Again:

*

1. Emergency Finance Proposal: This concerns the $20,000 OWS donation. We propose that until we finalize the OO bank account, the lawyer, Mr. Fong, will hold it in a trust fund. This would be accessible by 3 people on the finance team. This money would be allocated for bail and medical support as our capacity allows.

* Clarifying Questions and Answers
o When the money was first donated, what was it to be used for? – OWS specified that it be used for legal and medical aid.
o Which bank will the trust be in? – Wells Fargo. I understand that people aren’t comfortable with that, but this is a time sensitive issue.
o Can other options be considered? – Yes, but it takes time to transfer funds to a credit union. We need to help people in jail now.
o Is there a deadline or a maximum amount of time we would allow the money to stay in the Wells Fargo trust fund account? – I had to go to Sacramento to file papers with the state to declare OO as an unincorporated association. We are waiting for that to be finalized. It would take no more than two weeks for this process to be finalized so that we can open an account in a credit union. (More information regarding the trust fund Mr. Fong is describing http://www.iolta.org/grants/)
o Pros
+ We need to go ahead and do this.
+ This is time sensitive! People are in jail and need help!
+ OWS wants us to put this money to good use.
+ We have a priority to keep people safe.
+ Cons
# We shouldn’t wait until arraignment. We should get them out now, and not wait for bail to be lowered.
# Money shouldn’t be used for medical and bail needs. We have daily operations that need to be addressed here at the camp.

I just want to remind everyone of what the proposal says. The money is earmarked for medical/legal use from OWS. That is the stipulation.

* You can only bail one person out with that money. We need to deepen our relationship with the National Lawyers Guild. We need to stage demonstrations and mobilize to get people out of jail…we need to be careful about just giving our money to Babylon.

VOTING RESULTS

97.7% Approval: THIS PROPOSAL HAS PASSED.

Yes: 162

No: 8

It would have saved some trouble simply to quote them, which I would have done had I been able to moderate 24/7 as usual.

Really.

Whether it "satisfies" is another issue altogether.

unless you want to characterize the police actions on October 25/26 and November 2/3 as police riots.

Hundreds and hundreds of them.

All over the world.

if they can set up a trust fund at Wells Fargo, why can't they set up a trust fund at a credit union? The whole issue of getting status as a non-profit is a canard.

That's a misreading of the minutes. The minutes say

I had to go to Sacramento to file papers with the state to declare OO as an unincorporated association. We are waiting for that to be finalized. It would take no more than two weeks for this process to be finalized so that we can open an account in a credit union

[Presumably "I" is Mr Fong, the attorney.]

They're not “setting up” a trust fund at Wells Fargo—or at least the minutes don’t say that; I'd surmise that the attorney, Mr Fong, has a trust account at Wells Fargo—he is holding the money in trust until Occupy Oakland is registered as an unincorporated association. Presumably Occupy Oakland has to be registered as some recognized legal entity to have an an account somewhere—otherwise the credit union or other financial institution is holding the money in the names of the people who opened the account, not in the name of Occupy Oakland. Could Mr Fong have set up a trust account at a credit union? It depends if the particular institution qualifies as qualifies as an eligible institution but my guess is Mr Fong probably already has an established trust account at Wells Fargo or he knows that Wells Fargo qualifies as eligible (or both). In any event, the funds are just being held there until the two weeks pass and Occupy Oakland is registered as an unincorporated association.

I can imagine few aspects of anything having to do with the Occupy movement that warrant less attention than this holding of funds, especially on an extremely short-term basis, in a trust account.

There's a very very good chance no credit union can handle a business account.

I don't know for sure, since I'm not there. But our local credit unions can't accept business accounts, so for my small business, I have to use one of the evil ones. Or only accept cash. Which I would do if people paid me in cash, but they don't.

So if someone is sitting there holding $X on behalf of someone else, it is in everyone's interest that the money go somewhere where no single person controls it. This is precisely what banks were supposed to do---be a place where you could stash your cash so no one single person can abscond with it.

Wells-Fargo is a surprise, and not just for it's bankster-yness. Wasn't there something about money laundering going on with them? Yes, I could look it up and that would mean doing a search and I have coffee to drink.

Yes, it would have been nice if they had opened an account at a small institution, but life isn't perfect. Maybe this attorney had a relationship with the people at the local branch (I do and it does make a difference) that meant getting the account opened with the right set up for those involved.

I'm not excusing, just offering an alternative view that makes sense to me.

YMMV, natch.

Tall poppies get cut down, but rhizomes spread and spread. irresistably, and cutting them up just makes more of them. Horizontal scaling!

The history of the 20th C is full of very bad outcomes from revolutionary vanguards that led to millions of deaths. No vanguards!

Quote:

It's probably best for all concerned that you don't feel any solidarity with Occupy Oakland.

Ah. A revolutionary vanguard. Alrighty then. So much for horizontal scaling.

Maybe I've come off wrong before.

It's not at all fair to write off Occupy Oakland, or even to phrase it that way. Being seen as condoning vandalism (which I don't think Occupy Oakland is responsible for) may be a problem (jury out), using Wells Fargo is head-shaking and can't have pleased OWS that donated them the money (like really, wtf?), but hell, the General Strike was awesome. Keep the faith.

What has happened here as you explain seemed the most likely explanation, with no nefarious motives involved, and of course it is just the type of thing to attract the attention of the MSM(Mainstream Smear Machine) to discredit the movement.

Kudos for doing what you did, and screw those who don't get it.

thank you for providing important support to an occupation. thank you for stepping into the breech when no one else would, or could, whichever the case may have been. thank you for putting human lives and safety above pr. and how cool is it that a corrente poster did all this? way cool.

As I keep saying, I have huge RL issues, and I'm not moderating with my accustomed vigilance and timeliness. So I'm making this comment later than I ought to be. But thanks for doing this.

I was wrong to slag you and I apologize. The minutes were skeletal which is my only excuse. I appreciate your work and your openness and always your comments here too.

... after I requested them on a previous thread. When RL permits, which should be soon, I will certainly circle back to them, never fear. Since I did notice that you only posted a link, and not extracts or analysis.

As for "why they are so insistent," assuming, arguendo, that they are, why do you think? Or do you just prefer to leave the question hanging?

I, for one, don't "jump all over" Occupy Oakland. I "jump all over" violence and vandalism advocates because I think their analysis is sloppy, and that they damage the Occupations, which I want to thriv.. And that's before we get to the question of police infiltration.

So, unless you can point me to the GA resolution supporting violence and vandalism, please don't identify attacks on those tactics with attacks on Occupy Oakland as such.

It's generally useful to at least try to listen to and understand other people's point of view, something that can be very difficult or impossible in a hit-and-run environment such as we often find on the internet.

I think most of us are well aware of your opinion of Black Bloc tactics, but when you first started in on the topic, apparently you didn't even know what Black Bloc was.

It's always good to check our assumptions and try to find out more...

Sometimes it's wiser not to say anything about a topic when one only has sketchy information or assumptions to go by. I know that all too well, having fallen into the trap of commenting from ignorance myself. More than once.

While I'm not an Anarchist, neither am I an authoritarian.

I expect people to be able to think for themselves, to think critically, and to be able to find information and make their best judgement about what they find -- without being told what to think or even how they should go about the task of finding and considering information. On the other hand, if I have pertinent information, I will usually try to share it. But sharing information is neither a directive to believe it nor is it advocacy.

It's information.

But then, as we know, views differ.