1/31/2012: Request for Liberty Square General Assembly to ban an individual (Nan) (from Edward H.)

Posted by & filed under Assemblies, Past Proposals.

Many occupiers are gathering together after Nan attempted to destroy Tuesday nights GA.  We made an official statement on the 24th, stating that the GA will not tolerate deliberate destruction and attacks on itself.  We have witnesses that confirm that Nan planned to wage a violent attack on the GA if her proposal to dissolve Spokes did not pass (which it was not made to even do).
The following outlines the basic proposal
We wish to propose to the Liberty Square General Assembly a banning of Nan.  On the 24th, Nan successfully disrupted the GA process with a group of naive Yonkers Occupiers.  The Yonkers Occupiers were drunk, several people were punched in the process, and the GA was nearly disbanded for the first time in Occupy history.  Edward Hall proposed that the GA continue despite the violent attack, cold, and many hours of standing.  The GA continued with the statement that it would “not tolerate any violence, or deliberate attempt to destroy it.  Any person or persons that have done such will not be allowed to do so again”
Beyond nearly successfully destroying the GA for the first time in history Nan has done the following:
  • Violently attacked Occupiers like Jason – as seen in this video  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4Q7YrvJhdo
  • Blocked enough proposals that she should have left on her own if her participation in Assemblies was genuine
  • Taunted and communicated with Occupiers about her desire to destroy important proposals and the movement
Nan was thrown out of Bloombergeville early on in their occupation, the summer before Occupy Wall Street.  She was hoarding precious food from others in her tent, employing classic instigator tactics of disruption, and pretending to be homeless and uneducated when she actually lived in Manhattan and attended NYU.  In addition to the same things, minus the food, Nan lied about her age to OWS.  Even Tea Party blogs are questioning weather to associate with her.
We move to cut Nan off from the GA process and from the OWS occupation for good.  This is not a reflection of who she is as a human being, but for her clear attempts to destroy and disrupt this body.  We cannot “work with” someone who wants to destroy us.  Do white bloodcells ignore or try and “work something out” with a virus?  No, viruses are eliminated or taken out of the body.  Some of us would like to express our most serious grievance with Nan.  She deeply compromised the efforts of marginalized groups to voice highly important issues that threaten the movement and nation as a whole.  Many of us hope to genuinely heal the damage done, and cultivate a deeper dialogue and stronger actions to address oppression within and outside OWS.
This proposal does not wish to see a system created for cutting people off from the assembly. We are just addressing this single individual.  Grievance Council will hopefully provide some clarity on future issues Occupiers have with each other.

Here’s the document (for input to be added by all) - http://www.thefnf.org:9001/p/Asking%20Nan%20to%20Leave

Proposal submitted by
Edward T. Hall III (Ted)
C0-Founder and C3()
LGHTSRC LLC
_________________
OWS/50 Broadway/Hubitat/31 West 26th
760-4-TEDDLY
tedwardhall@LGHTSRC.org

187 Responses to “1/31/2012: Request for Liberty Square General Assembly to ban an individual (Nan) (from Edward H.)”

  1. Christina (Facilitation)

    A personal note: please consider the precedent you would be setting by implementing an equally oppressive and passive aggressive (another form of violence) tactic. OWS is brimming with creativity, and I urge you to think in new directions and to consider alternative approaches to working through (not around) unfavorable situations. Exclusionary practices rarely lead to positive outcomes; they’re quick fixes to larger issues. A ban does not address the larger issues at hand here, and so long as the real issues are ignored, nothing will change. Bans / exclusionary practices only yield more social inequality. I cannot see how this proposal differs from the tired, abusive measures and oppressive methods used in society at-large. Please, consider forging a new and violent-less way which favors increased self-awareness (and less ego), personal accountability, reflection before action, open communication, and more thoughtful and sustainable ideas/practices for working through, and not around, such times.

    1/28/2012: Just to clarify, again, the above comment is not representative of the Facilitation Working Group. It is my personal opinion on the proposal.

    • Waterlily

      This is an im”personal” note: I’m going to assume that you’ve been to many GAs and SCs to witness the tactics that Nan & Co has so graciously bestowed upon the movement almost from its inception. While your idealistic and sugar-coated reply is duly noted, THIS IS A REAL ISSUE! What are the larger issues that you are referring to? We hardly get to any of them because of the disruption by this very sick woman. Do you have any clue as to how many people have left the movement because of this? We’re all expendable but, let’s not exclude Nan & Co. or hurt their feelings? What are YOUR “new and violent-less” suggestions? Open communication has not worked, deescalation has not worked, and a host of other well-intentioned ideas to deal with this person(s). Everyone has worked around this problem, and that’s exactly the problem that’s taking us nowhere. It’s so dysfunctional. Ted has made an attempt to address this ongoing issue. Perhaps it needs some refinement in its method of implementation but, at least Ted, among others too many to list here, have spoken up as well as deserving to be heard. Nan certainly gets heard. Do you realize the amount of time and energy that has been devoted to this woman in the last three months on this site and elsewhere? I hate to say this but, I’m certain “the 1%” and respective “authorities” read every word on this site. They have to be laughing.

    • David Buccola

      What precedent do we set by allowing this person to continually abuse and attack people in our movement? How can we seriously call ourselves a non-violent movement when we allow such violence to wreak havoc on the lives of some of our most active and motivated members? And, like others have done, I really have to question how much you know about this first hand. Did you witness Nan and her posse at GA the other night? Have you been there when she’s threatened people for “voting” the wrong way? I can’t help but see your comment as little more than an intellectual exercise made by someone who hasn’t been the brunt of this abuse. I’d really ask you to talk to people who have been victimized by her and get a larger idea of what is happening. Nobody has taken this issue lightly and I certainly don’t think anybody is enjoying this. But if we want to get serious about being a non-violent movement for social change we need to start with addressing violence within our own ranks and creating safe spaces for people.

    • arj

      I think that you mean well, but Is this what you would tell an abused woman? How long do you need to put up with someone who pulls a knife on you, attacks you and calls you names before enough is enough?

      • Dallas

        Here let me speak to that from experience: I was (several years ago) in a relationship with a drug abusing woman who called me names, physically attacked me, and finally tried to stab me with a Bowie knife. I put her ass out in the street. No matter how much you care about someone, there are limits.

        Let’s all think about where our limit lies.

        • arj

          Exactly – that’s what you do with an abuser. You do not take the time to “understand” and “include” them unless you want to be a victim.

    • Christina (Facilitation)

      Just to clarify, the above comment is not representative of the Facilitation Working Group. It was my personal thoughts on the issue.

      • Melanie

        Christina, I would love to hear your friendly amendment to Ted’s proposal. Simply saying we should work “through” this problem (as we have been trying to do for months now), is frustrating to most of us who have been struggling to stick around.

    • Aaron

      @cml2142 – Thank you for your personal note on this. I am very understanding of the messages calling out the exceptional nature of this instance — having witnessed Nan’s behavior, up close and from afar, it’s pretty clear she is an exceptional case — but I have to say that I share Christina’s concerns. In particular, I’m worried that establishing this precedent opens the door to repeated uses of the same mechanism, with an inevitably decreasing threshold each time. Honestly, I feel that it *should* take us four months to decide that someone is beyond reason. If we establish that someone can be banned, now, it almost certainly will *not* be four months before that mechanism is used again.

      More practically, what exactly will declaring a ban accomplish? Won’t this just escalate the issue? Social exclusion happens, organically — effectively, it’s already happened for Nan, to arguable consequence. Do we really want to increase the efficiency of the mechanism for excluding people? What happens when, inevitably, she shows up again, knowing she must escalate to jump the hurdles put before her? How will that be any less disruptive than before?

      There have been numerous GAs where Nan (and friends) have *not* been disruptive. Let’s talk about why that is. I propose that we continue to focus on defining what is acceptable *behavior*, and continue to try to reinforce that behavior and exclude when it is violated. Simultaneously, understanding the root causes of that behavior are immensely valuable.

      Is there an element of abusive relationship, as @dierkconek points out? Maybe. No one wants to be the victim, here. But, let’s face it — our existence is not being threatened by Nan. We have more alternatives than just moving on and finding a better partner. Like it or not, we are stuck with Nan, and the concerns and issues Nan represents. How can we better work to understand those issues, and inculcate the consensus process in a manner that both diminishes their impact and increases resistance to disruption, while simultaneously broadening inclusiveness, rather than relying on exclusion to move forward?

      Principles are defined in the moments when they are challenged. I don’t know the answer, but I do know we are nothing without it. Let us confront this moment, and do the hard work now.

      • Edward T Hall III (Ted)

        i agree, this document is open (as left out from the posting unfortunately) and I am trying to figure out how to not feed the fire right now. I reacted in writing this proposal and simply wanted to get it in place for GA. This is a proposal to address Nan, it is subject to the input people are giving me, which is incredibly extensive!!! Will try my best, but will be quite candid about my experience while writing this proposal… and there’s lots that can be learned from that experience. The entire ordeal has illuminated many issues that are much bigger than the focus of the proposal, and I’ll be sharing that

  2. Yoni Miller

    Christina, I hear what you’re saying, and would agree with you in general, however Nan has CONSISTENTLY LIED and backstabbed OWS. Look at her creepy tweets on twitter, look at how she consistently VILIFIES others, for example, she has called am “ass-hoe, ugly, sexual stalker, worst than a rapper (rapist?)” etc.. she has told me she will “fuck me up when the time comes”. She herself marginalizes sooo many other people.

    POI: about 15 people have worked together, compiling all the lies Nan has spread and poisoned people with. I need to confer with the group, whether we will share this info in time for this proposal or not. Just a short snippet, with proof coming, Nan is a 33 year old woman, and she has done quiet a bit of work in modeling:

    Want to see a racist literary she made about immigrants?

    http://poetrypoem.com/cgi-bin/index.pl?poemnumber=1006958&sitename=wishesloves&poemoffset=8&displaypoem=t&item=poetry

    “Do you think it is fair or it is right that those individuals ” Illegal Immigrants”
    are here in the USA illegaly. First of all they are eating our food, stealing our homes, jobs
    and yet does not pay taxes, while we Americans work ourself hard to make a living, paying taxes
    and bills yet those illegals immigrants are enjoy a free taxes life.
    Let be honest with each other, do you think it is right or it is fair,
    and do you think it is right that the Government want to take our hard taxs dollars
    and put it into that healthcare bills
    and those some illigals immigrants are going to benifits from our sweats.
    Mexicans there are 12 in a 1 bedroom home,
    and most of them are here illegally
    yet the government of this country want to B slap us on the face by passing a healthcare bills that will give illegal immigrants
    free health care yet tax us Americans we does not have it.
    Why don’t the US governments start taking care of its owned people
    and leave those illegal immigrants alone.
    Seriously if you think we have an illegal immigrants issued now wait until the health care bill
    passed there be coming by the millions to ride like a ford in our back…
    food for thought, think about it…

        • stephan geras

          i don’t get this at all…what are you using as incontrovertible proof and what is it you prove with this poem? In fact I like parts of it! Next thing you know you’ll be burning books!

          • arj

            I’m not burning books nor am I the one who posted the poem or an opinion about it. You asked for proof that it’s her and her name is right there on that poetry page. That is her poetry page, that is her name.

          • arj

            Jesus, you asked a question and I answered it. What an insulting response.

          • stephan geras

            @arj, I’m sorry that you feel insulted, I didn’t intend that result at all. I think I slipped up with the “burning books” though I was directing it more at the circumstances. I looked at the poem and pics. The proof is misleading….the pics I saw are of a much younger person, the name is a pseudonym, the style is similar, admittedly, but not incontrovertible proof of identity. I don’t mean to insult you, I know you only posted what you have researched. I’m trying to get the truth and I’m not satisfied that all the allegations (not anything particular you’re doing) about her past are getting me there. It looks to me a little like a witch hunt. I think we need to deal with what’s in front of us…what we do about serial disruptions. That’s a pretty big problem. Again, my apologies.

          • Yoni Miller

            Part of the issue is, we cannot be completely objective to a quote set of conduct or behaviors, because people’s circumstances play an account in people’s behaviors. Normally screaming wouldn’t be tolerated, however some people may have PTSD and certain phrases might trigger their PTSD and pain them or something, in which case their history is relevant.

            It’s a positive thing in OWS, that we try be non judgmental, however it’s increasingly becoming a problem and irrelevant. At various GA’s people keep saying, there are alternative means of communications, and we need not judge people based on that…something I agree on, however Nan is not using alternative means of communications, but blatan slander, harassment and lying.

            Many people, such as Ashley have defended Nan at first, only to get to know her better, and thus support proposals asking for her removal.

          • arj

            Stephan, thank you for your apology. For the record, Nan’s real name is Naniah Terrier. She is 33. These are facts.

    • stephan geras

      And also, WTF does the poem Yoni copies have to do with anything?? Let’s see, did Yoni ever write a missive back in high school about some grievance that we can use to discredit him? This methodology of spurious, misleading referential substantiation and signification is barreling headlong into darkness and chaos.

      • Dallas

        @trundle55411 @yoni2b

        Agreed. I already know that I differ with Nan in a number of opinions. I also agree with her on a number of points. Beside the point…

        However, the fact that it seems that she’s actually a 33 year old named Naniah Terrier but claims to be a 18-20 year old named Nan Terrie when she wants to s*** on us in the MSM bothers the hell out of me. At least don’t lie to make it look like we abuse and berate kids if you’re a grown-@$$ woman.

  3. sumumba

    here we GO with the EXCLUSIONARY BS!…im sorry if someone refuses to go through mediation or abide by COMMUNITY AGREEMENTS or works for the police or is violent or continually abusive, oppressive or intimidates others in this movement they are NOT movement building and are a THREAT to the community.AND need to be excluded…if theres PROOF that such a individual is ALL these things…EXCLUSION is the ONLY way to movement build….otherwise…SEE COINTELPRO…

  4. Yoni Miller

    https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001033306524&sk=wall

    and quotes from her twitter account:

    “StrongWomenRul1 Strong Women Rules
    Hitler used ” Mic-Check” n order 2round-up the sheep later killed, mic check away 2silence u/block your thought process.” (WTF???????)

    “Rape, Gropes, and Assaults, Oh My: Mayor Bloomberg, Shut Down Zuccotti Park! http://is.gd/xmcTxU

    “Jeff know Ur gettin free pussy by Indian bitch Ravi/Robby you think your shit doesn’t smell, and calling will a Negro is nu-call 4shame on U”

    Dear Nan Family we know U follow Ur seed on twit/fb we will like to say thank u, ur daughter is a brilliant soul we bring so much 2the table Nan doesn’t sugar-code anything indeed, she is our special family member, u know she’s not been well yet she is still stronger than ever, this young girl give gifts with everythng she doesnt ask anythng else n return,she’s strong and her multi-language &culture mpress us deeply We just want 2 let u know ur special Princess is truly well protect under our hands, she’s our own, our special Nan,she have so much talents She is a blessing soul who strongly believes in those strong values you raised her with, she’s a fighter, stronger than any1 we can think she is funny and sweet, she love and hate yet she is hated by many loves by those who truly knows her, she stand for what she believes we start 2adopt Nan special word “Go Screw yourself ass hoe” yes Sir Ur daughter curse worst than a sailor Nan is a sweet person we love her I was happy 2meet U when U had visit Ur last & youngest seed,U guy’s r so caring & loving,a perfect family love and spoil those they loves I just want to know Nan have bcome 1of my daughter she embrace my 2 kids,educating them ,how 2b loving proper human being in cold evil world Thank you for showing her the right and wrong way, we truly love your special Nan…Sincerely Mrs. Paul. (I strongly suspect this is Nan herself..)

    “Wall Street Journal Confirms Accused Occupier Rapist Allowed to Sleep at Occupied Church http://j.mp/xvI6vU

    (so the conservative news sources are the de facto sources of proof?)

    “What the One Percent Think About OWS: http://youtu.be/vy5lqClt6-s via @youtube”

    • TrishWontGoAway

      @jlb071 @raviahmad WHILE IT.S NOBEL THAT U ARE GIVING EACH OTHER FREE PUSSY IN AN ECONEMY WHERE SO MANY THINGS COST TOO MUCH MONEY THESE DAYS, IT’S STILL A SEXUAL SIN, AND IF YOU’RE GOING TO REPRESENT OWS YOU NEED TO MARRY AND DO THINGS THE RIGHT WAY…AND MARRY FIRST.

      ALLAH IS FORGIVING, AND SO IS JESUS, AND THEY’LL LOOK THE OTHER WAY IF YOU TOO MARRY AND ATONE FOR YOUR SINS.

      MODESTY AND TRANSPARENCY

      • Frances MA

        @TrishWontGoAway This is a revolting, insulting, and completely unacceptable post. Consider yourself reported to Tech Ops. Have you no shame woman? Honestly, I feel sorry for you. You are a truly sad and pathetic human being. I hope that you seek out the psychiatric counseling that you so sorely need.

        • Yoni Miller

          Based on his/her posts I think this is a troll, :P and not meant to be taken seriously. I think Nan should be the one apologizing, as it is she who said in a sincere manner, that insulting twitter post.

          If you look up on the twitter account “strongwomenrul1″ you’ll find

          “Jeff know Ur gettin free pussy by Indian bitch Ravi/Robby you think your shit doesn’t smell, and calling will a Negro is nu-call 4shame on U”

          so….lol, don’t blame the troll, blame the agitator.. :P

          • Frances MA

            I don’t really care who it is. It’s disgusting and it should be removed. Trolling or not, a personal attack on someone’s private life is completely unacceptable.

          • Yoni Miller

            It’s not a real attack on their lives either…I think Nan said that just to piss off Ravi and Jeff…not everything on the internet is true…you know?

          • Jeffrey Brewer

            @yoni2b
            As a case and point, any person can post what they like on their own personal space on the internet. They often do. In no short amount of time you can find plenty of offensive, vulgar, or base material should you have an interest in such.
            However, I do not feel it is appropriate, for ANY party to transcribe that material (statements, photos, audio) to this online community which we have designated as a safe-space for all who participate here.

          • Yoni Miller

            Again, the issue is, Nan didn’t post this…as a personal speculation or personal twitter..she posted this on what was then an OFFICIAL WORKING GROUP, from her official twitter. I agree with you tho,

        • Yoni Miller

          Let it be known, that 1 person can make 1 or more accounts, and maybe both of these accounts…are the same person? :P

  5. reginahny

    Facilitation: Please, consider forging a new and violent-less way which favors increased self-awareness (and less ego), personal accountability, reflection before action, open communication, and more thoughtful and sustainable ideas/practices for working through, and not around, such times.

    Yes, please do forge this exciting new diretion and we will all do our best to abide by these thoughtful, sustainable ideas. What exactly are they? I see, in addition to all the lost energy devoted to this person, her “groups”, her blocks etc. we should spend additional energy on developing new ways of dealing with her — only her? Since you are so open, thoughtful and above the frey — please do guide us as to how to facilitate devoting our movement to her healing. That’s what Facilitation is for, right?

    • Yoni Miller

      Many members of Facilitation would disagree with Christina…(myself included), be aware of that :)

      • reginahny

        I understand, and I was being a little snarky — but this “holier than thou” instruction to find a way to devote all of the energy of the movement toward dealing with one person just grates on me. Thanks for all you do — don’t mean to paint with a broad brush!

    • stephan geras

      yes yes yes and I will be point person for NVC workshops for facilitation. I think facilitation workers
      have to go beyond meetings, and the where to start is with myself.

  6. sumumba

    this ‘ONE person’ solicits the help of MANY others in the movement…has been denied entry to a spokes and called the police to be re-instated…wtf? 2. we ALMOST had a incident on monday where folks from a ‘outside’ occupation came to 60 wall to fight individuals to ‘reinstate’ this person into spokes 3. This person has intimidated people into voting certain ways at spokes and ga’s 4. this person has been verbally and physically abusive and threatening to still more in ows..and YES we have proof.! No one is ‘holier than thou’ on this regina..its a FACT guess u’ve never been to spokes or ga or new to the whole ONLINE EXPERIENCE here at OWS

    • reginahny

      I have been to spokes and GA, and have been active online for about 2 months as well as doing the “boots on the ground” work with Kitchen and during events and protests. What I meant by “holier than thou” is that I believe that everyone has genuinely tried to deal with Nan, in a myriad of ways, yet some posters still keep admonishing us to “find a way”, “create a way” etc., under what feels like — to me only — a “holier than thou” position of: surely, there is a utopian, unicorns in the sky way to deal with Nan that doesn’t involve calling out plain, unadulterated BS. I’ve been impressed with all of the support she has gotten, all of the attempts to include and not marginalize her. To. no. freakin. avail.

      To be asked once again in a unicorn and rainbows way to find an alternative to dealing with her, by someone who is not offering any alternatives — felt like “holier than thou”. I’m speaking only for myself, if there is a magical, special way to defuse this insanity I’d like to know it. If there is not, I’d prefer not to be lectured on how it could be a possilbility.

  7. sumumba

    there is no ‘other’ way than banishment…but in order to get someone ‘banished’ it has to go through the GA…so there needs to be proposal and process …thats why this has been brought forth…why is this important? GOOGLE COINTELPRO..

    • Sean McKeown

      I believe it is important to get it right in the general case before applying it in the specific case, however, so I may be trying to bring forward a proposal along with several others to say “just how do we DO THAT” that is fair, reasonable, and notes what it means and what it does not mean.

      • reginahny

        I think bringing a formal over-arching proposal is definitely the way to go, and I offer my support. As a member of Accountability & Transparency I believe the WG would be interested in participating and contributing to the proposal as well (we’ll discuss at our meeting tomm.). To some degree, it feels like asking for compliance with already established principles (community, solidarity) — but we do seem to need some concrete steps toward demanding (I know, strong word) compliance that don’t relate to “one person” but to how we handle this type of situation. Thanks for all you do, and let me (and A&T) know how we can contribute.

        • Dallas

          Both ‘demand’ and ‘compliance’ are strong words around here, but I have no problem ‘demanding’ some ‘compliance’ to that which we’ve already consensed upon/consented to/done the hand-wavey thing for.

        • Sean McKeown

          It was sent in to Facilitation today, and thus hopefully will be at GA tomorrow night; I’ve just printed a hundred plus copies to take around. Town Planning has had this waiting for the right moment for a while now, with support from Direct Action and a fairly wide coalition from back when we passed the Spokes Must Rotate rule that started to fix things at Spokes Council, but I had been waiting to see further progress on the Community Agreement before bringing it forward.

          It is clear this will not wait, however, and the right thing to do is present it before we argue over Nan, so we have a grounding of what we might do and why it might be democratic and fair, before stumbling around in the darkness trying to make the rules and assign the punishment all in the same breath.

          • reginahny

            YAY. I’ll be there tomm. and thank you and the coalition that is promoting this. I do believe that most don’t want to attach / call out an individual name and your coalition building is the right way to go — great work, and again thank you.

  8. Sally Marks

    I have been troubled by this thread and all that surrounds it. How can OWS be all inclusive if a person is excluded? How do we ensure safety from those inclined to do us harm?

    I do not think an outright ban of any person is called for. But there must be consequences. You threaten a person, you are removed and excluded from the next GA/Spokes. Do it again, it becomes two missed events. These must be clearly documented (ie, video) cases, no ‘he said’she saids’. Threats are the same thing as actual violence.

    • Sean McKeown

      By that logic Nan has earned exclusion from everything for the next four months, minimum. Feel free to plead her case to return her to us then.

      • Sally Marks

        Not quite.

        Until a rule is enacted, generally prior acts are excluded. A consensus must be reached regarding what to do. From that point forward, the rules have to be followed. Just like all the other rules and guidelines. It is never retroactive unless specifically stated.

        Also, this not just about any one person, it is about anyone that fails to follow agreed on rules of conduct.

        • Melanie

          Sally, I understand your desire to be fair and to look for the ideal way to deal with this. If you’d been around since day one, I’m willing to bet everything I own that you’d feel differently.

  9. BradB

    I got a great idea… once someone shows violence… let them participate… but first put them in a straight-jacket…. and gag if necessary .. ;)

  10. sumumba

    its DOCUMENTED on video of her assaulting someone …there are email threads and threats on nycga net there are people who can corroborate the threats and abuse theres more as well but we wont go into that for LEGAL reasons….wtf yo? this aint PUBLIC SCHOOL or a LIBRARY…this is a MOVEMENT NO we don’t have to be ‘inclusive’ of EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE ((((especially those who attack others and continually seek to harm this movement!!))) Sally how old r u? no wait dont answer u too go GOOGLE COINTELLPRO…

    • Sally Marks

      Where are the OWS ‘BlackKnights’? (Personally, I find the idea offensive and I suggest them somewhat tounge in cheek).

      Never ask a lady her age!…;) I have read Cointelipro.

      No, I read nearly every single post here. Unfortunately, I have the time. I have read and seen the videos. There is no denying there is a problem. I do not think this needs to be directed at one person. It needs to be directed at the problem. Once a solution is found, that solution applies to everybody the same.

      • Yoni Miller

        She IS the problem, for the past 4 months, NO ONE else has been part of the problem to the extent she has. I don’t think there will be too many Nan’s arising.

        • anna yamada

          please have rafael rosario return my olympus sp 590uz camera, case, uv filter, lens hood adn transitional telephoto tube for it. also plesae have him return my mini analog tv set and also the video binocular digital set adn the sound stix (memory-chip driven) and othr electronix and softwares he took from my home in the course of rifling thru my belongings obstensibly to get soem rest so he could perform deescalation and techops duties more efficiently and better. i think i was conned and i think he is going to cno a “really rich old lady” nemed “shirley” as in “shirley temple black”. um might be working with “steve” from sis in perpetrating this con. i’ think you need to put limits on who can represent themselves as reps of ows for fundraising, soliciting use/stealing goods and services and space. but rafael does have a domestic violence case in staten island currently and he has spoken of running away to the dominican republic forever adn that he would need lotsa money. he kept trying to solicit me for a house, a car, my computer, and also someone since he used my laptop to read some email has put in for payday loans and car loans in my name and the companies call my home and i have to routinely say no such person has requested any kind of loans. i like rafael and hope he is all that he purports to be, but the results seem to be otherwise. please watch your pockets, don’t let him victimize anyone else and please get my belongings back to me. thanks. another kaneska perhaps only more slick. hope i’m wrong, but i am not.

  11. sumumba

    hmmmmm shes at the CENTER OF PROBLEM but fine the two other individuals kicked out of PARK SLOPE LAST NITE NEED TO GO TOO…the have both stolen and been violent with other OWS people here too friendly amendment PASSED! ;)

  12. Ravi Ahmad

    Please come to the Open Spaces meeting tonight at Unity Hall. We’ll be beginning the discussion of a mediation and grievance process for the community.

  13. sumumba

    i have the ALL CITY GA meeting at that time…we truly need to coordinate meetings better in ows

  14. Siobhan Ogilvie

    I have my own hangups on names…but I truly don’t understand why we are even here. We state in many declarations violence won’t be tolerated but we have tolerated it for months. Even Mother Jones reporter Josh Harkinson, an avid supporter noted one night

    OWS Spokes Council took 4 hrs last night to agree to ban a guy who physically attacked people right outside the door to its meeting. Crazy.

    While this was not Nan, it is another similar instance. He tweeted that to his 15,000 followers that in turn 18 retweeted it so 1000s more were privy to this. I’m not saying this shouldn’t be public. I’m simply saying we have to think about what we are doing to our image. Do you really think this kind of micromanagement and hyper-tolerance will help us grow? Is it fair to put others in danger out of respect for an attacker? As someone posted above, it is as if we are making excuses for someone abusing us and hoping we can make them change. I promise you by including violent members, you are excluding many many more.

    I heard from Nan herself say OWS is not a social services agency. Well it is not a mental illness facility either. Please stop thinking what is ideal to you and start thinking what is ideal to the movement.

    I would prefer this proposal to say

    We wish to propose to the Liberty Square General Assembly a banning of violence, destroy physical property, attack other occupiers and those who steal from other occupiers or facilities that house the occupiers. If anyone at our meetings or facilities where occupiers stay or work has done any of the above they get one warning. The second time they will no longer be welcome. If they wish to come back, they need to wait 30 days and then get the endorsement of 3 people from 3 different operational working group. They can then present their case to GA/Spokes which can vote.

    It would apply to Nan, but also the guy from a few weeks ago and any others that come in to seek to slow the movement. Anyone from Wall St can see how OWS has handled this, and just hire anyone to play the part of another ‘Nan’. It shouldn’t take 4 months to do this every time. Ban the behaviors, not the person.

    • Dallas

      I doubt it will take 4 months every time. Lots of people in the movement have just never been in the position of being responsible for the decision on whether to 86 someone before. It’s power…. and with it comes great responsibility (h/t Stan Lee :D ). Having been in the position of working security for other activist groups/events in the past, it can be real hard to have to say ‘no’ to your comrades, or to decide that someone actually isn’t a ‘comrade’….. but I have yet to see a way around doing it once the possibility of danger to health and property is in play.

      • Siobhan Ogilvie

        @Dallas…do you still think it won’t take 4 months to stop those who physically, emotionally, and damage our movement to be dealt with? I am ashamed tonight that OWS stood up for abuse and against it’s supporters. I am tired of being afraid of members of the movement and knowing that no one will stand up for me if I am attacked. The decision NOT to deal with the abuse tonight was cowardly and negligent of the GA and I wont be back until the movement as a whole stands up for those who stand up for them. When someone was attacked in the park prior to the eviction, we stood up for the victims. Now OWS stands up for the abusers. Will we ever be functional again. This is a sad sad night.

    • Monica McLaughlin

      @sio99 said: Please stop thinking what is ideal to you and start thinking what is ideal to the movement.

      Wiser words were never spoken. I have seen a lot of damage done to the OWS movement, by those incapable of seeing the big picture.

  15. Steve Scher

    An aside: advice I was given in context of security/peace marshals given task of maintaining the integrity of the demonstration/march.
    After establishing that an individual ( in the ranks of the peace marshals) may not be who/what they say they are, if advisable quietly another peace marshal is assigned as a “buddy”, and then the group of suspects are placed where they can do no harm, and actually put to work.
    Real work.
    :)
    s

  16. sumumba

    @Monca…and having SELFISH and VIOLENT individuals in OWS for 4 MONTHS is US being able to see the ‘big picture’…

    • Siobhan Ogilvie

      I totally agree – which is why I would like to see the same standard on her to all. What she has exhibited so vividly to us should never have been acceptable – and should not be acceptable in the future. Of course I support this proposal, my only suggestion is it should be to Nan AND anyone else who exhibits such movement destructive behaviors, I understand enforcement is still an issue, but we had security in the park 24-7. I would hope we could have security a few hours at meetings.

    • Monica McLaughlin

      @sumumba, I didn’t mean to take a position on the “Nan” issue. I just liked that statement. I have not been exposed to Nan’s behavior the way the rest of you have, so I don’t feel qualified to take a strong stand. If what you all are saying is true, and since so many are saying the same thing, I tend to agree that she should be excluded. Not every one can be fixed. There may not be any magic method to use with her. She may be who she is and incapable of behaving otherwise.

      • Steve Scher

        this is an example of a reason why pot should be legal.
        seriously.
        ;-P\

  17. sumumba

    @Monca…and having SELFISH and VIOLENT individuals in OWS for 4 MONTHS is US being able to see the ‘big picture’…? is what i meant to say…

  18. Lopi

    I was personally attacked by Nan physically at a GA. I have many witnesses from both the Facilitation team that was there that night and the community present. I dared disagree with her and she tried to assault me. Others intervened to protect me, so she did not make contact with my face. The intent was real, if it weren’t for the people intervening she would have contacted my face with her fists.

    Do we, as a movement, tolerate violence? I think not. Read the principles of solidarity. Clearly she has broken them, over and over and over again.

    By fetishizing inclusion to the point of allowing a known abuser to continue to bully and domineer our public assembly we are truly doing ourselves a disservice, not to mention excluding countless others who have left the movement due to her harassment and direct threats of harm.

    She threatens me with violence regularly. The type of violence varies with her mood. I am not intimidated by her threats, so I do not leave the movement. However, there are others who are less tenacious than I who have left. What contributions are we lacking now due to their departure?

    Can we move forward now? Can we stop wasting our energy on this one person??????

    • Marsha

      I agree that we are wasting our energy dealing with this issue. I also think it is very wrong to name names when dealing with these types of issues. If you deal with people who disrupt one at a time, then you are enabling them to waste even more of our time. The proposal should state that ANYONE who violates the Principles of Solidarity by being violent will not be allowed to participate in our meetings and activities.
      IT IS JUST THAT SIMPLE.

      • Trish (The 99%)

        Just for the record, the Principles of Solidarity have been violated

        so mannnny times, by so mannnny people, for so mannnny (valid

        and baseless) reasons, that we’ll all be in mediation and the NYC

        OWS movement would imploded.

        My hope is that Safer Spaces will succeed in providing Occupy

        Wall Street (OWS) with a document that acknowledges all types of

        violence, acknowledges that all types exist within OWS (as a

        beginning to finding a workable resolution.)

        Peace & Whole World is Watching

        • Steve Scher

          probably true……but what i see in those videos is exceptional, and i find it hard to believe everyone has gone to that extreme….and it is that level of physically violent behavior which is of concern, not simply that there is a disruption or any other possible violation of the principles of solidarity.

          • Siobhan Ogilvie

            The problem is the principles of solidarity has 5000 different interpretations which is why an occurrence of a blatant example that is clearly against our principles (violence is pretty clear) has to be dissected for any possible misinterpretation. If we all just asked ourselves is this person or group helping to grow OWS and motivating the greater public to stand up against the core issue of economic injustice then the answer should be simple. It is shameful that we have overlooked putting people in danger under the guise of “inclusion”. We are a tolerent people but we can not be tolerant of intolerance, no matter what. This individual has been abusive, violent and intolerant of anyone who disagreed with was a daily occurance since the GA voted against renting out space for her or buying a building for her. Enough is enough. This shouldn’t have even gotten this far. There is no argument in my eyes to allow anyone who threatens or attacks our members.

  19. Siobhan Ogilvie

    Agrees with @Marsha! We have to accept we will make mistakes and will learn from them. Stop fearing decisions. If a decision we make is wrong then we change it, learn and grow and move on. This indecisive fear is stopping the growth.

  20. Ashley Love

    I was scared for my physical safety at Tuesday night’s General Assembly when Nan and her cohorts from the Newark occupation violently and verbally bullied the NY GA. When I went to ask them what their deal was, I smelt strong scents of alcohol coming from their breath; some even had cups filled with alcohol in hand. While the OWS New York attendees were standing in shock and dismay during Nan and her Newark camp Occupier’s blatant abuse and break of process, Nan was actually grinning and encouraging the outbursts the entire time. At one point one of the Newark occupiers started walking towards me, after which I asked the men near me to stand by me so I felt protected. Women, and anyone who attends the GA, should not have to fear for their safety in Liberty Square, and I do hope we have additional security on Tuesday night when this proposal in voted on.

    It sickens me that people can intentionally try to derail the progress of the American people defending themselves from the evil global bank empire that is intent on enslaving us in debt and tyranny. Why would she want to see us fail? What are her motives? I am embarrassed that I originally fell for Nan’s act before, that was just me being compassionate, but for weeks after this evidence has been uncovered, and I witnessing for myself that she was and is not genuine in her reasoning for acting out, I have completely distanced myself from this violent provocateur.

    For the physical, moral and democratic safety of our movement, I feel this proposal must pass. We cannot risk our goals in this movement because one person is being retained by whatever self-serving motives to bully and derail us with violence and toxic behavior.

    Nan, if you are reading this, please, cease and desist from hurting us. What did we ever do to you to deserve this? I agree with the sentence in this proposal that said you have “…deeply compromised the efforts of marginalized groups to voice highly important issues that threaten the movement and nation as a whole.” Don’t you care that this revolution is this country’s last chance to stop the greedy and monstrous companies that are polluting our democracy, environment, well-being and pro-humanity agendas? It’s a shame.

    • Bob

      I think it is very important to understand, as Ashley has stated, that Nan has motives for being disruptive. Does anyone actually know what they might be? Does anyone know her personally that can explain her behavior. She is so very angry and no one should be allowed to disrupt any meeting for any reason. The problem for me is that this discussion has been going around for a long time now and there needs to be a solution. It is not about Nan….it is about structure or the lack of it. We cannot suddenly be afraid to have rules of conduct, we cannot allow people to constantly break those rules and continually get away with it. We have things to do, the meetings need to proceed and anyone who is disrupting our process needs to be denied that ability. All of that said; since I am relatively new to the inner workings of OWS, how can an abuser be kept from disrupting a meeting?

      • Edward Wilson

        From what I’ve observed when meeting her and watching her, and others interact, has been one of many predictable stages. From the irrational initial power control she wanted over others then on to the other stages of conflict/war. She is very bitter and resentful now, and resorting to new levels of malice gives her the false sense of closure that revenge gives.

        She definitely wants OWS (Well, at least NYC) to fail right now and mainly because she hates the people in it.

        The intervention boat has long sailed away in this scenario. I just pray that it doesn’t happen again.

  21. Brandon

    Nan is a bully both verbally and physically and has contributed to making GA’s and SC unsafe places. The movement not only shouldn’t tolerate bullying or harassment. It CAN’T tolerate bullying or harassment and be successful. Bullies are a much bigger threat to the movement than banning (though I prefer a term like “suspending”) them is.

  22. Chris

    Spending all this energy on social problems and disruptive people is making good people leave the movement. It’s draining motivation and interest from Occupy Wall Street too. 50 people obsessing over whether they can kick out someone who doesn’t give two shits about the movement, the process or OWS? Come on.

  23. Steve Scher

    There is no correct answer to this nan situation.

    1967 I think it was. I got in the elevator with Leon and Craig. Louie wasn’t coming with us, he was pushing a broom..sweeping. I felt uncomfortable about it…couldn’t really put my finger on it…said to Eric and Leon…”we’re leaving him here alone…how’s he gonna lock up?”
    “it’s ok “they said…”he has a key”…..
    A few months later Louie Salzberger revealed himself in front of Judge Hoffman as a paid confidential informer.. as he testified in the trial known as the chicago eight.
    The office Leon Eric and I left that night were the offices of the fifth avenue Vietnam parade committee.
    Louie was also guarding the generator supplying power to a tent filled with over a thousand at the counter-inaugural ball when the power went out, leaving the tent in total darkness.
    Louie was part of cointelpro.
    So were”the crazies” led by George Demmerlle as try disrupted events such as by storming the central park bandshell stage during a rally.

    Theres more I remember, and as Sumumba suggests…google it.
    Having experienced intentional interferance using secrecy and stealth to disguise itself as irrational behavior, or simple unknown inexplicable events…I know how possible it is.

    Ultimately unless like Louie or George Demerelle who was actually with nypd…unless it comes out in some way, you may never know.

    And that is the beauty of it. You get kinda paranoid…thinking that guy looks like a cop…or someone thinks you are a cop…or agent provacateur …..

    So when I read about trying to come up with an alternative to singleing out one person, I have to agree.

    If in fact the person banished is really an agent, that means there is more than one. As soon as needed the asset in place is activated. The new operative never even knows the banished operative was on the same team. Compartmentilization. Need to know.

    Ok then….let’s get creative.
    Subject begins disruption.
    Entire meeting grinds to halt.

    A) group begins to ohmmmmm. Ohmmmmm and sways together all standing holding hands in circle until either subject alters behavior or produces weapon.

    B) group turns back on subject and remains silent until subject either alters behavior or pulls out weapon and stabs nearest person in back.

    C) subject disrupts. Group activates prearranged plan. As disruption is documented assigned group member reads aloud warning to cease or face arrest. Subject continues, nypd called. Take subject into custody relieving her of any weapons that exist.

    You cannot even touch the subject with one tiny touch, a finger…whatever.
    If you do you have committed assault. That’s the kind of stuff drilled into peace marshals at demonstrations. And if you need to you call nypd.
    If some right winger from gathering of eagles wants to dance , you do not oblige. You move away and call the cops. They’ll get the disrupter out for you.

    So I am suggesting that this needs more discussion and mindfulness before Tuesday’s meeting.

    I mean creative is hoof.
    I fantasizes standing with my walking stick and the three hard thumps on the ground like nanny McPhee….and reciting some made up chant…using power of suggestion to slow the subject….cause the subject to become still and sit quietly then and thereafter….but then my imagination adds that the subject grabs my walking stick and bashes my head in.

    Oppssss
    :)

    • arj

      Pretty good advice there. There is a video of Nan online ironically refusing to let someone speak at a Bloombergsville rally in Union Square. There was a tussle and the video suggests that she wanted to file charges against the dude for assault.

      I hear that she was kicked out of that organization. Does anyone know why?

  24. Steve Scher

    Is creative “hoof”?
    I’ll never be sure what the typo was before it became hoof.
    Creative is cool , probably.
    Not thinking straight, head hurts from being based in,

  25. Haywood

    An organization that cannot deal with Nan has no hope of taking on the global financial elite.

    There IS a clear answer to the “Nan situation” – kick her the fuck out. It isn’t hard. If the GA says so I will remove her myself. She is a menace.

    • Dallas

      @haywood you CAN’T. You will get arrested when she inevitably (and rightly under the law) throws an assault rap on you..

      Furthermore, I can only speak for myself, but that’s the only thing that is even a question to me about the larger question about enforcing a code of conduct in our meetings and events: If we come to consensus on a process for even the temporary removal of violent/highly disruptive individuals, our only fully valid legal option for enforcement of this process on an individual who doesn’t want to leave voluntarily is calling the cops to an OWS meeting/event. I have to admit, I am very conflicted about this idea.

      • Ravi Ahmad

        Actually, the option is @sumumba‘s: if the meeting takes place on private property, we can keep her from entering the space entirely. Its been done before…

        • Dallas

          @raviahmad And if any given person who is barred from entry decides to say, pull a sit-in in the doorway to our meeting/event space…. then what? Any policy about barring entry kind of assumes that we’re dealing with a reasonable individual who will just leave when denied entry.

          • Ravi Ahmad

            When we barred Nan from Spokes she wandered about a bit, threatened various people and made some phone calls. None of the threatened crowds showed up. She did call the cops though. They showed up and explained to her that she didn’t have any “right” to enter a meeting on private property. We refused to engage with her and she left after a bit. It was all quite anti-climactic actually.

            She had already been directly informed of the ban that night and didn’t have any one with her. Assuming she somehow found people to support her, we can do what we’ve done in the past: peacefully lock arms and isolate the group.

            I believe that Bloombergville got her out by surrounding her and keeping her out for about 3 hours or something. So, maybe that would work for us as well.

  26. sumumba

    UNLESS we move the GA’s indoors and have de-escalation at the door…im almost sure 52 walker would let us use that facility again if we didnt allow this indiviudual in….and if we had her out of movement we’d have far less problems in GA’s…but then again she has her co-horts to in and around GA’s

  27. sumumba

    YES…we need to find GA spaces where we can SECURE the entry…honestly i dont feel safe at GA’s in Liberty…ANY one can come off the STREETS drunk or high or with ill intentions and attack us at will as was evidenced in last tuesdays’ GA…thankfully i had left…or i woulda been in jail without BAIL..cuz i would have NO reacted in a NON-VIOLENT way..sorry …

    if violent people within the MOVEMENT are allowed to enter and disrupt thereby INFLUENCING our GA’s what type of decisions can it make? and as Haywood said how can we take down this system when we cant even control our spaces?

    • Melanie

      I have missed most GAs for a long time now because of the very real threat of all sorts of violence, from all sorts of people. I’m sure I’m not alone. This proposal should focus squarely on the behavior, and anyone who violates it should IMMEDIATELY be ignored by everyone, and if the situation is volatile, we should remove OURSELVES in the case of GA, and in the case of SC, the person should very simply be escorted out by a few individuals versed in martial arts. Spit out the poison, every time.

  28. carole dougherty

    I don’t know if this would work but I have a suggestion. Is it possible to have the people that Nan threatened get a restraining order against her? These people can be near the door with order in hand and she wouldn’t be allowed within so many yards of them. If she calls the police they are shown the order, if she violates too many times she will be arrested. I don’t know if it would work in public places. I was curious why this wasn’t used against the rapist at the church, I know the victim had a restraining order against him and it didn’t matter that the pastor would let the rapist in to sleep. He would have to abide by the court order… it would not be in OWS or the pastors authority to permit the rapist in the same space as the victim.

    • Dallas

      I’d appreciate input from anyone involved with Legal that may have a more comprehensive understanding, but yes, restraining orders do apply in public spaces. That’s why they exist – you can always tell someone to leave a private space where they aren’t wanted.

      The hard part is being consistently able to find cops that give a &#$% about said order, IMHO.

      • Siobhan Ogilvie

        I’m conflicted too about police involvement but if our safety is in question there is no choice. The cops may not give a &#$% but if there is a restraining order it would be a serious infraction that could cost them their jobs if they ignored such an order.

        • MzCitzen2

          THIS is True! Restraining Orders MUST be enforced by any officer that has knowledge of same.

    • Monica McLaughlin

      @sio99, @alg0rhythm, @carole

      To get a restraining order Nan would have to first be arrested for assault. To be arrested for assault would probably require physical injury on the part of the person assaulted. Video tape may work, but it would have to be better than the one above. I am not sure whether multiple witnesses alone would be enough to get someone arrested for assault unless there was physical injury.

      The RO would be for the person assaulted only. Nan would most likely have to stay 100 feet from that person. If she violated the order and the police were called, they would have to ask her to leave and if she did not, they would have to arrest her. Often cops don’t press it if, by the time they get there, the violator has already left the scene.

      To keep Nan out of a geographical place would require that the person who had the RO against Nan be present.

      I agree with Dallas who said that no one should touch Nan or she could press charges especially if she was injured during the scuffle.

      (Disclaimer: I am a lawyer, but I am talking off the top of my head — no research.)

      • Melanie

        I believe it takes a while to get the restraining order. Is an order of protection the same thing? I think there are several people who can testify to injury (doesn’t have to be physical, right?). Plus I think an organization can get an order of protection as well, no?

        • Monica McLaughlin

          @enouph, yes they are the same thing. You can get a temporary restraining order (TRO) which is quick.

          I would think you would need a physical injury or at least damaged property plus a fear of assault. I don’t think 5 people could band together, call the police and say that they were afraid of someone and expect the police to arrest them.

          An organization getting an RO? I don’t think so. I think an organization has the right to forbid a person entry on their private property (including property the organization leases) and if not obeyed, that person would then be arrested for trespassing. They don’t have to go through the courts.

      • MzCitzen2

        If you are a lawyer, you should know that a THREAT of violence is enough to get a restraining order – under probable cause?

        Video tapes are also compelling evidence.

  29. carole dougherty

    where I am it’s harder to inforce in public places. Yes you can tell them to leave a private space but the worry seems to be if she tried to push her way in would the people trying to bar her be libel for assult against her. They could say they were trying to protect the person holding the order. The police came when nan called and hopefully a restraining order would carry even more weight. I just wanted to throw out another suggestion for all to feel safer.

  30. Julia Silvestri

    It seems inappropriate to attack Christina like that for expressing an opinion of love. The words against her opinion were oppressive and domineering. Disagreement is a right but disrespect is not.

    That being said- boundaries should be set for any person who cannot respect the rights of others. That can (and in my opinion- should) include removal from the movement.

    That does not, however, mean that the negativity and obsessive anger on this thread are appropriate. Please resist the urge to meet hate with more hate.

    • Melanie

      Agreed wholeheartedly. How do we help Christina and others who continue to advocate for bullies like Nan understand how much danger they are perpetuating for everyone else?

      • Edward Wilson

        I don’t think anybody advocates for bullies. Nan obviously needs to be removed now. What my concerns are:

        1) Why wasn’t she counselled or better yet genuinely befriended by strong characters? What everyone is witnessing now is classic defense responses rooted in insecurities.

        2) Are other parties complicate in enraging her throughout these past months? Early onset ostracizing? Public ridicule?

        3) Who else in this environment is currently on the same track? … which hasn’t lead to frustrated violence yet?

        4) Will those with sub-par social skills be given consideration and/or help when they need it?

        • Dallas

          My concern:

          1) She came at someone with a knife in the camp kitchen. Why wasn’t she asked to leave then?

          2) People that were around in the camp already knew of Nan or actually were familiar with her and her behavioral issues from Bloombergville. Maybe she was being ostracized. Maybe there were legitimate reasons for this.

          3) I don’t think some people are making a distinction between sub-par social skills and a repeatedly expressed penchant for violence. I and many others in OWS have sub-par social skills. I haven’t tried to stab anyone or punch anyone… neither have the vast majority of the rest of the people involved with OWS.

          • Julia Silvestri

            I acknowledge the value of your concerns @dallas They are raw and and focused on safety. We need to be firm and serious about safety.

            @edwardwilson- those concerns are on target! We need to evaluate ourselves because we have not handled this unsafe situation effectively or respectfully.

          • Edward Wilson

            @dallas your concerns are legitimate but as we’ve discussed before it’s all about where you operate from. Today’s science coupled with historical events/thoughts are an awesome tool set. Spring is a comin’.

            Also, my use of the word “sub-par” was incorrect; I apologize to everyone.
            I should have said lacking the social intelligence required for persuasion in the complex systems of today.

            These systems have taught us all ways of gaming it, and a fundamental part of Snakes and Ladders is the politics/persuasion that go into getting what we want.

            I look forward to the post corporate world, where all humans have a much better chance at being themselves.

            @juliasilvestri thanks.

  31. Dallas

    It sounds great on paper (or on screen) to say negativity is inappropriate, but saying ‘no’ is negativity and we do it all the time. Should we stop saying ‘no’? Everything, all behaviors, all language, all approaches to interaction with other are OK because we’re all human and need love?

    Limits. That’s all I’m saying. If you find the idea of limits to negative or violent or oppressive, sorry, I can’t help you. Maybe you neded to propose to throw me out instead of Nan or anyone else, because I do not intend to be silent on this issue.

    How can we ask bankers or police or feds or politicians to adhere to standards we won’t even dare require of each other?

  32. Julia Silvestri

    It sounds great in person too. I don’t think that being mostly positive and loving means having weak boundaries and low standards.

  33. Siobhan Ogilvie

    @Julia – out of love, it is important to understand where the frustration is coming from. Like an abusive relationship, time and time again this individual has provoked, threatened, assaulted, and by herself put the reputation and future of the entire movement in question. Out of fear, friends and activists have walked away because of this person. As they uncovered history, apparently she does this regularly. If she is mentally ill which is possible, OWS is ill equipped to provide psychological and medicinal care nor has she shown any desire for that. That is not what our movement is here for. It is here to stand up against corporate exploitation so why for months we have allowed one individual do the damage she has done is incomprehensible. Imagine if someone you loved was being abused daily. It would incite anger, depression, frustration and pain. Now imagine if you had the ability to separate that loved one from the abuser and people around you started making excuses for the abuser and trying to convince you for the sake of how it will look, let the abuser stay. Then imagine you suspect the abuser is manipulating these people so they can continue beating your loved one. That is how the people on this discussion feel and I didn’t even touch the bazaar recordings and lies discovered. Enough is enough. The safety of our members comes first.

    • Dallas

      @sio99 @cml2142 @juliasilvestri

      Thank you for finding a nicer way of making the same point. I realize that Julia and Christina mean well… but as I said a while back on this same issue (before the whole Spokes incident): There are quite a few people I respect and even love that I would prefer not to sit through a 3 hour meeting with on a regular basis.

  34. Dallas

    @raviahmad @sumumba interesting. This is also what OccupyLSX did when they found an undercover MPD officer marching with them at one point. Maybe that *is* the right direction (locking arms and encircling people whose actions/behavior make our events and spaces unsafe anbd hostile environments.

    See, expressing negativity isn’t always a “waste of energy”. ;)

  35. Julia Silvestri

    I support the proposal and understand the frustrations. I have been in those meetings too. And I have spent years teaching abused and traumatized children who often express themselves with violence and manipulation.

    Some individuals need firm and clear boundaries to prevent their destructive behaviors, and I am prepared to support that. But we all need and deserve respect and a positive environment, so please let compassion and love define this proposal more than frustration and hate.

    <3

  36. carole dougherty

    In New York a petitioner can obtain an order for protection against the respondent for stalking, menacing, harassment, aggravated harassment, assault, attempted assault, reckless endangerment, criminal mischief and disorderly conduct. And I would like to add the person who obtains the order should carry it on their person at all times and give a copy to have on file in places they occupy such as churches shelters etc.

    • Melanie

      I’m glad you affirmed what I suspected, the law protects people from others like Nan. It’s time for many of us to put a boundary around OWS against the few bullies in this “inclusive” environment.

  37. Rober Hernandez

    I also agree to kick Nan and I will tell you why. Before OWS started, my friends and I did Union Square Speakout and suddenly she appeared. She tried to take over in means of being the leader but weren’t having it!!! She told me she lives in Newark, NJ and she takes the bus that costs her $25. Now how the hell can you pay $25 for a bus ride when you can take the PATH for I think……about $2.00 or something like that. And from my observation of her at Liberty Square, she is very distruptive and rude to people, really mean. This movement doesn’t need someone to bring it down. I REALLY THINK SHE’S A PLANT…..SEE COINTELPRO!!! And I am proposing right now at this moment to do a teach-in on COINTELPRO. Look at what happened to the Black Panthers, the Weather Underground and other 60′s group. I don’t even talk to her or acknowledge her. BAN HER FOR LIFE FOR ALL I CARE…….SHE IS A CANCER AND SHE MUST BE REMOVED!!!

    • arj

      There is no bus from Newark that costs $25.00. Maybe she meant $25 a week?

      • Dallas

        Seriously… a Greyhound to Scranton is $25. :D

        But then, Nan also famously made mention of a $5500 MacBook. *shrug*. Maybe she can explain. I can’t.

        • arj

          It’s funny how the right wing repeated that story without ever stopping to question it. Also the 18 year old law student thing…Really?

  38. Melanie

    Would LOVE to take part in a teach in on COITELPRO. Lets find some experts.

    • Siobhan Ogilvie

      Me too! That along with bringing in ‘leaders’ or ‘frontline’ participants of the civil rights and antiwar movements would be a valuable lesson for all and money well spent.

      • Dallas

        Hey, I bet Jesse Jackson would come back if we asked him…. but this is a whole other thread.

        • Sean McKeown

          Hey, I bet Jesse Jackson would come back if he thought there were going to be three news broadcasters recording… ;)

        • arj

          I bet it wouldn’t be too hard to find people willing to talk about this. There are enough of those older Veterans for Peace, Black Panthers, Young Lords & Weather Underground people around.

          • Dallas

            I know an activist that is currently active with VFP and has worked with ACT-UP in the past that may be willing to co a teach-in or Q&A or something…. let me see what we can make happen here.

  39. Sean McKeown

    Occupy Wall Street is founded upon the Principles of Solidarity, which states the following:

    “On September 17, 2011, people from all across the United States of America and the world came to protest the blatant injustices of our times perpetuated by the economic and political elites. On the 17th we as individuals rose up against political disenfranchisement and social and economic injustice. We spoke out, resisted, and successfully occupied Wall Street. Today, we proudly remain in Liberty Square constituting ourselves as autonomous political beings engaged in non-violent civil disobedience and building solidarity based on mutual respect, acceptance, and love. It is from these reclaimed grounds that we say to all Americans and to the world, Enough! How many crises does it take? We are the 99% and we have moved to reclaim our mortgaged future. Through a direct democratic process, we have come together as individuals and crafted these principles of solidarity, which are points of unity that include but are not limited to:

    • Engaging in direct and transparent participatory democracy;
    • Exercising personal and collective responsibility;
    • Recognizing individuals’ inherent privilege and the influence it has on all interactions;
    • Empowering one another against all forms of oppression;
    • Redefining how labor is valued;
    • The sanctity of individual privacy;
    • The belief that education is human right; and
    • Endeavoring to practice and support wide application of open source.

    We are daring to imagine a new socio-political and economic alternative that offers greater possibility of equality. We are consolidating the other proposed principles of solidarity, after which demands will follow.”

    Additionally, we also follow the Statement of Autonomy, which states the following:

    “Occupy Wall Street is a people’s movement. It is party-less, leaderless, by the people and for the people. It is not a business, a political party, an advertising campaign or a brand. It is not for sale.
    We welcome all, who, in good faith, petition for a redress of grievances through non-violence. We provide a forum for peaceful assembly of individuals to engage in participatory as opposed to partisan debate and democracy. We welcome dissent.
    Any statement or declaration not released through the General Assembly and made public online at http://www.nycga.net should be considered independent of Occupy Wall Street.
    We wish to clarify that Occupy Wall Street is not and never has been affiliated with any established political party, candidate or organization. Our only affiliation is with the people.
    The people who are working together to create this movement are its sole and mutual caretakers. If you have chosen to devote resources to building this movement, especially your time and labor, then it is yours.
    Any organization is welcome to support us with the knowledge that doing so will mean questioning your own institutional frameworks of work and hierarchy and integrating our principles into your modes of action.
    SPEAK WITH US, NOT FOR US.
    Occupy Wall Street values collective resources, dignity, integrity and autonomy above money. We have not made endorsements. All donations are accepted anonymously and are transparently allocated via consensus by the General Assembly or the Operational Spokes Council.
    We acknowledge the existence of professional activists who work to make our world a better place. If you are representing, or being compensated by an independent source while participating in our process, please disclose your affiliation at the outset. Those seeking to capitalize on this movement or undermine it by appropriating its message or symbols are not a part of Occupy Wall Street.
    We stand in solidarity. We are Occupy Wall Street”
    These principles are difficult to uphold. Sometimes, they may even seem contradictory – how can we behave transparently if we insist on individual privacy? How can we agree to the famous ‘diversity of tactics’ that says there are many different ways to achieve results and one is not necessarily the ‘most right,’ because others are valid as well? We are stumbling upon vagueness and apparent contradiction, from the root of the only two documents we presently hold as our statements of values and methods. It does not help that the Principles of Solidarity say how one should act, but not what should happen should one fail to uphold these lofty principles.

    In fundamental concept, the Statement of Autonomy makes it clear in the end: that which is not a part of Occupy Wall Street excludes itself by its own actions, and it is in the best interests of the Occupy Wall Street movement to note that those whose actions do not follow appropriate standards should be recognized to stand apart from the movement.

    Inclusion does not mean the failure to ever exclude – that is simply exclusion by a different metric: “How long someone can put up with this bullshit,” “who has the loudest voice,” “who is the most violent or has the most credible threat.” And an Occupation that does not stand for something stands for nothing, because it puts no weight behind the statements it upholds as valid.

    A process is being formed to provide this weight. We are working on defining “what we will abide by” via the forthcoming Community Agreement and Code of Conduct, documents that are as-yet works in progress seeking further development or consensus. We are defining “how we keep things within the boundaries of what we have agreed upon,” via de-escalation tactics designed both for physical and for social situations. And we are creating a way to resolve our differences or forgive us our transgressions against each other, defining “how we get along with each other after things have gone less than smoothly” via a Grievance Circle that focuses upon repairing harm and fairness within the community in a restorative-justice process that seeks to educate and heal rather than apply punitive judgments to serve as negative values in some complicated game-theory widget.

    But it would be a misnomer to state that every problem one might bring forward in the grievance process will be able to be answered with both individuals still within the Movement. It is a failure of imagination and a failure of judgment to say that there will never be a transgression so grave that we as an assembled body will have to sever connection with an individual or group within the Movement, and it is this continued failure that sees us tolerate the intolerable and play the game of exclusion by attitude rather than principle.

    It is a simple principle: If you come to our events, our meetings, our websites, our phone systems, and so on… it doesn’t matter who you are, by the act of involvement, you agree to follow our community standards. If you leave the relationship, you don’t have to follow our standards – Occupy Wall Street community standards are held between members of the Occupy Wall Street community, they do not follow you home and decree how you treat anyone outside of the Movement when you do not represent the Movement.

    The General Assembly is empowered to sever ties with those who do not follow the Principles of Solidarity, the Statement of Autonomy, or other standards of behavior that have been agreed upon. If we leave the relationship with you, you also don’t have to follow our standards. It stays that way as long as we’re not involved in each other’s business. If we get involved with companies, they have to follow our standards, too. Our standards apply to OWS as a whole and also to all our working groups, caucuses, and other component bodies acting on our behalf or in our name.

    Continued participation in Occupy Wall Street, as a movement, confers benefits; an individual whom the General Assembly proposes to exclude from the Movement via direct and transparent participatory democracy, based on there adherence to the standards of conduct that define a member as part of OWS, thus forfeits these benefits. They include, but are not limited to:

    • The ability to attend General Assembly, Spokes Council, or other forms of decision-making bodies and be placed on stack;

    • The ability to access Occupy Wall Street funds and resources, such as metrocards, housing access, *@nycga.net email accounts, food, clothing, and similar supplies;

    • The ability to join Working Groups or Caucuses, and participate in OWS discussions;

    • Access to bail funds for any arrests they may be subject to at Occupy Wall Street marches or events;

    • And the ability to state to the outside world, and those within the Occupy Wall Street movement, “I am a member of Occupy Wall Street.”

    An individual whom the General Assembly sees as ‘not a member of Occupy Wall Street,’ be it for failure to uphold the Principles of Solidarity or act in keeping with the Statement of Autonomy, or the failure to abide by any other community agreement or code of conduct as yet forthcoming and refusing to repair this failing to the community as a whole by the airing of grievances and making of amends via the transformative justice process of the Grievance Circle, when it is in place, should not be seen to be a member of the Occupy Wall Street movement or attain any of the benefits conferred by membership.

  40. Cruz

    Dont give her to pleasure…..she is a lost and violent soul hell bent on the destruction of others freedoms. By us kicking her ass out of OWS, we are giving her what she wants.

    Direct Democracy is about giving everyone a voice, no matter how much we disagree with it. So if she is kicked out, its like were kicking out everyone. This sets the precedent that whenever an individual pisses off the majority, that they are subject to possible ostracism. This simply cant be.

    I am not a member of Occupy Wall Street. I am PERSON. and I will not accept tyranny from anywhere!!!

    • Dallas

      She’s already ostracized. PoI.

      This isn’t about a voice either, it’s about knives and fists.

      • Urbaned

        In the 70′s we had “T-groups.” (Don’t remember what the T stands for). Someone would sit in the middle of the circle and just get it ALL out. If Nan sat in the middle of a supportive circle, would she ever be able to get it all out? Would she appreciate the ears and arms of those willing to support her? Some people cannot ever get enough attention and love from others. It’s an infantile need (and I am not saying that judgmentally). Are we responsible for filling everyone’s infantile needs, or are we responsible for bringing down the 1%?

        • Cruz

          We are not bring down the 1 percent, we are about bringing up the 99 percent. This is not anarchy.

          • Dallas

            Well… without passing judgment on anarchy as a philosophical construct… I agree. I like to put this in the current vernacular as “The point is not to nerf the privileged, but to empower everyone.”

      • Cruz

        http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism
        She hasn’t been kicked out yet, until then she is a part of ows. Next your gonna want to break open some pottery and start writing down names. This movement is about inclusion and loving our enemies no matter what they think about us. We cant kick anyone out.

          • Cruz

            You just backed up my claim…She is only “ostrisized” when she has been formally removed from the group by common consent (which she has not been).

            Success is the best revenge, and our democracy fails when we do not afford even the worst of our society the same freedom and citizenship that the good of society is afforded. She needs to be reprimanded, but being ostrisized is not the answer.

          • Justin Samuels

            Nan has not been removed from the GA, but she already has been removed from spokes and they also removed her from housing, before they ended the housing program.

            Her group, Strong Women’s Rule, has been removed from this website.

            The GA at this point won’t have to remove her, a large part of the community will simply avoid dealing with her. You can’t tell people who to love or to like Cruz, and this movement is not about LOVE. Its a political movement.

            And its not really all inclusive. It includes all times of people, but not all times of behaviors. There were issues with the behavior of people in the churches, so spokes ended funding to the churches. So now some of those people are already leaving town (some have already left). There is no hiding from reality, not even in OWS.

        • Stuart Leonard

          I agree with Justin, this is a political movement. At it’s best I have found it to be one of the most inclusive, tolerant institutions I have ever seen. It is for precisely this reason that we are qualified to know when someone is nothing but a detriment to our cause and has to move on. We have just begun this battle against the power elite and we can’t afford to be stupid. OWS can’t be all things to all people. And to be honest, I don’t have to hate my enemies, but I certainly don’t have to love them. Love is a strong and volatile force. I promise that when we overthrow the 1% I’ll be fair to them, but I don’t have to love them.

          • Justin Samuels

            I also have found OWS to be the most inclusive, accepting groups of people I’ve ever met. I’ve met people from homeless to upper middle class. I’ve had all sorts of interesting conversations with people.

    • Steve Scher

      i am curious why you hide your identity while posting such clever , witty, and funny things?
      I will never have a chance to applaud you ( or twinkle with all ten fingers) …..
      so sad
      :(

      • HoaxCouncil

        I’M JUST HERE TO BREAK SOME RULES IN A BENIGN WAY.
        AMONG THOSE RULES IS THE FICTION OF THE “LEGAL NAME”.
        :/

        • Steve Scher

          So is your name really “Hoss”…and if yes what is a “Hoss Council”?
          And anyway who said a illegal name is “non-fiction”?
          For example “Billy the Kid”. That name is obviously illegal on several levels, but is it “non-fiction “?
          Or the legal name, for example Richard Milhouse Nixon.
          Whie the name seems surreal is it fiction?
          I don’t think so.
          My goodness, the entire concept of a recognizable moniker in a land of anonymity filled with “hello kitty” or ” kitty carlisle ” or “miss kitty ” or baysidefiend?…what the point of benign breaking of rules?

          Are you opposed to a malignant breaking of rules regarding the fiction, or non-fiction of legal or illegal names?

          I think I’m in love with you.

          Can you cook ?

  41. carole

    Here is an example of what Nan feeds the right wing. This is from biggovernment.com but she’s quoted in many places. This is how people twist the truth and who want to destroy OWS, not from a member that wants to participate and grow the movement. Read the article and of course the comments.

    Ms. Terrie, an 18-year-old activist originally from Florida, was treated at the hospital for a concussion just two nights ago, after being hit in the head with a chair at a meeting.

    • Sean McKeown

      … Which wasn’t even true, since I got hit with the chair instead to make sure she didn’t get hit in the head with a chair. That’s de-escalation’s job: getting hit with the chair, so you don’t have to.

      It’s even more pernicious to go about advertising the fact… when you manufactured it whole-cloth in the first place.

    • Dallas

      She’s #&$(*& 33!!! She tells people’s she’s 18 to make us look like ish when her feelings get hurt.

    • HoaxCouncil

      SHE’S PALLING AROUND WITH BRANDON DARBY, AN OUT-AND-PROUD FBI INFORMANT.

    • Julia Silvestri

      I agree. It is with love, light and compassion that we must set limits. But they must be set. Gandhi kicked the British out of India. He led with love and he set limits. I want to follow his example.

  42. tom

    WOW. THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THERE IS SO MUCH TO DO AND YOU ARE WASTING YOUR TIME LETTING 1 INDIVIDUAL DISRUPT THE ASSEMBLY. BAN HER ALREADY AND GET ON WITH THE MOVEMENT!!!

    • Siobhan Ogilvie

      I am officially boycotting all OWS events and meetings until they stop embracing violent on our own which includes her, Black bloc anarchy and anyone else who attacks us from within. I hope one day they start standing up for the movement and against corporate exploitation like we used to instead of the opposite. I have additionally taken off my buttons that I used to wear so proudly because I am ashamed of what people did and are doing to destroy it enough so Wall St wins. I’m tired of making excuses for OWS because the last 6 weeks have been one inexcusable thing after another. I can’t even sit through livestreams or follow twitter anymore. I write this with tears coming down my face because this withdrawal was the ultimate signal everything I was fearing that was happening is. And sadly I am not alone, our public support is dying as well quickly if not already. No wonder no one wants to be associated with OWS anymore. You have allowed those who seek to destroy the movement to be embraced while kicking supporters to the curb. I hope you can live with your decisions in peace – and as I have said time and time again it is not about one person, it is about the behavior exhibited by that person that many think should be overlooked – and it shouldn’t be overlooked by anyone. Someone once asked what if a man was attacking people like she did? I have to believe that would be ok too.

      • Steve Scher

        Ahhh….Dallas wrote Caps and exclamation points to Tom…at first I thought it was to sad post from siobhan.

        Perhaps Tom is hard of hearing as I am, and didn’t realize he was shouting/using caps.
        As for the exclamation points, it seems obvious to me Tom simply tripped or fell and got stuck , accidentally pressing on the exclamation point key causing it to repeat.
        As for the topic:
        Nan- I understood it was on the agenda, ad I am surprised there as been no vote/consensus or otherwise.
        Given that there continues to be posts, etc….limited time and energy it would seem unproductive to either continue postponing any vote and at the same time unproductive to make any post (including my own, here and now ) in addition to the 138 above, and the one thousand five hundred sixty nine posts made on other lists ( I made up the 1,569 figure, but it does seem possible, doesn’t it ?) .

        Therefore I will make the following proposal , unless thus matter is brought to a close.

        I will in the event it is not closed propose to the general assembly the establishment of ” The Counter Culture Committee for Continuous Creative Communication ” or “CCCCCC” for short.

        The purpose of this committee will be to combine any and all pending business which may be draining the limited time and energy and/or disrupting the business of said committees or working groups.

        Once assigned to the CCCCCC the topic, any topic is banned from any mention or any activity in any group, committee, dinner conversation, or in any manner save within the confines of the CCCCCC.

        In the event any member posts anything now assigned to the CCCCCC anywhere else but in the CCCCCC the Admins, Super-Admins and Super-Dupper-Ollio-Home Free Administrators are charged with immediate removal of said non-authorized posts.

        In the event any CCCCCC business is brought up at any meetings, General Assemblies or otherwise, the agenda item will be automatically removed, and any members whose names have been placed on the stack prior to removal shall be penalized one “Twinkie”.

        Members may alternately use a different token system including but not limited to : Ding Dongs, Hostess Cupcakes, and Snow Balls. Vegetarian alternatives without beef lard sy also be used.

  43. opposed

    maybe it should be done on line… then the 99% could participate… but wait! if the 99% participated that might dilute the voice of the occupiers and that wouldnt be fair would it? after all why should regulare people who can’t attend the GA have a voice? geeze what if the 99% doesnt really agree with gliter bombs mic checks and siezig private property that would be awkward yeah lets have a GA instead and to make sure only the hard core show up lets make sure some violent people are included.

    • arj

      I don’t vote in GA but I have been watching the disruption online as have allot of people, so that works for me.

  44. Steve Scher

    I agree !!!!
    Can we have that in the form of a proposal please Mr Opposed?
    ( can you cook ?)

  45. Steve Scher

    Interesting….when you click on the id “opposed” it hyperlinks to…..

    • Dallas

      Probably. Still seems like it should point to the index page and not a specific thread, (or to #), but that’s a TechOps thing.

  46. David Andrew

    I completely agree with Steve Scher and Opposed (except the speculative ‘let’s make sure’ part)

    At the Opening ceremony of COP 15, the Danish Girls Choir gave a nice performance yet I was struck by the presence of uniformed security right up at the front of the stage. It was such a stark contrast. I believe it was COP 15, but at some point in the course of the two week meetings one person stood up from the audience and began protesting about something. The disruption was ended when the security removed the person from the assembly and subsequently stripped the individual of access privileges. Yea, it’s ugly, but these meetings cannot be just a free-for-all. It is unfair to everyone else who invests their time and energy. There has to be limits.

    Does this make ‘us’ just like ‘them’? That debate should be left for another place and time. OWS simply cannot allow itself to be hijacked as Steve eluded to, and Opposed is correct to state that this policy issue, like all matters OWS, cannot be legitimately dealt with here. A policy made at the National General Assembly would be legit for the movement. Until #OWS develops its own policy, I suggest you must remove the item from the agenda and end the ‘nan’ issue. Beyond that either employ the United Nations protocols or call the police.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GXB4wrD87g

  47. Steve Scher

    Dear Mr. David Andrew;
    My apologies sir.
    The intent of my post was to urge the ID user of ” opposed” to physically present themselves and formally make the proposal before then GA.

    When you write you agree with me, I’m not sure what you mean, so firstly:

    When opposed wrote, there were a few points I did have concerns about, and my comments appear below within the original post from “opposed”.
    “maybe it should be done on line…YES, THERE IS A FUTURE AVAILABLE USING THE RESOURCES, WHICH WE ARE ALL I HOPE AWARE OF OUR WORKING GROUPS ARE IN DEVELOPMENT OF, INVOLVING BUT NOT ONLY INCLUDING THE PRESENCE OF A ONLINE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, WHERE VERIFIED IDENTITIES CAN PARTICIPATE IN DISCUSSION AND VOTE
    then the 99% could participate… YES…EXACTLY…AND EVEN THE 1%.
    THE ENTIRE 100% CAN BE INVOLVED.
    but wait! if the 99% participated that might dilute the voice of the occupiers and that wouldnt be fair would it?
    NOW THATS ILLOGICAL.
    THE OCCUPIERS WORKING GROUPS ARE DEVELOPEING THIS RESOURCE. AND WILL MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO 100%.

    after all why should regulare people who can’t attend the GA have a voice?

    TRUE…..WHICH IS WHY THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY WITH 100% BEING ABLE TO “ATTEND” ONLINE IS SO BENEFICIAL.

    geeze what if the 99% doesnt really agree with gliter bombs
    GOOD POINT…..WE MUST BE ON GUARD FOR UNAUTHORIZED GLITTER BOMBS…
    mic checks
    YES….AFTER ALL IF AMPHLIFICATION CAN ONLY BE USED BY BEING ARRESTED, AND PEOPLE ASSEMBLE AND ARE INVENTIVE ENOUGH TO FIND THE ” MIC CHECK” ALTERNATIVE…WHY NOT SUGGEST ITS A BAD THING..AFTER ALL YOU NAME IS “OPPOSED”….SORT OF LIKE BIZZARO WAS TO SUPERMAN…EH?

    and siezig private property
    NOW THERE WE MIGHT AGREE…EXCEPT THAT IM NOT AWARE OF ANY PRIVATE PROPERTY SEIZURES….
    IM NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN…CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN…OH WAIT…YOU’VE BAILED OUT…DELETED YOU ID AND DISAPPEARED….WHY?

    that would be awkward yeah

    NOT AT ALL.

    lets have a GA instead and to make sure only the hard core show

    NOW THATS SILLY.
    BY HARD CORE DO YOU MEAN…
    HELL…WHAT DO YOU MEAN?

    up lets make sure some violent people are included.”

    NOW THATS THE FUNNY PART.
    THE OBSERVATION HAS BEEN MADE THAT GROUPS LIKE BLACK BLOC ARE RIPE FOR INFILTRATION.
    SO IF LETS SAY A POLITICAL ENTITIY DID SO, AND WAS ALSO ASSOCIATED WITH THE NOW DISSAPEARED ID “OPPOSITION”…IS THAT LIKE THE KETTLE CALLING THE POT BLACK…NOOOO ….ITS MORE LIKE THE SILLY USE OF ILLOGICAL THINKING ON PUBLIC DISPLAY IN A SETTING WHERE MOST OF THE READERS ARE QUITE CAPABLE OF CRITICAL THINKING AND CAN SPOT A PHONEY WHEN ONE WRITES, AS “OPPOSITION” HAS DONE.

    SO….
    OK…TURNING OFF CAPS LOCK….

    So Mr Andrews, my apologies.
    I would ask if you might wish to offer such a porposal yourself?
    I know you would be welcome to do so before the nycga.

    ************************************************************************************************
    Secondly:
    I do not suggest the use of “security” to take any physical action as you describe above.
    In fact I make the point that
    1) Coming into physical contact constitutes assault.
    2) Calling the authorities as needed is a much better way to go. I gave the example of “Warrier Patriots” a right wing group attemping to disrupt, and NYPD called upon the remove them.

    You also mentioned something I thought rather odd.
    You stated “a policy made at the National General Assembly would be legit for the movement. “.
    That is frankly odd.

    I wonder to what degree the group you speak of knows it will be used to make policy, and not just some up with “grievances”.

    While I do not consider myself a country, I do feel a sense of soverignty of my own land, my body.
    I’m not aware I was also under the domain of what you call the National General Assembly.

    I appreciate the warning.

    There are many movements, thousands…. one is of OWS, and another is the group you associate with which has announced it is holding a National General Assembly. If you mean that if the National General Assemlbly can make its own policy…well…duhhh…of course it can.

    If you suggest any policy it makes goes beyond those borders……….
    **********************************************************************************************
    Now back to the purpose of this thread, this proposal as it appears way…. way….. wayyyyy ……above.

    I believe the topic is exhausted, and would be ill served if written about here any more.

    Do I hear an amen?
    :)
    s

    • David Andrew

      I was agreeing with your point that this issue is distracting and I thought your CCCCCC idea was great.
      The point Opposed is making is that the NYCGA is doing exactly what you are complaining about above when you say “domain”. Anyone not physically able to present themselves in Liberty Plaza is now under the domain of what the Statement Of Autonomy falsely proclaims to be The General Assembly Of Occupy Wall Street when it is accurately from The General Assembly Of Liberty Plaza (or you can say NYCGA).

      I don’t find this odd:

      “Moreover, the Delegates to the National General Assembly shall implement their own rules, procedures, agenda, code of conduct, internal elections and/or appointments of committee members and officers to efficiently and expeditiously accomplish the People’s mandate to present a PETITION FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES to all three branches of the government of the United States of America, and political candidates, before the 2012 general election”

      This should give autonomous GA’s guidance (and I mean only guidance) in resolving ‘nan’ type issues. As I suggested we may take guidance from UN protocols or from any other generally accepted body in lieu.

      This topic is exposing larger order issues that need to be talked about. ‘nan’ really isn’t the issue any more, except for people in Liberty Plaza. See? Larger order issues have nowhere legit to be discussed… yet.

      What’s the operative of “would be ill served”? I don’t care for closing comments on topics, people should be able to voice their opinions as long as they fall under a code of conduct of the website owners. In this case, the NYCGA.

  48. Victor Wooddell

    @Sean/everyone: “…A process is being formed to provide this weight. We are working on defining “what we will abide by” via the forthcoming Community Agreement and Code of Conduct, documents that are as-yet works in progress seeking further development or consensus…”

    Anyone know the status of this? Are these being worked on somewhere? Thanks.

    • Sean McKeown

      Safer Spaces meets every Sunday at 5pm (… even Super Bowl Sunday, I suspect!) and is actively working with others on the Community Agreement. Their googlegroup is saferspaceows, and their forums here on NYCGA.net are fairly active.

      What needs to go into the Code of Conduct is based on what the grievance process looks like, and what is finalized in the Community Agreement, so it’s less formed and waiting for additional input before it can really go anywhere. There is also a grievance process discussion tonight (Friday night) at 110 Schermerhorn, at the Quaker meeting house, from 6:30-9:30 to talk about what this all means and help develop it all further.

  49. Steve Scher

    Now back to the purpose of this thread, this proposal as it appears way…. way….. wayyyyy ……above.

    I believe the topic is exhausted, and would be ill served if written about here any more.

    Do I hear an amen?

    s

  50. Steve Scher

    I stand aside.
    I do hope this actually is presented to the ga and consensus reached, soon.

  51. MzCitzen2

    Greetings all! After a lengthy hiatus due to personal obligations, I am glad to be back on these boards. Please accept my best wishes for peace, shared prosperity, and success in this New Year! And I thank you all, from the bottom of my heart, for keeping the dream alive, at OWS NYC.

    Now, for the issue at hand. Although I admit I have not read Every post here, I have read a good many of them. The person in question, by your own descriptions, is not only disruptive and divisive, but physically violent. Therefore you must assume that she is likely in need of professional help, which you are unable to provide to her.

    Moreover, your “tolerance” to allow her presence in your midst is not tolerant, but foolhardy – and any physical violence or PERSONAL INJURY that she might foment against any one at your gatherings, has the potential to expose the group, and/or the owners of any property where you might meet, to issues of LIABILITY.

    This liability exposure is especially perilous given that you ALL have PRIOR KNOWLEDGE of her former threats and/or ACTS of violence … which is all very well Documented in these threads. You therefore have knowledge of the potential for violent assault, yet you have done NOTHING to REPORT the threat, nor to AVOID a potentially debilitating incident.

    What if some one of you loses the sight of an eye, or suffers a skull fracture at the hands of this crazy b*tch? (Having worked in both insurance defense law, and plaintiffs’ personal injury practice I can tell you that SOMEONE shall be SUED for the damages – for medical bills, for lost wages, for PERMANENCY and for pain!) You may have formed a tax exempted organization, but I highly doubt that you carry any form of insurance!

    To top this scenario with the ultimate insult …. Just WHAT do you imagine would be the reaction of authorities – or their complicit presss – if you failed to be proactive to protect the innocent? I guarantee it will do the movement absolutely No Good!

    Even the time and energy you have expended in your discussions has sucked energy from the work and the cause.

    Please ……I urge you to go to police with the video taped evidence of her former attack – and to seek a Restraining Order – NOW.

    • Dallas

      Again, I will voice disagreement with the idea of this discussion being a waste of time, but you do raise some great points of reality @mzcitizen2 .

  52. Debby Randolph

    Is it really possible to “ban” a person from activities that are open to the public? Instead, keep a close eye on those who disrupt, and make sure they don’t gain too much influence.

    Better, more practical and more equitable would be to ban *behaviors*.

    Love, solidarity and gratitude to all in OWS!!!

    Meanwhile, attempts to continue to reach consensus are inspiring and important!