Occupy Arrest Warrants Submitted to DA

Dec 29, 2011 Full story: Patch.com 372

Santa Cruz police have identified 13 demonstrators suspected of taking over and vandalizing a vacant Wells Fargo building on River Street in November and have submitted their names to the county district attorney's office.

Full Story
First Prev
of 19
Next Last
DBS

Sunnyvale, CA

#1 Dec 30, 2011
Please, please let Robert Kahn-job and Becky Whackjob be on the arrest warrant list!!!
Buzz

United States

#2 Dec 30, 2011
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.
Donny B

Fairfax, VA

#3 Dec 30, 2011
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".
DBS

Santa Cruz, CA

#4 Dec 30, 2011
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!!!
Donny B

Fairfax, VA

#5 Dec 30, 2011
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.
Craig

Newark, NJ

#6 Jan 2, 2012
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.
DBS

Santa Cruz, CA

#7 Jan 2, 2012
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.
aBard

Santa Cruz, CA

#8 Jan 2, 2012
BJob was just making another deposit. HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Donny B

Fairfax, VA

#9 Jan 2, 2012
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.
Donny B

Fairfax, VA

#10 Jan 2, 2012
aBard wrote:
BJob was just making another deposit. HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Or receiving a deposit?
another_voice

Felton, CA

#11 Jan 2, 2012
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.
Buzz

United States

#12 Jan 2, 2012
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.
Donny B

Fairfax, VA

#13 Jan 2, 2012
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????
aBard

Santa Cruz, CA

#14 Jan 3, 2012
Donny B wrote:
<quoted text>
Or receiving a deposit?
whatsherface receives.
aBard

Santa Cruz, CA

#15 Jan 3, 2012
Donny B wrote:
<quoted text>
Hand-what????
Wash. Rinse. Repeat. Wash. Rinse. Repeat...... whatsherface and those damned spots!

“Pearls before swine”

Since: Mar 08

Santa Cruz, CA.

#16 Jan 22, 2012
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?
Buzz

United States

#17 Jan 22, 2012
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?
DBS

Cupertino, CA

#18 Jan 22, 2012
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.

“Pearls before swine”

Since: Mar 08

Santa Cruz, CA.

#19 Feb 8, 2012
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?
DBS

Benicia, CA

#20 Feb 8, 2012
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.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 19
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Santa Cruz Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Teens left Westside park when gang members show... (Apr '10) 10 hr Donny B 427
Aryan Nations recruiting again in northern Idaho (Apr '09) 12 hr homeless person 338
Rip Curl signs lease for Rittenhouse Building i... 19 hr Donny B 3
Is the person who wrote this nuts? Wed John Colby 11
Archive for Jim Spring posts (Dec '13) Wed John Colby 877
cfabsc (Jan '14) Wed John Colby 585
Cyberbullying to sexting: Santa Cruz class an '... Wed DBS 29
Santa Cruz Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Santa Cruz People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Santa Cruz News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Santa Cruz

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 7:23 am PST