Wisconsin to charge citizens fee to protest

[Agfadoc]

So WWYBYWB (Who were you before you were banned) from Wisconsin?

Wow, is that your assumption, is that how you operate? I actually came looking for technology information and instead found liberal progressive rhetoric in it's place.

Have you checked Europe lately? Progressives have done such a fine job there.. How about Detroit? Chicago?

Your liberal agenda only enables people to remain enabled, but I think that is the point, now isn't it?

 

[EagleKeeper]

The people who organize the protests are being required to cover the costs of SECURITY.

The protesters are not being required to pay.

From your quote

pay in advance to stage an event, at a cost of $50 per hour, per Capitol Police officer.

They are not making everyone that shows up pay.
Those that plan the event have to pay for the costs that are being incurred by the state for their secruity.

If you are going to plan an event that involves 100 people; it should require security; pay for it.

The issue of 4 people inside the building is a little tight and extreme.

 

[feralkid]

I actually came looking for technology information and instead found liberal progressive rhetoric in it's place.

No, you found it in P&N.

Try the tech forum links on the left.

 

[cybrsage]

You should only be able to protest government policies if you pay the government lots of money to do it. Nothing could possibly go wrong with this idea.

I wonder if Walker is even trying to keep his job anymore.

Out of curiosity, was Richmond, VA wrong for charging the Tea Party for their gathering? If so, should Richmond recompense them?

 

[cybrsage]

Wow, is that your assumption, is that how you operate? I actually came looking for technology information and instead found liberal progressive rhetoric in it's place.

Have you checked Europe lately? Progressives have done such a fine job there.. How about Detroit? Chicago?

Your liberal agenda only enables people to remain enabled, but I think that is the point, now isn't it?

The libs here feel that anyone who does not agree with them must be the same one person coming back over and over again. I would not be surprised if they claim both of us are one person with two accounts.

They have to, else they would realize that many, many people not only disagree with much of what they claim, but actively laugh at the lack of reasoning skills behind it.

 

[Agfadoc]

No, you found it in P&N.

Try the tech forum links on the left.

Yeah, I know what section, but I always look at the newest threads first, and the P&N were at the top. Couldn't help but notice them, frankly I am glad they have P&N on here, looks to be a very interesting forum to be sure. Nothing better than technology and politics.. Couldn't have asked for more.

Sent from my Supercharged Asus Transformer

 

[Exterous]

The people who organize the protests are being required to cover the costs of SECURITY.

I would be curious to know if there are any guidelines about the required police to protestor ratio or if its subjective. Don't want the protest? Just assign a bunch of police officers to it to bleed the protest movement dry

(FWIW I have no issue with permit fees as they currently stand)

 

[Ausm]

And worse for the taxpayers to have to pick up the costs for the protesters security.

Yet is people got hurt and there was no security; the same people would be complaining that the government was not taking care of the people and the police should have been there to protect them..:whiste:

Never claimed they didn't make a mess or there were not any altercations between protesters and the Koch bros supporters.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Never claimed they didn't make a mess or there were not any altercations between protesters and the Koch bros supporters.

• Should there be security at such functions?
• Who should be responsible for the costs of cleaning up the mess that the protesters make?

 

[fskimospy]

Wow, is that your assumption, is that how you operate? I actually came looking for technology information and instead found liberal progressive rhetoric in it's place.

Have you checked Europe lately? Progressives have done such a fine job there.. How about Detroit? Chicago?

Your liberal agenda only enables people to remain enabled, but I think that is the point, now isn't it?

You definitely seem in the same vein as a number of previously banned posters on here to me as well. Same ignorant blather.

 

[Ausm]

• Should there be security at such functions?
• Who should be responsible for the costs of cleaning up the mess that the protesters make?

Yes to security and who cleans up the mess when the public visits the building or grounds nearby?

 

[Perknose]

Out of curiosity, was Richmond, VA wrong for charging the Tea Party for their gathering? If so, should Richmond recompense them?

The higher ground of whether either should have be charged is one thing, but on the more narrow legal point of why the Tea Party was charged and the Occupy people not, there this:

Occupy Richmond is a loosely organized group of individuals: it has not filed any incorporation papers that I know of. As a result, when the City of Richmond engages Occupy Richmond, from a legal standpoint it is engaging a multitude of individuals. The Richmond Tea Party is an incorporated, centrally organized group with a top down leadership style. Both organizations have the strengths and weaknesses of their chosen forms.

The strength of Occupy Richmond is its fluidity. Its weaknesses are its inability to quickly make a decision and act on it. Because it is an ever-changing group of individuals, legally the City of Richmond must act against them as individuals, as it did when it arrested several Occupy Richmond members on October 31, 2011. Occupy Richmond will "pay" for its occupation of Kanawha Plaza through the individual fines and penalties--including jail time--incurred by its individual members.

The strengths of the Tea Party of Richmond include its centralized management, its ability to raise lots of cash--much of it from corporate donors, and its limited liability conferred by its status as a corporation. In exchange for certain fees and responsibilities, the Richmond Tea Party gets to be treated as a person for many if not most legal purposes. In exchange for all the privileges and rights that come with incorporation--including the special rights conferred by the Citizens United decision--a corporation also has many responsibilities. The Richmond Tea Party's weaknesses include the fact that it is required by federal, state, and local laws to file tax returns, reports, and other paperwork. Another weakness is that corporations are required to have addresses and registered agents for service of process. When the City of Richmond wants to engage in law enforcement against the Richmond Tea Party it doesn't have to raid its campsite at 1:00 AM--all Richmond has to do is send a registered letter.

It is clear from the comparison above that Occupy Richmond and the Richmond Tea Party are--legally speaking--very different things: like comparing apples to motor oil. And if these two groups are different in terms of what they are, so too are the laws they are alleged to have violated very different.

Certain individual Occupy Richmond activists have been arrested and charged with sleeping overnight in a public park. The City of Richmond is enforcing that law against the individuals who broke the law and refused to leave the park. The Richmond Tea Party appears to have fallen behind in its filing of tax returns and other paperwork. The City of Richmond is enforcing the laws that apply to the Richmond Tea Party as a corporation. Both Occupy Richmond and the Richmond Tea Party are being treated appropriately by the city in accordance with their different legal status as a group of individuals on the one hand, and a corporation on the other.

The Richmond Tea Party has enjoyed a few weeks of criticizing Occupy Richmond as scofflaws, but it appears now that the Richmond Tea Party may have broken some laws itself. I for one hope that the city's audit of the Richmond Tea Party is complete and thorough, because after all, we have to apply the law equally to everyone and the The Richmond Tea Party shouldn't think it deserves special treatment.

 

[fskimospy]

• Should there be security at such functions?
• Who should be responsible for the costs of cleaning up the mess that the protesters make?

So you want to require people to pay a bill before they can exercise their constitutional rights.

Are there any other rights that you believe we should bill people for? Executing warrants costs a lot of money in police time, court time, etc. Should we send a bill to anyone's house who denies police the right to search their property without a warrant? If not, who should be responsible for the costs this person has forced on the government?

 

[Zebo]

We are talking about liberals here which means someone else is supposed to pay for the services they consume, duh.

I've seen the President shut down whole towns, freeways, and thus commerce in towns just to get campaign donations at $15,000 dinners and that's not even a constitutional right like freedom to protest is. Sorry, Freedom costs money. Look at defense spending. This charging protesters is Anti American AFAIC.

 

[Obsoleet]

We are talking about liberals here which means someone else is supposed to pay for the services they consume, duh.

Oh no. A little paper money being spilled by liberals.
As opposed to the clean air and water right-wing corporations have destroyed.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by dmcowen674
So WWYBYWB (Who were you before you were banned) from Wisconsin?

Wow, is that your assumption, is that how you operate? I actually came looking for technology information and instead found liberal progressive rhetoric in it's place.

Have you checked Europe lately? Progressives have done such a fine job there.. How about Detroit? Chicago?

Your liberal agenda only enables people to remain enabled, but I think that is the point, now isn't it?

Paid political shills have been outted on here before.

You arrive just in time for the next Presidential election cycle, you bet I am skeptical.

As Focker says "I have my eyes on you."

 

[cybrsage]

The higher ground of whether either should have be charged is one thing, but on the more narrow legal point of why the Tea Party was charged and the Occupy people not, there this:

Thanks, that would be a legitimate reason for the difference...but can you provide a link to that quote?

 

[monovillage]

The higher ground of whether either should have be charged is one thing, but on the more narrow legal point of why the Tea Party was charged and the Occupy people not, there this:

You are quoting someone or some group, but no attribution, where is the quote from? Anything about the City of Richmond retaliating by auditing financial records against the Tea Party because they dared to question the city ?

 

[EagleKeeper]

So you want to require people to pay a bill before they can exercise their constitutional rights.

Are there any other rights that you believe we should bill people for? Executing warrants costs a lot of money in police time, court time, etc. Should we send a bill to anyone's house who denies police the right to search their property without a warrant? If not, who should be responsible for the costs this person has forced on the government?

No one is stopping people from their constitutional rights nor making them pay for such.

It is when a GROUP of people plan to come together in a way the requires external security that that GROUP should cover the cost of providing that security.

And if a GROUP creates excessive costs to the public by their actions; they should be required to cover some portion of those costs.

Using your straw man; many courts impose fees on people to cover such costs to the public.

 

[Macamus Prime]

Damn union thu,.. oh, wait.

It's the very government (who most of you praised as busting up inappropriate union practices), doing something inappropriate.

//thumbs up

 

[Perknose]

Thanks, that would be a legitimate reason for the difference...but can you provide a link to that quote?

My bad: http://www.the-richmonder.com/2011/11/richmond-tea-party-above-law-demands.html

You are quoting someone or some group, but no attribution, where is the quote from? Anything about the City of Richmond retaliating by auditing financial records against the Tea Party because they dared to question the city ?

There's plenty from the Tea Party itself which presents it that way, "because they dared to question the city."

This guy outlines the legal protocol under which the city has acted.

The ultimate truth of what's going on here remains in doubt, though, at least for me. I can see where the Tea Party can feel unfairly retaliated against. If true, that disturbs me.

It's just that in this thread, there was not one mention of the seemingly solid legal basis for the actions of the City of Richmond, just endless re-quotes of the Tea Party's side of things.

Here, I'll re-quote some of what I previously posted from the link above, so as to again illustrate the key legal difference for treating the two groups differently.

Occupy Richmond is a loosely organized group of individuals: it has not filed any incorporation papers that I know of. As a result, when the City of Richmond engages Occupy Richmond, from a legal standpoint it is engaging a multitude of individuals. The Richmond Tea Party is an incorporated, centrally organized group with a top down leadership style. Both organizations have the strengths and weaknesses of their chosen forms.
The strength of Occupy Richmond is its fluidity. Its weaknesses are its inability to quickly make a decision and act on it. Because it is an ever-changing group of individuals, legally the City of Richmond must act against them as individuals, as it did when it arrested several Occupy Richmond members on October 31, 2011. Occupy Richmond will "pay" for its occupation of Kanawha Plaza through the individual fines and penalties--including jail time--incurred by its individual members.

The strengths of the Tea Party of Richmond include its centralized management, its ability to raise lots of cash--much of it from corporate donors, and its limited liability conferred by its status as a corporation. In exchange for certain fees and responsibilities, the Richmond Tea Party gets to be treated as a person for many if not most legal purposes. In exchange for all the privileges and rights that come with incorporation--including the special rights conferred by the Citizens United decision--a corporation also has many responsibilities. The Richmond Tea Party's weaknesses include the fact that it is required by federal, state, and local laws to file tax returns, reports, and other paperwork. Another weakness is that corporations are required to have addresses and registered agents for service of process. When the City of Richmond wants to engage in law enforcement against the Richmond Tea Party it doesn't have to raid its campsite at 1:00 AM--all Richmond has to do is send a registered letter.

Personally, this whole issue gives me great pause, both on this narrow legal difference and especially on the larger question of balancing the costs of any protest against citizen's right to protest.

It reminds me of the poll tax, which Southern states used to use as yet another barrier to poor blacks attempting to vote. That was eventually ruled unconstitutional.

I don't know if the City of Richmond is primarily hiding behind a legality in order to play political favorites, and neither, at this point at least, do you, despite what you may suspect.

If they are, I can't support that at all.

In my previous post, I merely provided one man's explanation of the underlying basis in law and procedure for Richmond's actions, which had been totally absent in this thread up until then.

 

[monovillage]

Thanks for the complete reply Perknose, it's appreciated.

 

[cybrsage]

EDIT: Day Late, Dollar Short

 

[fskimospy]

No one is stopping people from their constitutional rights nor making them pay for such.

It is when a GROUP of people plan to come together in a way the requires external security that that GROUP should cover the cost of providing that security.

And if a GROUP creates excessive costs to the public by their actions; they should be required to cover some portion of those costs.

Using your straw man; many courts impose fees on people to cover such costs to the public.

I was unaware that being in a group would change this, specifically since the right in question is the right of assembly to petition the government. Since you can't assemble without being a group, I fail to see why the status of being a group would be relevant here. (are you trying to say that a group doesn't have a right of assembly?) If people could only assemble if that assembly paid a fee to the government, they are most certainly being charged to exercise their constitutional rights. Again, can you provide me with other rights that you believe should be billed?

Additionally, I would appreciate it if you could provide me some links to cases where the courts have imposed a fee on a suspect for refusing to consent to a warrantless search. Oh, and what I wrote isn't a straw man.

 

[EagleKeeper]

interfere with the right right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances

The issue is when a group gets to the point that security is needed/required, is it a peaceful assembly? The public should not be forced to bear the costs.