Occupy Arrest Warrants Submitted to DA

Please, please let Robert Kahn-job and Becky Whackjob be on the arrest warrant list!!!

the Wishful Thinking DBS wrote:

Please, please let Robert Kahn-job and Becky Whackjob be on the arrest warrant list!!!

Not a chance! They are all wind and no fire. However, had they been serving FREE food, dope and booze, BJ might have waddled on down.

DBS wrote:

Please, please let Robert Kahn-job and Becky Whackjob be on the arrest warrant list!!!

Wishful thinking. BJ and the Kahn-job only "advocate" (i.e. provide lip service) and do nothing substantive to support any of the causes they claim to "endorse". We can take heart in the knowledge that BJ and the Kah-job alienate the community at large and sway public opinion against their "pet projects".

but if you look on Indycrap and BJ's crackpot blog, there's photos of Kahn-job INSIDE the Bank!!!

wouldn't THAT be hilarious if the SCPD used that to arrest him!!!

DBS wrote:

but if you look on Indycrap and BJ's crackpot blog, there's photos of Kahn-job INSIDE the Bank!!!
wouldn't THAT be hilarious if the SCPD used that to arrest him!!!

That would be... poetic justice. If the DA can't prove that the Kahn-job participated in the actual trashing of the building, perhaps he could be charged under one of the conspiracy statutes. There's plenty of Norse's own inflamatory words that could be used to that end.

I just love Roberts comment on the original Patch article page.

He says the police chief is "near libelous" by showing the picture from Indybay (taken by photographer Bradley Stuart) which clearly shows Robert at one of the occupiers meetings in the illegally occupied bank building while they are possibly plotting their next move. Libelous how? Will Robert start backpedaling and say he was only visiting the building and not there out of solidarity and fraternity with his comrade protesters? Will he say he was really not one of the protesters? Will he throw the others under the bus and announce he was only there as a "member of the press"?

The excuse as to why he was there in the building will be interesting and surely reveal his devotion to the cause.

Craig wrote:

I just love Roberts comment on the original Patch article page.
He says the police chief is "near libelous" by showing the picture from Indybay (taken by photographer Bradley Stuart) which clearly shows Robert at one of the occupiers meetings in the illegally occupied bank building while they are possibly plotting their next move. Libelous how? Will Robert start backpedaling and say he was only visiting the building and not there out of solidarity and fraternity with his comrade protesters? Will he say he was really not one of the protesters? Will he throw the others under the bus and announce he was only there as a "member of the press"?
The excuse as to why he was there in the building will be interesting and surely reveal his devotion to the cause.

Didn't he say on Indycrap that he was there as a "Journalist"?

Except he's even less "educated" than his bellowing blubberhag, having dropped out of his junior year.

BJob was just making another deposit. HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Craig wrote:

I just love Roberts comment on the original Patch article page.
He says the police chief is "near libelous" by showing the picture from Indybay (taken by photographer Bradley Stuart) which clearly shows Robert at one of the occupiers meetings in the illegally occupied bank building while they are possibly plotting their next move. Libelous how? Will Robert start backpedaling and say he was only visiting the building and not there out of solidarity and fraternity with his comrade protesters? Will he say he was really not one of the protesters? Will he throw the others under the bus and announce he was only there as a "member of the press"?
The excuse as to why he was there in the building will be interesting and surely reveal his devotion to the cause.

All one has to do is read the Kahn-job's posts on Indybay and elsewhere to understand his involvement in the OSC movement and their subsequent "activities" in the bank building.

aBard wrote:

BJob was just making another deposit. HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Or receiving a deposit?

Craig wrote:

I just love Roberts comment on the original Patch article page.
He says the police chief is "near libelous" by showing the picture from Indybay (taken by photographer Bradley Stuart) which clearly shows Robert at one of the occupiers meetings in the illegally occupied bank building while they are possibly plotting their next move. Libelous how? Will Robert start backpedaling and say he was only visiting the building and not there out of solidarity and fraternity with his comrade protesters? Will he say he was really not one of the protesters? Will he throw the others under the bus and announce he was only there as a "member of the press"?
The excuse as to why he was there in the building will be interesting and surely reveal his devotion to the cause.

I have no doubt that Norse will try to use the "journalist" defense if he is charged. Norse is clearly visible in the picture on Indybay, but he sure doesn't appear to be doing much journalistic: No camera, no microphone, no notepad.

DBS wrote:

<quoted text>
Didn't he say on Indycrap that he was there as a "Journalist"?
Except he's even less "educated" than his bellowing blubberhag, having dropped out of his junior year.

If he didn't have a trust fund, he'd be living under a bridge and begging BJ for handouts.

Buzz wrote:

<quoted text>
If he didn't have a trust fund, he'd be living under a bridge and begging BJ for handouts.

Hand-what????

Donny B wrote:

<quoted text>
Or receiving a deposit?

whatsherface receives.

Donny B wrote:

<quoted text>
Hand-what????

Wash. Rinse. Repeat. Wash. Rinse. Repeat...... whatsherface and those damned spots!

As I see it, the Police and DA have a problem. First, the building was not "broken into." Occupiers apparently used a key. Second, the building was not posted "no trespassing" so those who entered the building were not breaking any law. Finally, there was little damage done to the building. The only report I've heard is of paint on a room divider and on the elevator door. Nothing broken or trashed.

You say the building was owned by an out of town landlord who is on the Forbes 400 list? Why the HELL do we allow this absentee landlord to leave a building like this unused for years at a time with the ridiculous asking price of $28,000 a month rent?

this is blight. NO DOUBT this billionaire is using the tax right-off of $28,000/month to offset huge profits elsewhere in his portfolio. why do we allow this? why is the City Council lining up to support this billionaire scumlord?

Becky Johnson wrote:

As I see it, the Police and DA have a problem. First, the building was not "broken into." Occupiers apparently used a key. Second, the building was not posted "no trespassing" so those who entered the building were not breaking any law. Finally, there was little damage done to the building. The only report I've heard is of paint on a room divider and on the elevator door. Nothing broken or trashed.
You say the building was owned by an out of town landlord who is on the Forbes 400 list? Why the HELL do we allow this absentee landlord to leave a building like this unused for years at a time with the ridiculous asking price of $28,000 a month rent?
this is blight. NO DOUBT this billionaire is using the tax right-off of $28,000/month to offset huge profits elsewhere in his portfolio. why do we allow this? why is the City Council lining up to support this billionaire scumlord?

It would be poetic justice if the picture you posted of Norse/Kahn gets him charged, tried and convicted. Will you bring him one of you chiffon pies while he's in stir?

Becky Johnson wrote:

As I see it, the Police and DA have a problem. First, the building was not "broken into." Occupiers apparently used a key. Second, the building was not posted "no trespassing" so those who entered the building were not breaking any law. Finally, there was little damage done to the building.

Hey Lardass, does that mean you've decided it's NOT against the law to enter any building with a stolen key, because there isn't a "No Trespassing sign?

Let me steal the keys to YOUR hovel, walk right in and start painting. And that's OK, because you didn't post a sign.

This is from the whackjob that said the FBI shpuld be called over a pear in her tailpipe.

DBS WRITES: "...does that mean you've decided it's NOT against the law to enter any building with a stolen key, because there isn't a "No Trespassing sign?
Let me steal the keys to YOUR hovel, walk right in and start painting. And that's OK, because you didn't post a sign."
BECKY: My "hovel" is not empty and unoccupied. If the key was stolen, then charge the person for theft. In fact, I'm not sure the key wasn't left behind when they left the building. It probably was.'
Finally, its Feb. 8th and no one has yet been charged. Not exactly and open and shut case, is it?

Hey crackpot, nobody cares if you're sure about something or not.

Just like you're "sure" that teachers earn $824 A day.

The fact still remains that the PRIVATE PROPERTY was ILLEGALLY ENTERED with a stolen key.

Your screwball opinion does NOT exempt you from Property Law.