<p>This article has some great points especially about gerrymandering but I would caution all Occupy to look beyond the small number of people that can physically attend your GA&#39;s and the GA&#39;s that continue to alienate Affinity groups. The camps are dead let Occupy grow.</p>

<p>Since we strongly object to the way the 99 Declaration wants to take care of a National General Assembly, we ought to have a more detailed plan of our own for how a National GA gathering would be formed given that the number of people able to travel to Philadelphia in July does not include everyone in every GA everywhere in the US.</p> <p>We could simply declare it a National GA of anyone and everyone who is able and willing to show up - just like we do local GA now. That&#39;s probably what&#39;s going to happen since it is too contentious and exclusionary to keep anyone out who showed up. What would this look like? Would it be mainly the people from the Mid-Atlantic for whom travel to Philly is easiest? Or would some subsidies be made available for people from further away without means to be able to join us here? Would there be a way to draw up a prospective agenda for the gathering in advance via phone calls and internet? Would there be a role of any kind for remote audiences to play in the proceedings? Would it be more a teleconference linking full GA&#39;s speaking to other GA&#39;s over video channels? Who is going to figure these things out and how much of this needs to be endorsed by OP? How much needs to be endorsed by other GA&#39;s? This could get cumbersome. It&#39;s better to work this stuff out now to reduce the noise over objections later.</p> <p>The 1st Regional General Assembly that is going on in Collegeville today was set up as a whoever shows up. The agenda was set by the organizers. Just reporting on the current state of GA&#39;s that are made up of people from different places.</p> <p>Do we need a working group for this National GA? We have a working group that organized a Regional Gathering last Saturday. That was my group: Philly Occupy Together. We consciously chose NOT to call it a Regional GA. It was a networking and information sharing event. We connected with a lot of new people in addition to our base. So it functions also as outreach. The other working group I&#39;m aware of that is most close to this function is the Committee of Correspondence. Do we need a call for volunteers for a planning and organizing task force to do the work of bringing to light a National GA in Philadelphia in July? Probably. It isn&#39;t going to organize itself.</p>

<p>Representatives from the 99% Declaration group were hoping to have a discussion which would lead to an endorsement from Occupy Philly for plans to hold a National General Assembly in Philadelphia on July 4th of 2012.&nbsp; Instead, in an unusual display of collective assertiveness, the GA voted to unaffiliate themselves with the group and any of its future events.</p> <p>[WHAT WAS THE TALLY OF THE VOTE AND WHY WERE OUR REPRESENTATIVES REPORTEDLY BLOCKED ANSWERING ANY QUESTIONS?]</p> <p>On Tuesday&rsquo;s General Assembly, representatives from the group, the 99% Declaration presented plans to organize a National General Assembly in Philadelphia and hold an online election of 890 delegates from all over the US who would vote on a list of grievances the current government would be asked to redress.&nbsp; During the questions and concerns part of the conversation, OP members presented information detailing the backgrounds and comments of three board members of the organization. In addition to these concerns, OP General Assembly attendees raised issues surrounding the selection of delegates and the current efforts to plan the national gathering.&nbsp; OP quickly weighed the evidence, and as a result of the overwhelming concerns raised by the group, the GA voted &ldquo;We do not support the 99% Declaration, its group, its website, its National GA and anything else associated with it.&rdquo;</p> <p>Who exactly is the 99Percent Declaration?<br /> The 99% Declaration is a national working group led by NY criminal defense attorney, Michael Pollok.&nbsp; The story on their website says that Mr. Pollok was contacted for legal representation after the arrests of 700 OWS protesters on the Brooklyn Bridge in NYC. Of the protesters, 20 or so are students from a small liberal arts college in upstate NY where Pollok resides.&nbsp; After meeting with them, he agreed to represent them pro bono.</p> <p>He then began drafting a list of grievances developed during conversations with them.&nbsp; The document he subsequently posted online is now known as the 99% Declaration.&nbsp; The website further states he later distributed about 400 copies of the declaration to Occupy Wall Street in Zuccotti Park.&nbsp; While there he gathered some people to form a working group at OWS.&nbsp;</p> <p>[THEY FAIL TO MENTION THAT WE ANNOUCED THE FORMATION OF THE WORKING GROUP TO THE NYGA SEE VIDEO OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT:http://youtu.be/Le5YI_QPPKk</p> <p>However, organizers from there have not acknowledged the group&rsquo;s legitimacy, as noted in heated discussions posted on the NYC GA website.<br /> [FALSE: WE FOLLOWED MORE THAN ALL REQUIRED PROCESS TO BECOME AN #OWS WORKING GROUP]</p> <p>Two days after his visit to Zuccotti Park, the story was picked up by the Huffington Post and the Global Grind after locating the draft document online.&nbsp; Immediately, the story drew national attention.&nbsp; The news reached Philly immediately, as OP was contacted&nbsp; by reporters for comments on the matter. It seemed mysterious that an event like this was being coordinated without first consulting any of the key organizers at Occupy Philly.&nbsp; Similarly, the large scale media attention given to a presumed OWS group amid reports of a National General Assembly in Philly raised a lot of concerns from key organizers at OWS, especially from those working in the Demands Working Group.&nbsp; A dispute ensued about the group&rsquo;s authority to use the OWS name for a proposal that had not been passed in their GA. Shortly after, the 99% Declaration was deemed by OWS, not an official working group. This caused their leader, Pollok, to make the following statement,</p> <p>&ldquo;OWS is a failure and there is no backup plan.&nbsp; it is antidemocratic and censors people outside of the narrow agenda of the small elite oligarchy that runs it; I have been down there and I saw them in action; they are a star chamber made up of anarchists and other antidemocratic movements who want everything and nothing. it cannot succeed; it has consumed it&rsquo;s own oxygen and now the flame is out what a waste. we will press on with the nationwide election of delegates to a National General<br /> Assembly&rdquo;</p> <p>&ldquo;this is an anti-democratic movement and we withdraw our support.&rdquo;</p> <p>[I DO NOT DENY MAKING THESE COMMENTS RIGHT AFTER ONE PERSON UNILATERALLY DELETED OUR WEBPAGE ON THE NYCGA WEBSITE. I WAS ANGRY AND REGRET THE COMMENTS. GA&#39;S ARE DEMOCRATIC BUT THEY ARE ALSO OLIGARCHICAL IN NATURE WHEN THEY SPEAK OR SET POLICY FOR MORE THAN THOSE IN ATTENDANCE ON ANY GIVEN NIGHT]</p> <p>Despite their tumultuous relationship with OWS, the group continued to develop its plans and formed its own nonprofit, The 99% Declaration Working Group, Ltd.&nbsp; The board members include founder Michael Pollok, a former white collar crimes criminal defense attorney who ran for Congress in 2009; [I AM STILL A CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER AND REPRESENT PEOPLE ACCUSED OF CRIMES JUST LIKE THE DOZENS OF PEOPLE IN #OWS THAT I HAVE COUNSELED FREE OF CHARGE.&nbsp; YOU ALSO FAIL TO MENTION THAT IN 2005 I WAS HONORED BY A PROCLAMATION FROM THE NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL FOR PROVIDING PRO BONO LEGAL SERVICES TO INDIGENT AND UNDERSERVED POPULATIONS IN NEW YORK CITY. I DID NOT &quot;RUN&quot; IN AN ELECTION FOR CONGRESS; WHEN GOVERNOR PATERSON APPOINTED KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND TO THE SENATE TO FILL HILLARY CLINTON&#39;S VACATED SEAT, THE CONGRESSIONAL SEAT IN MY DISTRICT WAS LEFT OPEN, I ALONG WITH 30 OTHER PEOPLE WERE ASKED TO SUBMIT OUR NAMES AND RESUMES TO BE CONSIDERED TO FILL THE SPOT WHICH WAS EVENTUALLY FILLED BY SCOTT MURPHY ]&nbsp;</p> <br /> <p>Nancy Marcus Newman, whose father Steve Newman was involved in a bribery scandal with Vince Fumo; [THIS IS DISGUSTING. HOW DARE YOU IMPUNE NANCY&#39;S CHARACTER BASED UPON SOMETHING HER DEAD FATHER MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE DONE. YOU HAVE LOST ALL CREDIBILITY WITH THIS SICKENING &quot;SINS OF THE FATHER&quot; ATTACK]</p> <p><br /> Adeline Malone, a former VP at Goldman Sachs [20 YEARS AGO. SHE WAS ALSO AN ATTORNEY FOR THE IRS WHO SPECIALIZED IN NOT FOR PROFIT ORGANIZATION AND SHE DID ALL OF OUR LEGAL WORK PRO BONO]</p> <p>Kevin Archambault [WORKS WITH NON PROFITS AND THE MENTALLY HANDICAPPED].&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <p>The comments made by Mr. Pollok, coupled with the background of the board members were enough to set off red flags in the beginning of the GA discussion.&nbsp; [THIS IS REALLY AMUSING COMING FROM SOMEONE WHO SIGNS THE ARTICLE ANONYMOUSLY]</p> <p>The 99% Declaration claims they have over 10,000 fans on FB [FALSE, WE HAVE 5000 ON ONE PAGE AND ABOUT 900 ON ANOTHER; THE ORIGINAL WEBPAGE ON GOOGLE SITES HAS MORE THAN 260,000 HITS]</p> <p>who vote on various things, help plan the event, and are coordinating the election of candidates. Though when asked, the representatives at the OP GA could not articulate how their FB voting works nor could they identify the people on the delegate selection committee. [WHY NOT JUST VISIT THE FB PAGE OR CALL ME BEFORE WRITING THIS PHONY UNSIGNED ARTICLE?]</p> <p>They communicate through 3 different Facebook pages and 2 websites (one of which has curiously been taken offline).&nbsp; Its not clear if these fans are affiliated with Occupy Movements or if they are random people who are not connected to any communities.&nbsp; Nevertheless, its important other Occupy sites be informed that both OWS and OP have officially unaffiliated themselves from this group and its activities. [EVERYONE IN THE 99% IS &quot;AFFILIATED&quot; WITH THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT IF THEY CHOSE TO SO AFFILIATE, THIS IS A BASIC PREMISE THE WRITER DOES NOT SEEM TO GRASP AND COMMON AMONG A SMALL FACTION OF PARANOID OLIGARCHS WHO RUN SOME OF THE LOCAL GA&#39;S]</p> <p>You want to elect people, HOW?<br /> Aside from the group&rsquo;s questionable history, the 99% Declaration also had serious problems with the plan they presented, especially the methods proposed for delegate selection. The 99% Declaration is proposing 890 [WRONG] delegates (2 from each of the 485 Congressional Districts and Puerto Rico, DC, and the US territories) be elected via an on-line voting system to come together in Philadelphia on July 4, 2012 to vote on a list of grievances to be addressed by our current government.&nbsp; The first issue is that this is not representative or direct democracy. [WRONG; I SUGGEST TAKING POLISCI 101 AT YOUR LOCAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE]&nbsp; It reenacts the current failed system of representation. [WRONG, YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE NOT READ OR UNDERSTOOD THE DOCUMENT WHICH DOES NOT SURPRISE ME GIVEN THE BIAS IN THIS &quot;ARTICLE&quot;]</p> <p>99% Declaration representatives were asked, &ldquo;When so many protesters feel the structure of our democratic system is broken, why would we endorse a plan to work within that system?&rdquo;&nbsp; After all, if there is a revolution in this town, then why would anyone bring forth a proposal to operate within the same corrupt framework of government to represent our movement? Its contrary to OP&rsquo;s vision of creating a new system.</p> <p>Secondly, the proposed use of Congressional Districts as a measure of representative allocations was not well received.&nbsp; Many informed occupiers were knowledgeable of the criticism against Congressional Districting methods.&nbsp; [THIS IS BEING DONE FOR LEGAL REASONS PLEASE READ THE HISTORY AND CASE LAW ON THE USE OF THE PETITION OF GRIEVANCES] They are often used&nbsp; for the packing and splitting of concentrations of voters to weaken or strengthen influence to gain partisan advantage, resulting in tactics known as gerrymandering. Members of Congress essentially get to draw lines around their own districts and choose what populations they want to vote for them.&nbsp; This ensures that incumbents keep their positions and makes it difficult for newcomers to get elected.&nbsp; These practices have sparked a current movement to reform the border lines for each districts by changing legislation to mandate the district lines be drawn by an independent commission. [GERRYMANDERING IS ONE OF THE SUGGESTED GRIEVANCES AND SOLUTIONS IN THE 99% DECLARATION WHICH YOU HAVE SO INEPTLY MALIGNED DUE TO LACK OF UNDERSTANDING AND COMPREHENSION]</p> <p>One man and one woman should be elected as delegates from each district, says the proposal.&nbsp; This is problematic because it eliminates the possibility of a trans-gendered person running for office without having to identify as a man or a woman.[WRONG-MORE IGNORANCE; PEOPLE WHO IDENTIFY AS MALE OR FEMALE OR BOTH, REGARDLESS OF BIOLOGY, MAY RUN FOR EITHER SEAT]&nbsp; This type of gender designation further marginalizes this group.&nbsp; If one were a regular participant at OP, you would know there is a pretty active trans population who have been very vocal about the daily discrimination they encounter by gender designations.&nbsp; They face discrimination from organizations like SEPTA who use gender designations in their transpasses, fare cards used for public transit.</p> <p>Perhaps the most alarming part of their plan for a national delegation is the requirement that each delegate submit their social security number and undergo a criminal background check. [THIS HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED; IF YOU ARE ELECTED TO SERVE AS DELEGATE A CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK WILL BE RUN FOR INSURANCE PURPOSES AND DELEGATE SAFETY TO EXCLUDE PEOPLE HOW HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF A VIOLENT FELONY OFFENSE WITHIN THE PAST TEN YEARS; IT DOES NOT APPLY TO PEOPLE WHO ARE MERELY CONVICTED OF A CRIME-VIOLENT FELONIES ONLY]&nbsp; The rationale is so that the 99% Declaration can verify identities and eliminate infiltrators who might attempt to be elected as delegates. [FALSE AND DEFAMATORY-WHICH IS WHY THIS ARTICLE IS PROBABLY UNSIGNED]&nbsp; The OP legal collective quickly informed them collecting social security numbers in this way is illegal [UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY LAW WE CANNOT REQUIRE IT BUT WE CAN REQUIRE A BACKGROUND CHECK FOR THE AFOREMENTIONED REASONS]. Very illegal. [WRONG]&nbsp; When asked where the numbers would go and who would collect them, they were unable to answer. This is pretty scary considering this idea was cooked up by a team of &ldquo;lawyers.&rdquo;&nbsp;&nbsp; Understanding the growing prevalence of identity theft and surveillance, the idea of giving SS# to unknown individuals and undergoing criminal background checks is downright crazy.</p> <p>Delegate requirements also say that only US citizens registered to vote can be delegates.&nbsp; This means that immigrants and those who don&rsquo;t have the documents needed to be registered voters are excluded.&nbsp; [CORRECT THAT IS WHAT WE VOTED ON EARLY ON] Finally, persons convicted of violent offenses within 10 years are also not eligible to become delegates, which would disproportionately affect people of color in urban areas. [LEGAL REASONS EXPLAINED ABOVE] When these concerns were raised, the representatives seemed callous in their responses.&nbsp; There was a disinterest to commit to changing the proposal and little empathy for our feelings of being misinformed. In sum, their attitude and ignorance to discriminatory practices alienated more than it unified.</p> <p>Backed by Reasonable Solutions and Mayor Nutter<br /> Perhaps the final nail in the coffin for the 99% Declaration was the fact that they met with Mayor Nutter&rsquo;s staff, including the deputy director, Richard Negrin on the day of Occupy Philly&rsquo;s eviction.&nbsp; [THIS IS FALSE, WHEN WE MET WITH THE MAYOR&#39;S STAFF THE EVENT HAD ALREADY HAPPENED] According to their representative, they met with city officials to inform them of this National GA, get their backing, and give them the heads up for anticipated increased security due to thousands of visitors. In a post on an on-line forum, the 99% Declaration also mentioned following up with the Mayor&rsquo;s office to see if they would participate in a joint press release about the event. The fact that they met with the Mayor was exacerbated by the fact that the meeting occurred on eviction day, [FALSE] the same day over fifty of our friends were arrested by the same &ldquo;security&quot; force that would be on hand during their event on July. [WE ASKED FOR A PERMIT TO WALK FROM THE VENUE TO INDEPENDENCE HALL TO SIGN THE PETITION.&nbsp; THE POLICE WILL PROVIDE TRAFFIC CONTROL AND SECURITY AS IN ANY MARCH]</p> <p>A common argument made by Occupy Philly members is that the City of Philadelphia went overboard with the large police presence they assigned to watch them peacefully protest.&nbsp; Occupy movements across the country are all drawing attention to the militarization of US police forceswho are almost always sent in large numbers to intimidate and suppress protesters. Approaching the Mayor to discuss security for this event is totally inappropriate because it will ultimately result in increased arrests for protesters via a large police presence.</p> <p>A representative from Occupy Philly would have briefed the 99% Declaration representatives on divisive nature of our relationship with the city, if they had been invited to the meeting.&nbsp; Unfortunately, they were not. [ONLY OUR NOT FOR PROFIT BOARD MEMBERS ATTENDED THE MEETING NEITHER OP NOR RS WERE INVITED AND YOU FAIL TO MENTION THAT I CAME AND SPOKE TO THE COCO MEETING THAT NIGHT] The group was not only meeting with the city, but also with the ousted group, Reasonable Solutions.&nbsp; This is the same splinter group from OP who publicly denounced the GA process and the decision to stay at Dilworth Plaza.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; If the 99% Declaration wishes to duplicate a General Assembly by calling for a national gathering, then why would they align themselves with a group that has denounced this same process?&nbsp; Because they have that in common.&nbsp; Michael Pollok also denounced OWS. [MY SENSE OF THE PEOPLE AT RS IS THAT THEY ARE SEEKING REAL IMPORTANT CHANGE WHILE THE PEOPLE AT OP WHO I SAW AT THE COCO MEETING WASTED AT LEAST THREE HOURS SQUABBLING OVER PETTY ISSUES THAT HAVE NO BEARING OR ON THE 99% MOVEMENT]</p> <p>Affiliation is not a good idea<br /> Judging by their actions, either the 99% Declaration is completely out of the loop with what&rsquo;s going on at Occupy Philly, or this is a deliberate attempt to co-opt our movement and use it for their own political agenda. Its hard to take seriously a group who uses an icon of George Washington on an American flag, since his image represents the old imperialist colonial principles this country was founded on. [WE DISAGREE AND BELIEVE IN AN EVOLVING AND LIVING CONSTITUTION]</p> <p>The dirt is piled high against this group.&nbsp; For that reason, OP cannot put themselves at risk for associating with them. They seek to organize a National General Assembly, but do not respect the decision making process of local GAs which empower them all to decide when and how they organize a national gathering for their movement. Its difficult to get support for a proposal when their attitude is that they will proceed with their plans no matter what OP decides. [WE ARE NOTHING EXCEPT A FACILITATION GROUP THAT WILL PROVIDE AN OPEN AND TRANSPARENT ELECTION OF DELEGATES AND A VENUE-WHAT THE ELECTED DELEGATES DO WITH THIS OPPORTUNITY IS UP TO THEM]</p> <p>Their proposed plan has a lot of flaws, which could be improved if they were open to feedback. Its clear they are not open to making changes that would end discriminatory election of delegates, create a new system for collective governance, or end their friendly relationship with the city and police. Even if they did, it would still be hard to endorse a group whose leader has publicly denounced OP&rsquo;s allies at OWS. [AGAIN, YOU FAIL TO MENTION THAT I DROVE FOUR HOURS TO PHILLY TO MEET WITH THEIR COCO AND SPOKE FOR ABOUT 20 MINUTES AND TRIED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS BUT WAS NOT GIVEN ANY TIME TO DO SO]</p> <p>Preceding the vote of no support, the GA discussed values they shared in the movement.&nbsp; Occupiers expressed values of equality, inclusiveness, and transparency.&nbsp; Its no wonder they voted not to support a group who proposes processes that exclude and discriminate. The power that they hold as a general assembly is their ability to weigh evidence, think critically, and assert collective decision making.&nbsp; The 99% Declaration was perhaps not prepared for such an intelligent,&nbsp; [INTELLIGENCE AND CRITICAL THINKING IS NOT SOMETHING OP HAS TO WORRY ABOUT]</p>

<p>The article made strong points... most of&nbsp;which members of the 99% Declaration&nbsp;have answered.&nbsp;&nbsp; I don&#39;t speak for the 99% Declaration group. I only speak for myself.&nbsp;&nbsp; I am disappointed that misunderstandings and OVEREACTIONS to those misunderstandings between Michael Pollock and Leaders of OWS (notice I did not say the OWS group at large&nbsp;...yes I said leaders ... I have cheered the Occupation since it started but never fully believed that there weren&#39;t any... call them&nbsp;&quot;facillitators&quot; if&nbsp;you wish) have lead to putting Occupy groups in the middle.&nbsp; Occupy groups stand in solidarity with OWS for good reason.&nbsp; They are ground zero for their movement.&nbsp; I also understand they are dependant on OWS to help with money - you never bite the hand that feeds you.&nbsp; I challenge Occupy facillitators and members at large to not add wood to the fire but practice the peace that you preach and try to help mediate the differences between these two &nbsp;groups that so desparately want THE SAME THINGS. I personally don&#39;t see why&nbsp;anyone needs an&nbsp;endorsement to do something&nbsp;they are so passionate about.&nbsp; We should be the change we want to see. We should just do it. If OWS wants to kick the 99% out do to difference views about process and the right kind of democracy , and &quot;what had happened or didn&#39;t happen&quot; then fine... but we should learn to coexist peacefully.&nbsp; We want the same things.&nbsp; Why are progressives always eating their young????</p>

<p>pollock has been ousted by his own board for fraud and he in turn claims he fired the entire board. their website is not under the control of its members, but of pollock. they are simply teabaggers seeking to subvert and use the movement. we have NO area of overlap: they want to use the current system, we want to tear it down as it is corrupt; they want to keep money in politics and form their own PAC, we want pacs abolished. they want to endorse candidates, we do not. add in that they are illegally using the tax code as a non profit, and i am glad we have yet another vote to ignore them for the liars they are.</p>