100 company ever to have its remuneration report rejected, and Tuesday the British insurance group said that Chief Executive Moss, whose GBP2.69 million pay packet was also rejected in the non-binding vote, would stand down with immediate effect.”

Dear Mark Zuckerberg

Thursday, May 3rd, 2012

Dear Mark Zuckerberg,

It is my understanding that you have stolen my Intellectual Property Rights, as well as, a host of other crimes. I can prove that you have stolen my property… and, I want my money back. More importantly, I have many friends. You have stolen from them, too.

In the process of your theft, you committed many other even more serious crimes having to do with basic human rights, the Constitution of the United States of America (including the Bill Of Rights) and a multitude of specific local criminal activity.

Not only do we want our money back, we insist on additional restitution and time in jail.

Please turn yourself in.

Thank you,
Victim

PS Are your evil ways why you, and your friends, spend so much of our money on private protection and security… while you are violating ours?

About The Need For Security.

This is a reference to the Mayor of New York’s Bloomsberg report  pointing out the most stockholder money being spent on personal security. The only person mentioned spending more:

Zynga Outspends Many To Protect CEO Pincus

Why are these guys so afraid?

Independent resource The Wall Street Journal

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120409-707108.html

online.wsj.com

From time to time, we will send you e-mail announcements on new features and special offers from The Wall Street Journal Online.

No FaceBook Ads On My Page

Thursday, May 3rd, 2012

by Daniel Brouse

PHILADELPHIA, PA — One of the pioneers of the world wide web has come out against the advertising practices of FaceBook.

The primary reason: “Sponsors violate you (as well as, your friends) privacy and security.  In a criminal sense, Sponsors (in conspiracy with FaceBook)  violate basic human rights.  Not only is it a crime in the United States of America, it is recognized as an international crime.”

* Did you know your name shows up under sponsored links?
* Did you know you expose your friends through sponsored links?

WARNING: If you are a FaceBook user, make certain that you understand the privacy settings.  They are purposely set to violate you.

LETTER TO MY FRIENDS:

Dear Friends,
FaceBook is getting ready to sell your content. How much are they paying you? I suggest not. Have you seen this?

Facebook’s IPO Priced Up to $35, Seeks to Raise $13.6B
www.pcmag.com

Facebook said Thursday that it set the price for its public offering at between
Dear FaceBook Sponsors: I intend to report on your bad practices. I plan on pointing out how stupid sponsors are for putting ads on my page and point out how you are getting tricked out of money.  Therefore, I suggest you do not advertise on my personal page.

RESPONSE TO INPUT:

      • Daniel Brouse seth, more importantly… i do not like what facebook is about to do to my musician and IP (intellectual property right owner) friends. in about two weeks, they are going to sell all their facebook content and keep the money. for shame!
      • oh yeah, and for the kids out there.. under 18… special laws apply to your privacy.
      • did you know the IRS and health insurance companies will audit your facebook posts? (just to name a couple concerns)
      • salt in the wound: a goodly portion of the facebook IPO proceeds for your intellectual property is being raised to pay Mark Zuckerberg’s tax bill on the money he stole from you.

President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Bill Into Law

Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012

by the American Civil Liberties Union

WASHINGTON, DC – President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law today. The statute contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision. While President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had “serious reservations” about the provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration would use the authorities granted by the NDAA, and would not affect how the law is interpreted by subsequent administrations. The White House had threatened to veto an earlier version of the NDAA, but reversed course shortly before Congress voted on the final bill.

“President Obama’s action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director. “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield. The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.”

Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody, and many in Congress now assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way again. The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA. In addition, the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war.

“We are incredibly disappointed that President Obama signed this new law even though his administration had already claimed overly broad detention authority in court,” said Romero. “Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back the constitutional excesses of George Bush in the war on terror was extinguished today. Thankfully, we have three branches of government, and the final word belongs to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the scope of detention authority. But Congress and the president also have a role to play in cleaning up the mess they have created because no American citizen or anyone else should live in fear of this or any future president misusing the NDAA’s detention authority.”

The bill also contains provisions making it difficult to transfer suspects out of military detention, which prompted FBI Director Robert Mueller to testify that it could jeopardize criminal investigations. It also restricts the transfers of cleared detainees from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay to foreign countries for resettlement or repatriation, making it more difficult to close Guantanamo, as President Obama pledged to do in one of his first acts in office.

Free Friends Of Occupy Philadelphia

Sunday, December 11th, 2011

Sunday, December 11, 2011
Philadelphia, PA
by Daniel Brouse

Are there any parallels between the creation of Pennsylvania, the American Revolutionary War and the Occupy Wall Street Movement? Yes. It is quite interesting how the Quakers have been involved in all three movements.

As a Quaker in England, William Penn had been arrested six times for speaking out. In 1681, William requested a charter to start an American Colony for a “Holy Experiment”. In honor of William’s father, the King granted the land known as the Forests of Penn — Pennsylvania.

“William Penn was the first great hero of American liberty. During the late seventeenth century, when Protestants persecuted Catholics, Catholics persecuted Protestants, and both persecuted Quakers and Jews, Penn established an American sanctuary which protected freedom of conscience. Almost everywhere else, colonists stole land from the Indians, but Penn traveled unarmed among the Indians and negotiated peaceful purchases. He insisted that women deserved equal rights with men. He gave Pennsylvania a written constitution which limited the power of government, provided a humane penal code, and guaranteed many fundamental liberties.” — The Quakers’ The Freeman

The Quakers also played an important role in the Revolutionary War.

Among the pro-Revolutionary Friends was a group of 200 Free Quakers, who claimed to be “free of the ecclesiastical tyranny of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting,” the governing body of Pennsylvania Quakerdom. The Free Quakers charged the yearly meeting with abandoning the liberty of conscience – the cornerstone of William Penn’s “Holy Experiment” in government and his motive for resettling Europe’s religiously-persecuted peoples in his American colony – and elevating pacifism, a secondary testimony, as the defining principle of Quakerism and a prerequisite for membership in the Society of Friends.

The Quakers of Plymouth Meeting in old Philadelphia County, now Montgomery County, were careful to abide by the discipline of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting and thus tried to avoid any involvement with either army during the Revolutionary War. Their meetinghouse, however, was strategically located along Germantown Pike between Philadelphia and Gen. George Washington’s headquarters at Whitemarsh. During the early winter of 1777, when Washington decided to relocate his forces at Valley Forge, the Plymouth Friends’ meetinghouse served as a hospital and campsite for the Continental Army en route to their winter encampment near the Chester County village. — State Of Pennsylvania Historical Markers

Principles
Occupy Philadelphia has founding principles similar to William Penn’s stand on Freedom Of Speech, and his commitment to non-violence. To date, dozens of Occupy protesters have been arrested for speaking out during peaceful demonstrations.

Location
The Friends Meeting House at 15th and Cherry Streets finds itself in a strategic location for the Occupy Philadelphia movement. Due to the proximity of the the Friends Center to the Occupy encampment at Dilworth Plaza, City Hall, Philadelphia, the Friends furnished facilities to cook 1500 meals per day, provide medical treatment and hold meetings. After the forcible eviction of the non-violent protesters from Dilworth Plaza, the Friends continue to offer their hospitality.

Video of the Plymouth Meeting Friends

Homeland Security Occupys Philadelphia

Thursday, December 1st, 2011
Philadelphia Police Commissioner Ramsey

Philadelphia Police Commissioner Ramsey

December 1, 2011
by Daniel Brouse

PHILADELPHIA, PA — When the police raided Occupy Philadelphia at Dilworth Plaza surrounding City Hall, it was obvious there had been a change in command. The Philadelphia Police went from being cordial to being aggressive and violent. What was the cause for the change in demeanor?

An eye witness noticed the strong presence of Homeland Security officers. These officers had not been part of the community. They had not developed relationships with any individuals. Instead, Homeland Security brought terror to the streets of Philly. Bicycles and horses were used as weapons injuring many protesters. One of those arrested commented on the use of violence against ladies of smaller stature and other violent targeting practices.

When questioned about Homeland Security timing the raid on Occupy L.A. to the exact minute, Police Commissioner Ramsey chuckled and said, “We’d like to think they followed our lead.”

Many people have asked, “What is the Occupy Movement about? Why do you occupy?” These are no longer the pertinent questions. Now, the most important questions for everyone to ask themselves are, “Do you want the federal government conducting military exercises on their own citizens? Do you want the U.S.A. invading it’s own cities?”

VIDEOS

Horses

Here’s what I was filming when I was trampled by the Philadelphia Police. Super scary to watch the chaos again. You can see the horses start to get freaked out right before the police charge the crowd of protesters and journalists. ~Vanessa

www.youtube.com

Experience the terror the Occupy Philly protestors faced when being charged by police horses. Filmed by indy media journalist, Vanessa Maria.
Video of cops on horses charging occupiers, and an interview with Occupy Philly Media reporter after she is injured. #ows #eviction http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jU5p2GxPvkI

www.youtube.com

On November 30, 2011 – While Occupy Philly was being evicted, Police gave three warnings to protesters to get onto the sidewalk.

Bikes

Wounds Inflicted by Philadelphia Bike Police at Occupy Philadelphia

Wounds Inflicted by Philadelphia Bike Police at Occupy Philadelphia

Kayla talks about getting assaulted by bike cops and the police tactics of violence and intimidation she witnessed during the night of eviction, 11/30.

Police Attacks

Police attacked and arrested a member of our finance team who did absolutely nothing. Protesters remained peaceful. The police were violent.  — Occupy Philadelphia on FaceBook

Simultaneous Raids

Occupy Wall Street Camps in Los Angeles, Philadelphia Dismantled in Massive Police Raids

Some 1,000 police officers raided the Occupy Los Angeles encampment in a park outside City Hall over night, arresting scores of people and evicting what has been the largest Occupy camp in the country. Meanwhile Occupy Philadelphia protesters vacated their encampment this morning after more than a thousand police moved in and warned them of mass arrests. We get eyewitness updates on both raids from National Lawyers Guild legal observer Ken Montenegro in Los Angleles and Occupy organizer and activist Jeff Rousset in Philadelphia. “[Philadelphia’s history of free speech and democracy] changed this morning at around 1 am. The city shut down the subways; they barricaded all of city hall, about two blocks in every direction; and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of cops poured in. They forced everybody off the plaza,” Rousset says.

PICTURES

More Pictures



Home | Contact Us | Internet & Advertising Services