Single dad trying to take back home occupied by OWS

[hack89]

Occupy Wall Street protesters announced with great fanfare last month that they moved a homeless family into a “foreclosed” Brooklyn home — even though they knew the house belonged to a struggling single father desperately trying to renegotiate his mortgage, The Post has learned.

OWS leaders and Brooklyn Councilman Charles Barron, an OWS supporter, met with Ahadzi before the press conference to discuss the future of his property, he said. Ahadzi hoped that the group would help him regain his footing.

“Why can’t you fight for me?” he asked them.

“They told me I don’t qualify,” he said. “So my lawyer asked what the qualifications are. [They said] I have to be with an organization and they’ll deal with the bank and you have to be homeless.

“They said they couldn’t help me,” he added.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/ows_home_invasion_z9ApqDP6Q0boFviq8CjvAL

This is pretty fucked up.

[Broderick]

1. I agree

On many different levels too.

[RKP5637]

2. Agree! "This is pretty fucked up."

[cantbeserious]

3. Who To Believe?

eom

[hack89]

4. Is there another side to the story you can present? nt

[Broderick]

5. Good question

[Aerows]

30. Sure

Can you post a source that isn't either Rupert Murdoch run or a right winger site?

Please don't sit there and claim that Murdoch and Murdoch controlled media are not known to twist the truth, or outright tell lies.

[hack89]

32. If you need time to find some actual facts, just say so. nt

[Aerows]

41. YOU posted it

YOU provide some evidence.

And YOU really should offer some reason why you are so opposed to OWS if you don't want people to question your history of extreme bias against the movement, and pretty much doubt the credibility of such posts.

If I posted material that constantly was anti-Democratic, or anti-Obama, I'd expect people to not exactly take me seriously if I posted yet another thing that was anti-Dem. You know?

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. I just ran the article on the google

Here is where it is.

Conservative News

FNC

NYP

Sorry, but this sounds like Debka creating a story line. Standard thing in explosive things like this is... WHO the fuck is running it? When you have no others picking this up, it usually means that there is more to the story than what FNC is presenting.

Just in case you have forgotten Murdoch is still in the midst of a scandal in the UK for making up the news and breaking privacy laws. And the FBI is looking at them for some of the same shit.

That is just a tad of dot connecting to you, not that it will matter to you.

Look, you always have to look beyond just it is on the web... m'kay

[hack89]

62. So you are categorically saying the story is false?

ok - I understand your reluctance to dig too deep.

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. No actually what I did is dig deep

I am just telling you that there is a LOT MORE to that story than FNC or New York Post is telling you.

Digging really deep means CALLING this father and asking some pointed questions... Since I am in San Diego, and we rarely do stories outside the county (though we are right now)... well I have to call the Sheriffs on a guy who escaped after murdering somebody on Tuesday. That be in San Diego County.

But word of advise, anytime you see any explosive story that is NOT picked outside a series of publications owned by the same owner, that raises some questions. The exception to this rule are Reuters and AP, since they are picked up by like everybody and their sister.

Will give you an example since I used Debka as an example, We are working on a story involving Syria. Debka, which writes some creative news... mentioned a base on the Latakia mountains for Bashar el Assad and his cronies. Ok... that sounds interesting, even half way plausible. When I did a deep google search I got one FB page claiming same... after that BUCKUS... you think I believe Debka on this? They have a history of creative writing... though they are good for fiction ideas, I will grant you that.

FNC has a similar problem, especially after it's problems in the UK. And the NY Post is known to be creative with their news. Remember News of the World? They have similar issues.

[hack89]

137. And I will have to simply take your word for it? Don't think so. nt

[jberryhill]

145. Why not?

You take a second hand quote from BoA at face value, when you are perfectly capable of looking at the title record for the property in question yourself.

[hack89]

148. Nadine is arguing secret knowledge she appears to be reluctant to share

"I am just telling you that there is a LOT MORE to that story than FNC or New York Post is telling you."

So why is she unwilling to tell us the rest of the story? Perhaps because she pulled it out of her ass?

[jberryhill]

157. You are asking me about someone else's behavior?

I wasn't appointed den mother.

However, a statement from BoA indirectly quoted in the Post is not what I consider to be authoritative either.

[hack89]

179. Cerridwen has document that BoA bought his mortgage the year before he started foreclosure. nt

[Cerridwen]

183. Cerridwen has a document that alliance mortgage bought

the mortgage which you said banks don't buy.

If the foreclosure proceeded as usual, they bought it in 10 of 2008 then sent a 60 day notice to vacate which puts them about 2009.

[nadinbrzezinski]

161. Don't take mine

look at what cerridwen found

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=172481

Now those are hard facts that don't require anybody to check, And what I told you on how you deal with explosive information is standard journalistic practice, not a secret, or part of a secret society.

[hack89]

176. Cerridwen confirmed what BoA said - they hold his mortgage.

they purchased it the year before foreclosure.

[nadinbrzezinski]

177. Hence, let's connect dots here very slowly, LEGALLY this guy

has no claim to it. See how that works and why the Post pulled that story out of it's ass?

Good.

We are done...

If you cannot understand this, I really cannot help you, I suspect you do not want to understand, but that is another story. You are, as it's been noted, on an Anti OWS warpath. Look on the bright side, I am disgusted with this place (not about OWS) right at the moment. And quite frankly have a story that is tragic, but at least not in rabbit holes, to pursue. So quite frankly, at this point I really do not particularly care how many ways from here to Sunday you try to prove to the world that OWS is an ugly anti obama conspiracy, probably funded by the Koch brothers.... I am sure you'd believe that. I forgot they are also collectivist, socialists and communists too.

Have a good day.

[hack89]

194. But we are talking about a small 2nd mortgage. Lets talk about the large first mortgage.

the one that has been conveniently overlooked.

[nadinbrzezinski]

196. As I said, bye

you are on a crusade and take Murdoch's word for it, good luck with that.

1.- Reporter has a history of writing biased stories re OWS

2.- The NYP has a history of writing creative fiction in general.

3.- Explosive story staid within the universe of Murdoch Media

Have fun with that...

Yes, there is a far out chance that like stuck clock they gave you all the facts and have a hot story... but they do not have that reputation.

I guess if Murdoch printed that OWS ate a child you'd believe it too...

There are news papers in this country that run yellow journalism and that are not usually trusted for anything... the Post is one of them.

So good luck with that, and you keep posting stories that ONLY run on the POST... that happens to have that reputation.

By the way, I will admit it. I read the post... for the same reason I read Debka... STORY and in FICTION story ideas.

[hack89]

198. So now the mortgage is not important? Got it. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

201. What part of he does not own title or have claim

are you missing? The property was foreclosed in 2009.

If you want to take the word of a paper just above the National Enquirer, that for the record has actually broken some hard news... good luck with that.

The rest of us are free and clear to question your source from here to sunday, as well, at this point, as your motives.

[hack89]

202. Not according to the official records

nothing has been provided to show foreclosure.

I have shown that there were two mortgages - you choose to focus on the much smaller 2nd mortgage and ignore the first one. The large mortgage of $339,000 has not been sold or transferred.

I have shown that the deed for the property has not been transferred to BoA.

And I have provided a quote from BoA saying they are not the owner.

[nadinbrzezinski]

203. and public records say otherwise

have a good life, welcome to my ignore list. I really do not have time to take your hand, and at this point I am CONVINCED you will believe the NY Post when they run the inevitable, murder tied to OWS, or drug trafficking or what have you. And they will. You are DESPERATE to believe anything bad about them, and I mean anything... since they will not play your games. So like Randome, join him.

Good bye, and good luck in the General. Some of us will be busy covering actual history, while you keep them partisan glasses on.

[hack89]

204. I linked to the 2 public records that Cerridwen conveniently overlooked.

from the same source.

[Cerridwen]

185. alliance purchased it in October of 2008.

What followed should have been a notice of sale followed by a notice to vacate. That would have put them about 2009.

Of course, if the nypost says it happened in 2009 I'd start checking that out, too.

But, as previously noted, my time today is limited.

[hack89]

190. I notice you are not talking about the 1st mortgage for $339,000. Why is that? nt

[girl gone mad]

238. He purchased the property for $440,000..

but it's worth only $150,000.

Do you believe this "day trader" wants his grossly underwater property back?

What has he done to show a good faith desire to live in the home?

He moved out years ago, enrolled his children in schools in another neighborhood. He did nothing when the police initially called him to tell him about squatters.

This a pretty crappy attempt to smear OWS, honestly. The dude is not credible and the Post is not credible. OWS is right to try to help out Ahadzi's old neighbors by renovating the property he (and/or the bank) left vacant and abandoned.

[hack89]

239. OWS is right - once someone is fucked by the big banks they simply need to accept their fate.

what's the point of fighting against the system - it is foolish to think anyone can take on the big banks. Oh wait - isn't that what OWS is all about? Fixing the system and righting wrongs?

What bunch of hypocrites. And there are the enablers like yourself that immediately attack the only victim in this story - the guy who lost his house.

[girl gone mad]

241. How was he fucked by the big banks?

Is he alleging foreclosure fraud? Did his mortgage broker forge documents? Did the loan agent lie to him? Does he actually have a legal argument here?

This guy appears to have walked away from his house. Smart move on his part, and one that I fully support. But since he left, the property has been neglected. Occupy did the right thing here, start to finish. They have nothing to answer for.

[hack89]

244. So OWS made a hard-nosed, pragmatic decision that the guy did not deserve his house back?

sounds like some bankers I know.

Do you agree that the housing bubble was a huge scam concocted by Wall Street to siphon off billions of dollars of the public's money? And that there were many innocent victims caught up in it? Except this guy of course - he got what he deserved I take it?

[girl gone mad]

246. They will be damned if they do and damned if they don't, in your eyes.

The critics complain that OWS is just lazy kids trying to get free stuff.

Here OWS has done the right thing to try and restore a blighted neighborhood and to help a homeless family. There is really nothing they can do for Ahadzi. He will never get the house back unless he can demonstrate crimes were committed by the bank (and even then, the odds would be stacked against him). His mortgage is simply too far underwater.

The banks would have Ahadzi strapped to this mortgage forever, if they could. I was one of the people who vociferously supported strategic defaults from the very beginning of the housing crash. Ahadzi defaulted so he did get what he deserved: freedom from an unbearable debt load on a grossly inflated property. If he just wants a free house, he should go see Oprah. That's not what OWS is about.

[hack89]

248. He appears to be the legal owner of the house - that counts for nothing in OWS eyes? nt

[girl gone mad]

250. If Ahadzi is the legal owner of the house, he will not be for long.

Ahadzi stopped paying years ago and the foreclosure process is well underway.

If he wants the house, he needs to make an effort by sending in payments or by fighting for the property in some manner. By abandoning the house and letting it rot, renting in another neighborhood, enrolling his children in schools in another neighborhood and ignoring police calls about squatters living in the property, Ahadzi has demonstrated that he is not interested in making this his home.

[randome]

251. OWS is lousy with tactics.

But I think you're right about this.

[hack89]

252. So OWS only fights for certain types of people? How do you get on their list?

So there is time to stop the foreclosure - right? The Bank could work with him - right? Except he has no one powerful to fight for him and OWS just stabbed him in the back.

[SomethingFishy]

174. LMFO... but you'll take the word of the NY Post...

So NY Post good.. DU bad... Got it.

[snooper2]

243. "But word of advise" - you meant "But word of advice" (You got good editors right?)

[Joe the Revelator]

6. This is why movements need leaders.

OWS is such a clusterfuck. Disappointing.

[Aerows]

7. I knew who posted this before I even opened it

You've been anti-OWS with a passion. I genuinely wonder why. Anything you can think of to smear the protests, make snide comments about it, or generally display disapproval with OWS, you do so with zeal.

Care to explain why you have such an extreme bias against OWS?

[hack89]

8. So you support what OWS did to this man?

lets stick to the facts instead of smearing the bearers of unpopular messages, shall we?

[Aerows]

22. It's not a smear

to ask what your motivations are in constantly bashing OWS. Do I support this? No, and it harms the movement - if it actually happened as stated. This is a Murdoch run publication, after all.

Questioning your motivations, however, seems pretty reasonable. Just what do you have against OWS as a whole, this incident notwithstanding?

[hack89]

29. I think OWS is pissing away the opportunity of a lifetime

there is an election coming up and they are doing everything in their power to make them selves irrelevant. We need their help electing Democrats to office. Shit like this or "fuck the police" parades are stupid and damaging.

[Aerows]

33. So you post stuff from a right wing site to convince democrats?

A RUPERT MURDOCH site, that would do ANYTHING to smear anything remotely liberal? LOL. Excellent strategy.

Again, why do you hate OWS? I don't believe all of this "Fuck the Police" parade business that right wingers and rw media and sites spew.

Why do you, and why would you want to do something to support the RW?

[hack89]

40. Feel free to post some actual facts anytime now. You are starting to flail a little. nt

[Aerows]

42. LOL

Can't answer a direct question so you go on the attack and accuse me of exactly what you are now doing? LOL.

Nice try.

[Joe the Revelator]

63. Seriously, do you have any facts to back up your view that this isn't fucked up by OWS?

[jberryhill]

70. Yes, there are facts within the story itself

If you critically examine them.

See my post downthread.

[Aerows]

74. It doesn't tell the whole story

EDIT: Excuse me, I responded because I thought you were responding to me. Later, I realized you were responding to the other person. I'll let this stand because it is my opinion, but know that this isn't directed at you since I have later discovered my mistake.

There is a LOT of spin going on here. I'm not going to take the word of a Rupert Murdoch rag and a clearly anti-OWS poster that this article is all there is to the story, and neither should any thinking person.

Bias is bias. If this is the truth, I will condemn the actions of this part of the group. Don't expect me to condemn the entire movement, however, with a broad brush as the OP has attempted to do. It's a movement with many actors and no clear leaders. I don't condemn all Democrats on the basis of one Democratic party affiliate's actions, so don't expect me to do that here, either.

It shocks me that on the word of one very anti-OWS poster there are those eager to condemn the entire movement. Sorry, I won't be doing so any time soon.

[jberryhill]

78. The key tip-off is in the story itself

"desperately trying to renegotiate his mortgage"

He's been "desperately trying to renegotiate his mortgage" for four years?

Really? He's still trying to "renegotiate his mortgage" after foreclosure has completed and title belongs to the bank?

That's the steamy essence of something rising up out of that bouquet of words.

[Aerows]

93. Yep

He's suddenly come out of the fog several years later, and frankly, it looks like he's just trying to capitalize off of the publicity any way that he can. Naturally, the NY Post doesn't care about whether or not it's true as long as it pushes a Murdoch point of view.

[coalition_unwilling]

113. The key tip-off for me is the venue (NY Post), a Murdoch

vehicle notorious for its infidelity to the truth.

Shame on the OP for posting this drivel here.

[AverageJoe90]

120. Hmm....thanks for the heads-up.

I was starting to think that this was a genuine screw-up by OWS, but now I'm starting to think otherwise.

[nadinbrzezinski]

75. fact have been posted by several people here

and we all took different angles, You might want to read the thread.

[Aerows]

77. I don't think anyone has facts based upon

and article from the NY Post, since they tend to lie and distort the truth. If someone posted something from Fox News condemning Obama, I'd be equally skeptical, as should anyone else.

[Zhade]

58. If you think that's what OWS should be doing, you don't understand OWS.

We're not interested in enabling a broken and corrupt system where both parties fuck the little guy and gal over.

That explains why you hate on OWS so consistently -- you don't get it.

[hack89]

60. So should OWS actively oppose the reelection of President Obama?

are those of us that support Democrats and their campaigns the enemy of OWS?

[nadinbrzezinski]

79. Show me evidence they are doing that.

No serious. NOT WORKING on his campaign does not mean they oppose it. IF they were working for oh RON PAUL... you'd have a point. They are NOT endorsing any NATIONAL candidate... and they may, don't count on it, endorse a local candidate. Even that... pigs fly.

[hack89]

101. Look at the post I am replying to. Obama is part of that corrupt system is he not? nt

[Aerows]

109. It's FAR bigger than Obama

This didn't start with Obama, and it won't end with his re-election, either. We need to raise consciousness about the issues facing our nation and that is beyond Party-A and Party-B. The discourse needs to change from that of being an opportunist-inclined nation to that of one that cares about everyone in our nation, and not at the expense of the most needy.

Changing the discourse doesn't happen in a battle between politician A and politician B. It happens when everyone in the nation starts talking about issues. That's where movements begin, after all, and that's when politicians, political parties, and debates refocus on what is important to the American people.

[nadinbrzezinski]

114. I know you really are having a problem with this non partisan shit

but they are NON PARTISAN... and it is a critique of the SYSTEM...

Chiefly CITIZENS UNITED.

Right under, the BANKING SYSTEM and A NATIONAL HEALTH SYSTEM.

The day OWS endorses a candidate, the way it is working right now, I will eat my shoe. Not saying it could NOT evolve that way... but RIGHT NOW... no, not really. That does not mean they are the enemies of EITHER PARTY in the way you are thinking it.

[TheWraith]

116. We have a problem because that "non partisan shit" is just shit.

Declaring yourself "non partisan" when there's a choice between a party doing the best they can and one out to fuck the world is kind of like declaring yourself a pacifist for not taking sides between a mugger and a victim, and then patting yourself on the back for your moral purity. It is one big stinking pile of crap, and anyone with experience in politics should recognize that the trumpeting of "non partisan" causes is one more way of saying "let's decry politics while not doing anything at all to change it," another symptom of a simplified, low-information, and primarily outrage-driven view of government.

[Aerows]

118. It's not "shit"

To refocus the issues and keep bringing up the ones that important to many Americans. Look at what the movement has already done - it has moved the debate away from "OMG, BUDGET DEFICIT!" to more practical issues such as Wall Street accountability and reform.

The problem has been the conversation in political debate - most Americans could give two shits about the budget deficit if they can barely feed their families, keep their homes warm, and a roof over their head. They don't want to hear wealthy politicians talk about how they need to take personal responsibility when Wall Street got bailed out and is getting richer while politicians bicker about how deeply to cut them when they are already to the bone.

It's about CHANGING the DEBATE, not about changing the politician. Changing the politician is what political parties are for, and politicians are responsible for recognizing that the debate has changed.

Movements change the discourse and the debate. Partisanship is always about politics, problems are always about the problems themselves and recognizing them is achieved by discussing them, not ignoring them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

129. I can certainly understand why partisans (on both sides) may feel this way

By the way, here is a serious mistake you are making... I am willing to bet, from the OWSers I personally know, they are among the most politically aware and informed people I know. Low information is not precisely the term I would use. Now that is a term I would use with Tea Parties RIGHT NOW... and one reason the T Party is going away is precisely that these people are starting to realize how far they were used.

The problem for PARTISANS (on both sides) is that they cannot harness the energy in this social movement. And let's be honest, OWS is a direct challenge to the system... but that gets me into a whole different discussion. See my sig.

But I get it... why partisans (on both sides) feel that way.

If you want equivalents, well the Bonus March is a good example. They were non partisan either. Oh yes, before you say it, they got mowed by the army... and their camp was burned... but you know what? It was due to THAT that Americans became aware of a lot of shit... and you know what is even better? The New Deal is partly their doing. If they were at home starving to death there would have been zero pressure to do anything in DC... silly shit that happens with social movements.

You want to know ANOTHER non partisan movement? The Suffragettes...

Then there is the anti slavery movement...

Women's Rights, while right now mostly trending dem, did not start that way.

Civil rights, DITTO.

It is not my fault most people are quite ignorant of the damn arc... but I get it, why you feel this is just shit and wasted energy. Your predecessors felt the same way with many other social movements. I am so damn glad I am NOT a partisan. Makes looking at life not as a team sport much better. And this is particularly the case when it comes to politics.

[hack89]

154. So you support the idea of OWS as "a direct challenge" to the Obama presidency?

if they come out against him, what do you plan to do?

[nadinbrzezinski]

159. They are challenging the system... it is much bigger than Obama

or Beoehner or the Koch brothers.

This is what is giving you tummy aches, Suffice it to say THIS CYCLE... SOME OWSers will run for office, it's already happening. But you will NOT see any General Assembly endorse a candidate.

You may see them endorse a state wide petition though.

They are not being critical of the President, they are being critical of the SYSTEM. I know this is so hard to wrap YOUR HEAD around. And for that I feel sorry, I truly do. Perhaps some day, well after the dust settles, you will figure out how far they have already pulled the administration to the LEFT. And how much the running on a populist agenda is coming straight from OWS. But for that, you wil need to take off those partisan glasses I fear.

[hack89]

163. So when push comes to shove in a close election, we can count on OWS to help? nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

169. You can count on INDIVIDUALS

the movement is NON PARTISAN

Get over yourself, this has been explained to you MANY FRACKING TIMES. At this time I have to conclude you are incapable of comprehending that.

[girl gone mad]

215. Kind of ironic that you would make such a statement on MLK day.

[TheKentuckian]

253. You would have to admit that that your argument heavily relies on sharing

your perception of the dynamics at work.

I'm a Democratic voting, work the campaigns, donate money, preaching in the checkout line kinda guy but I ain't really buying it.

I don't believe the people with votes believe it at all. The victim does not want bipartisanship with the mugger and the little engine that could doint their level best wouldn't end up getting some of the worst pieces through or making others a consensus.

Largely, we are reduced to fighting for their old (and often rejected) ideas which they pretend (and are allowed to pretend) are unholy, unAmerican, and Communist because we like to pretend our policies aren't yesterday's crappy Republican policies, the media is super lazy and is designed to distort and distract, and the political memory of such things is about as long as that of a goldfish.

Implementing the conservative agenda in a less brash and sane fashion than the current crop of the Birch Society that is all the rage on the Reich isn't the best we can do nor is facilitating many of the worst acts in lockstep.
We fucking de-funded ACORN for crying out loud and didn't need a single TeaPubliKlan vote to do it.

That said, Poppy seems a saner choice than Romney, Nixon seems better suited than Paul, I'm more comfortable with Reagan over Gingrich, and hell if you wake me up in the middle of the night with a gun to my head I'd give shrub the thumbs up over Dog on man. So much the better Barack Obama and the Turd Way Syndicate but nothing like a tolerably better position, just better because of the depths of depravity of the eagerly still digging opposition.

As a former thinker along these lines for many years, it is my observation that what we are doing is making the situation worse, not as bad as I'd imagine the worst the TeaPubliKlans could muster-not as fast anyway and in a more demographically fair way along the path.
More than a dime of my money in difference for sure but completely unacceptable no matter how far beyond shitty the out fascist party is willing to go.

[hack89]

132. So they are useless to those of us working to get President Obama reelected. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

160. Actually they are not useless

but no, they will not be walking precincts, and if that is all you think involves politics, I feel sorry for you SOME OWSers will, but a GA will not endorse ANY candidate as of right now. Try taking those partisan glasses off for a minute. The world is not all about that.

[hack89]

164. But they will never actively oppose us? nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

170. They will oppose you in the same extend they will oppose Romney

and Mic Checks are fun.

(From a working reporter's point of view they are also quite the opportunity to get action photos)

[hack89]

175. So they will never Mic Check Obama. Good - so they are sort of partisan. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

178. You are late to that party

they already did

[Aerows]

81. It's not a relevant question

And by trying to make it one, you just show how you misunderstand the movement. It's so much deeper than one politician or one political party. Those that keep trying to cram it into a little container so that it can be used by one politician or one political party prove that they really don't understand what it is about beyond using it for their own ends.

[hack89]

104. So those of those who are partisan Democrats - what does OWS mean to us?

I am actively involved in a campaign - can I count on OWS to help?

[Aerows]

107. Not as members of OWS

Because it isn't a political movement. That's what I mean - it's not meant to be used for any particular person's own end.

What campaign are you actively involved in, if I may ask?

[joshcryer]

110. OWS will help simply by spreading a pro-99% message.

And I think you can count on that for the foreseeable future.

[Aerows]

122. exactly

And people need to wake up to that fact. You and I have disagreed on a few things, but on this, we are in absolute agreement. You can't change the politicians until you change what the issues are, and what is relevant to the political climate.

OWS has made the plight of the 99% noticed in the minds of the American people, which are the voters, after all. Before that, nobody gave a damn. This is an apolitical movement, but it will of course have political impact, and SHOULD. Politicians should be waking up and realizing that the American people are pissed - not about whether a woman has to make the horrible decision about whether to have an abortion, whether two people of the same sex are in love and get married, and whether children should be forced to study creationism in school.

The American people are pissed because our land of opportunity is being pissed away and handed over to the 1%, who won't even follow the rules they already have, much less the bullshit interpretations of "the rules" they want to enforce on every man woman and child in the 99%.

[WillyT]

123. Well... Thanks For Being Blunt... But If The Democratic Candidates/Party Want The Support Of OWS...

They should start by EARNING it.

Just sayin...

[BumRushDaShow]

25. This was done by an off-shoot group

http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/06/real_estate/occupy_movement_spreads/index.htm

OWS is a diverse conglomeration of folks with a myriad of grievances needing to be addressed. And different sub-groups seem to form to take on a specific problem to focus on and these will plan non-violent actions that they feel will begin to address the grievance... E.g., whether to "occupy" a bank, setup food banks for homeless, or march against state, local, federal government in support of a variety of things (union, public education, anti-war, etc). This sub-group apparently "occupies" previously foreclosed homes (and have apparently done so in a number of cities).

So one cannot just broad-brush the actions of an individual or subgroup with some negative banner because of what that subset did that you don't agree with.

Hell, as an AA, I get broad-brushed 24/7 by the lamestream media every time some knucklehead AA teenage punk knocks down a pedestrian and runs away - and then here come the gasbags on the air, insisting that this one incident was a "black problem".

[Aerows]

27. And it's the NY Post

Murdoch run. I'd take it at face value about as soon as I'd take Fox News or the World Nut Daily at face value.

[BumRushDaShow]

34. Well yeah, the New Yawk Boast

is the king of tabloids!

The rap group PE had a whole song dedicated to them - "A Letter to the New York Post".

"The worst piece of paper on the east coast"

[riderinthestorm]

10. I'm not anti-OWS at all. I think it's important we know stuff like the OP

if only to hold our own feet to the fire when there's a screw up.

Unless you have any other evidence that the father in the OP is somehow telling a bullshit story (do you?), I have to believe there's been a huge miscarriage of justice going on for the guy at the hands of OWS in this particular case.

Again, let me reiterate, I am a big supporter of OWS but I don't think covering up problems will help us

[Aerows]

26. It's a Murdoch publication

I think I'll wait until I hear it from a less controversial source before I leap to conclusions that it is 100% true.

I also think it is valid to question the motivations of a person that has so far proved to have an extreme bias against the movement.

[riderinthestorm]

52. Reading the rest of the thread has certainly provided a lot more to mull over. You're right.

We certainly don't have the full story here at all.

[Aerows]

84. Agreed

And thank you for saying that.

:hugs:

[Zalatix]

9. OWS made a mistake. Own it, stop it, prevent future such incidents, but don't piss on all of OWS!!!

[rbnyc]

49. +1 (nt)

[Spazito]

11. New York Post is a Murdoch rag...

I don't believe a damn thing that is printed there.

[hack89]

13. So the owner is lying about OWS? OWS can do no wrong?

do you have any real facts about the matter that are different from the OP?

[Spazito]

17. I did a search to see if this story could be found on any other news website...

and.....nada.

Yes, I have NO doubt the Murdoch empire would LIE about OWS, no doubt at all. The very concept of OWS is a threat to 1%ers like Murdoch and his enablers.

Do you have any facts that can be found outside of the Murdoch rag on this matter?

[hack89]

20. I am willing to wait until you have some actual facts. Take all the time you need. nt

[Spazito]

36. So, in other words...

there is NO other news website that can be found to have this 'story' on it. Thanks for backing me up on that!

One should not trust anything put out by the Murdoch-owned piece of crap known as the New York Post, imo.

[Aerows]

37. Um, no

We are waiting for you to link something that doesn't go straight to a RW rag or a RW site.

I would expect people to question me if I posted something from Fox News that seemed extremely damaging to any view that is "anti-corporatocracy".

[obamanut2012]

106. You cannot prove a negative

The onus is on the "accuser," which is you, to provide a source that isn't Murdoch. I can't find it anywhere else.

[hack89]

131. You will simply find another reason to not accept it - it is a clear pattern on OWS threads. nt

[RedCloud]

130. Why don't you wait until you have a non scandal rag source?

This happens way too frequently. RW smears whatever it can. Gullible snarf it up. You have not retreated one iota and blindly accept what they say.

How many times til folks get it? How many lies came out of RW rags in the past few years? 100? 1,000? At some point even the most naive have to say, "Well I finally learned my lesson!"

And have these smear rags ever "fixed" their lies completely?

That rag does not pass the credibility test.

[Hugabear]

188. I also ran a search for "Wise Ahadzi" - every single link ultimately goes back to right-wing sources

Without fail, every story I could find either linked back to the NY Post or UK Daily Mail, both right-wing smear sites.

[Spazito]

205. Yes, I am not at all surprised...

Using NYP as a source for anything other than rightwing propaganda is a fool's errand, imo. The same goes for the Daily Mail and Fox News network.

[tpsbmam]

68. Actually, people have provided information that make the story very murky. Moreover, you don't

acknowledge that the NY Post just downright effing lies....on a regular basis. It bothers me that you've continually stuck up for the NY Post story and can't even acknowledge that the fact that this story isn't covered anywhere but a couple of right-wing rags (I found it in the Daily Mail, UK, too -- another right-wing rag that often takes its stories from Murdoch papers). At least acknowledge that YOU may not have all the facts. You keep insisting others don't have "facts," yet you're basing your "facts" on a right-wing Murdoch rag KNOWN to lie, twist the truth, omit information not in-keeping with their right-wing twist.

This is like taking something that Newt said about Obama as FACT. The NY Post is an equally reliable source.

[LiberalFighter]

15. I agree. Don't trust what they print.

[laundry_queen]

12. Why did he move out?

I don't understand - he says he moved out shortly after foreclosure proceedings began. Nearly every TV news station has been bellowing "Don't move out until they kick you out since it can take years before the house is foreclosed on and sold.." So he moved out way too early, and had no idea that the house was still under his name. Then he finds out the house is under his name and OWS moved someone in and he's pissed. There's a few puzzle pieces missing here...

[hack89]

16. What do you think about the OWS theater involving the "homeless family" ?

The head of the family, Alfredo Carrasquillo, 28, is an organizer for VOCAL- NY, a group that works with OWS. His Facebook page shows him in a “99 Percent” T-shirt at an OWS protest in November.

The Post visited the Vermont Street home last week — six weeks after OWS announced that the Carrasquillos were moving in — and the family was nowhere to be found.

In fact, the only people occupying the house were occupiers themselves.

“They only stay here sometimes,” a protester named Charlie said of the Carrasquillos. “There’s not enough room for the kids.”

[salvorhardin]

14. There's one aspect of this story that troubles me

The guy claims he "lost his job as a day trader in 2009." I didn't realize people were actually employed to do day trading. I thought it was essentially highly risky self-employment at best. Admittedly, I'm not very knowledgeable about that kind of thing. On edit: Wiki says there are institutional day traders so I guess I'm wrong about that part.

On the other hand, it appears to me that OWS is using the poor family they claimed to be moving into the house as pawns in a public relations game. In other words, politics as usual.

[hack89]

19. I am not sure OWS is actually using that "homeless" family.

The head of the family, Alfredo Carrasquillo, 28, is an organizer for VOCAL- NY, a group that works with OWS. His Facebook page shows him in a “99 Percent” T-shirt at an OWS protest in November.

The Post visited the Vermont Street home last week — six weeks after OWS announced that the Carrasquillos were moving in — and the family was nowhere to be found.

In fact, the only people occupying the house were occupiers themselves.

“They only stay here sometimes,” a protester named Charlie said of the Carrasquillos. “There’s not enough room for the kids.”

[csziggy]

125. Wise Ahadzi in a bit of a mystery

There seem to be two in Brooklyn with that name - and one is the founder, publisher and CEO of WisePennyStocks.com. According to their website, "Wise Penny Stocks´ team of experts delve into the micro and small-cap world of stocks, searching for equities that are undervalued, yet show great promise of future growth."

This seems to fit with the "day trader" label of the guy whose house is in question. But he also seems like the sort that could be happy to work with a Murdock publication to discredit OWS.

[Historic NY]

18. Apparently people are trespassing in a house the neither own or claim they own legally...

call the police lock them out, charge them. Sooner of later in this the bank is going to come and do a lockout, a 4yr old foreclosure. The owner can neither sell it or pay for it. Whats interesting how they think thay can just claim it.

[niyad]

21. the only links I can find to this story are the post, freep, and another reichwing site

[Aerows]

23. Which is why I question the motivations

of the person posting it. This person has been a relentless OWS detractor. I think it is more than fair to question it and the motivations of the person posting it.

[BumRushDaShow]

28. See this link - this is an off-shoot group

http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/06/real_estate/occupy_movement_spreads/index.htm

[pintobean]

24. And DU

[niyad]

54. yes, quoting a reichwing site as its sole authority

[pintobean]

57. "the only links I can find"

I just noted what was omitted. I would imagine that freep, and the other right wing site link to the Post article, just like DU.

[Aerows]

117. But you still recced the post

I guess you must agree with the NY Post and the OP's take on it. It's entirely your business to do so, but I just figured I'd point out what was omitted.

[pintobean]

126. That's there for everyone to see.

Transparency. So I didn't omit it. Do you make a note of all your recs in your posts?

[Aerows]

171. I like bringing it to people's attention

that such information is available.

Usually when I rec a thread, I do mention it somewhere.

It's pretty revealing of people's thought processes when you take the opportunity to see who recommends posts, particularly ones quoting unreliable sources, as good posts.

[pintobean]

208. And it's interesting to me

to see who can rationalize theft. That's pretty black and white for me. I realize that it's pretty gray for many.

[Aerows]

210. Oh, I agree

Wall Street has perpetrated enough theft to last a life time, yet I still see people justifying it as though those who steal billions, destroy hard-earned pensions and destroy lives are more honorable than someone who robs a convenience store at gunpoint threatening someone's life.

Equating what Wall Street did with people that moved into a house owned by a bank isn't even a fair comparison, since the people that moved into this house didn't evict anyone - BoA did. This false outrage that they are "squatting" and "stealing" by occupying a house taken away and owned by a bank from four years ago is rather sickening, wouldn't you agree?

[pintobean]

212. It doesn't matter to me

who owns it. Occupy doesn't. It's not theirs. It's that simple for me. So, no, I don't agree and I'm not going to.

[Aerows]

213. LOL

I noticed you skirted the other points of my post, though.

Too many people have justified away Wall Street, defended them, and protected them while they destroyed families, lives and financial futures. I DO CARE if they are occupying a house owned by BoA, since it ultimately wasn't BoA's, either. BoA STOLE it from someone else by fooling investors into buying crap, coerced people into loans they shouldn't have gotten by lying to them, and then turned around and cried for a bailout from the taxpayers.

I care very much who owns it, and it isn't the financial institution that claims they own it by virtue of their wholesale theft from the American people.

Do you condemn the actions perpetrated by many actors on Wall Street to steal the pensions, homes and financial futures of Americans by fraudulently packing up securities that were crap and then getting them labeled as AAA so they could sell them and rob the public? Because if not, your self-righteous indignation about the definition of theft is hollow.

[pintobean]

218. My self-righteous indignation?

I simply stated my opinion. You obviously don't like the fact that I don't agree with you. I really don't care.

[Aerows]

226. Okay

We'll just agree to disagree.

Peace to you.

[Scootaloo]

31. It's the New York Post; What did you expect?

[handmade34]

35. fyi... from one month ago

occupy Brooklyn...

http://newspaper.occupybk.org/2011/12/16/updates-from-702-vermont-street/

[hack89]

38. Nice political theater

a political activist associated with OWS? They couldn't find a real homeless family?

[countryjake]

90. Whatever makes you think that the homeless can't be activists?

Seriously, you might try getting out more and just see what sort of people have become very effective movers and shakers in our country. Homelessness has affected practically every single segment of society and organizing to build solidarity and actually do something about it is very much a grassroots movement.

[hack89]

105. He was hand pick to say the right things

why didn't OWS fight to help the owner?

[Aerows]

112. Because the owner

is Countrywide (Now BoA), and has been for several years?

Why is this guy who is claiming it is his house's motive for speaking up now after he was foreclosed upon 4 years ago? Umm, he wants publicity, and if smearing OWS will get him a free house, he'll take it.

It's pretty plain on the face of things when you view the history of the property. He vacated the property years ago, it belongs to the bank.

[hack89]

133. Reading comphrension is important

from the OP:

But Bank of America, which has been in and out of foreclosure proceedings against Ahadzi since 2009, confirmed to The Post that he is still the rightful owner.

[Aerows]

168. And reading a reliable source is even more important

Property records have already revealed that the bank has owned it for four years.

If your source isn't credible, and the NY Post isn't credible by any stretch of the imagination, what difference does it make what that source says? They could say the earth is flat, and it wouldn't make it true just because they said they "confirmed" it.

[countryjake]

119. Occupy is fighting financial institutions like Bank of America...

not fighting to help them, that's why.

How do you know that Occupy did not approach the former owner, the guy yapping in that article, first, to see if he would like to make a statement by joining the action to occupy his former home? How do know that OWS didn't try to engage that man, but he turned them down?

And people are "hand picked" all of them time, during the course of social movements, such as union struggles or other types of community organizing, to be a speaker or to be spokespersons representing some action, specifically because they know how to express progressive ideals and can be clearly understood during public gatherings.

[hack89]

138. Why is the "homeless family" not living in the house? nt

[Cerridwen]

39. Interesting. Three years after he abandoned

the house and left it vacant, now he's upset someone else has it?

According to the Occupy reports at the time they took over the house, some of the neighbors reported the house had been used by "drug dealers" and those dumping their trash on the property. Some neighbors were happy to have a family there and the Occupiers were working to make the house habitable as it had apparently fallen into disrepair after being left vacant for 3 years.

I also find it weird that I can only find reports with this particular slant; most of which refer back to the nypost article; on obviously right wing sites.

Here are some snippets from which I garnered the above using non-nypost and non-r/w sites:

<snip>

The initiative comes after organizers temporarily halted renovations at the 702 Vermont St. residence when police threatened to evict volunteers for working there without a permit during the first week of occupation. Many organizers say the police don't have a legal basis for entering the home, and to date, there's no eviction notice posted for the residence.

<snip>

Berger said a stream of squatters had used the residence as a drug house since the home went into foreclosure three years ago, causing dismay among the block's homeowners.

"This house had been a problem in the past," Berger said. "There's huge excitement that there's going to be a family in the home."

<snip> from [link:blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/12/two_weeks_later.php|this link]

<snip>

Neighbors say that since Countrywide Financial foreclosed on the house three years ago, people have come to both loot the house and to dump waste in its yard. Bank of America, which bought Countrywide in 2008, now holds the mortgage.

<snip>

“These homes need to be filled with families that need them, that’s all there is to it,” Alfredo told MSNBC host Chris Hayes on his show last week. “This is not just about my family, this is about improving the lives of all families that are directly affected.”

Other residents of Vermont Street have expressed relief that a family will move in to the space they say brought instability to the neighborhood.

<snip> from [link:newspaper.occupybk.org/2011/12/16/updates-from-702-vermont-street/|this link]

The whole situation stinks. The spin also stinks.

It appears there is much more to this story than the nypost is reporting; approximately 3 years of back story being at least part of it.

edit for formatting

[Aerows]

44. "The spin also stinks. "

Well of course it does. It's Rupert Murdoch, and has been posted by a person that attempts to bash, smear or invalidate OWS every chance they get.

When something gets spun to the point where it's clear you aren't getting the whole story, then it's time to question the source and anyone pushing that version of events.

[hack89]

45. Why do you think OWS didn't support him though?

why did they pick a political activist that works with OWS? They may have valid reasons but it smacks of political theater.

[Aerows]

46. The whole NY Post article

smacks of political theater because it doesn't tell the whole story, and is of course, from the NY Post which is going to make sane people question its credibility in the first place. I certainly don't take anything from Fox News at face value, given their history of lies and distortions of the truth.

[Cerridwen]

47. First, the idea that a political activist

can't be a "real" homeless person, is kinda weird to me, hack89. I've worked with advocates-for-the-homeless who were, in fact, homeless at the time of their activism.

Next, you'd have to ask the OWS people; 1) did they know the owner, 2) did they talk to the owner, 3) if they knew him and talked to him, why did they make the choice they made?

I wasn't there. I don't know. I'm not even sure from reading what I've read what the complete story is.

Let's start with; did the owner in fact leave the house vacant for 3 years?

edited for more specific language

[hack89]

48. He may have. Perhaps he was desperate and felt he had no other options

I am sure it was a hard choice to make.

[Cerridwen]

50. I agree. That could very well be a reason;

one of many. It also begs the question, why is he now trying to move back into his home? What has changed?

There are a whole lot of pieces missing from this puzzle.

[hack89]

51. I thing he is simply angry that OWS is refusing to fight for him and his rights.

I am not sure that if OWS hadn't occupied this house he would have been attempting to move back in. But if OWS is going to fight for someone, why can't it be him? Why pick someone else instead of the family that was forced to abandon the house in the first place.

[Cerridwen]

53. Hell, I can think of tons of answers for

many of your questions. If I spew enough of them I might actually hit the target...or not. LOL

It'd be great if there were actually someone asking those questions and reporting the answers; preferably in a reliable news venue. I'm afraid we won't see those questions or their answers in a publication such as the nypost.

Maybe as time goes by more answers will come to light. Right now, it just looks like a smear job against the Occupy Movement; or at the very least, a convenient event to exploit.

Here's hoping we'll get more answers from reliable sources.

(let's see if I can make this one post without a freaking edit)

[jberryhill]

72. "refusing to fight for him"

His claim to the house is long time-barred.

The house was foreclosed years ago and is bank-owned.

There is nothing to "fight" for on his behalf here. Title has long passed, and his loan has been written off.

And you should know enough about the law to have sussed this out by now.

This guy didn't rise from the graveyard of legal claims on his own, he was exhumed. That should be apparent to you as well, given that his story seems to be something of an "exclusive". How did the Post get the scoop on this? Do you at all ask yourself that sort of question when reading the news?

[hack89]

135. "Bank of America ... confirmed to the Post that he is still the rightful owner."

But Bank of America, which has been in and out of foreclosure proceedings against Ahadzi since 2009, confirmed to The Post that he is still the rightful owner.

Police notified him in early December that the vigilante vagrants moved into his East New York digs, he said.

all of his belongings, including a stove, refrigerator and bedroom furniture, have been moved to the basement.

He has never given up. His stuff was in the house. The police seem to think he is the legal owner. The Bank says he is the legal owner.

[jberryhill]

76. You missed a clear bullshit line in the story

"desperately trying to renegotiate his mortgage"

Bullshit. Foreclosure was completed on this property years ago. There is nothing to "renegotiate". The bank has title.

He gave up on this and moved on years ago.

Where has he been living all this time?

[hack89]

136. Bank of America says he is the legal owner.

But Bank of America, which has been in and out of foreclosure proceedings against Ahadzi since 2009, confirmed to The Post that he is still the rightful owner.

[jberryhill]

139. Bank of America is not the county title office

Non-authoritative source, hack.

http://a836-acris.nyc.gov/Scripts/DocSearch.dll/detail?Doc_ID=2008102700199001

On edit: The most likely explanation here is that Bank of America stated it did not own the property, which is correct. The interpretation applied to that by your source is incorrect.

[Broderick]

140. Not sure, but is a bank always the title owner

if there is a mortgage? Not sure how that works to be honest. Just wondering.

[jberryhill]

142. No

If banks held title to mortgaged properties, then they wouldn't need foreclosure proceedings in order to obtain title.

[Broderick]

143. ok

[hack89]

151. That simply shows the mortgage was sold to another mortgage company - happens all the time

my mortgage has been sold three time since I have been in the house.

"ASSIGNMENT, MORTGAGE" is the tip off.

[Cerridwen]

187. Again, I'll ask, was your name removed each time the mortgage

was sold and/or transferred to another servicer?

[hack89]

197. Since no "ASSUMPTION OF MORTGAGE" document was generated, I suspect you are wrong about this.

The second document simply shows who owns or services the mortgage.

[girl gone mad]

216. Where is the evidence that he sought support from OWS?

This man appears to be a penny stock pump and dump clown. Hardly the type who would ally himself with Occupy Wall Street.

[hack89]

220. Why do you think the "homeless family" is not living in the house?

a little political theater perhaps?

[girl gone mad]

225. Let me guess:

you don't have any evidence to verify this claim, either, outside of the Murdoch rag you've already linked to, and if you respond to this post it will be with more baseless attacks on OWS.

[hack89]

230. So you have nothing - that's ok, you are not the only one. nt

[i_sometimes]

43. I found this which

is dated the 8th of December, also says home was vacant for three years.


http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-12-08/news/30492605_1_protesters-homeless-activist-multifamily-house


And a little more about this operation at LATimes dated 21st December

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/21/nation/la-na-squatters-20111222




And this about Ahadzi, day trader?


http://www.investorschatroom.com/about-us.php


Seems legit.

[otohara]

55. The NY Post is Fucked Up

they lie, a lot, everyday -

[pnorman]

56. Trust but verify. Mistrust but also verify.

I'm saving this thread for later intensive Googling.

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. Save you some... first page of search

http://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ix=hea&ie=UTF-8&ion=1#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=webhp&source=hp&q=Single%20dad%20trying%20to%20take%20back%20home%20occupied%20by%20OWS&pbx=1&oq=&aq=&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&fp=b587e610895c9762&ion=1&ion=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=b587e610895c9762&biw=1110&bih=555&ion=1

News for Single dad trying to take back home ...

New York Post
Single dad trying to take back home from Occupy Wall Street protesters

Fox News? - 46 minutes ago
Occupy Wall Street protesters announced with great fanfare last month that they moved a homeless family into a “foreclosed” Brooklyn, NY, home — even though ...
2 related articles
Single dad trying to take back home occupied by OWS - Democratic ...
www.democraticunderground.com/10021719841 hour ago – Single dad trying to take back home occupied by OWS. Last edited Sun Jan 15, 2012, 02:01 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1). Occupy Wall Street ...
Single Dad Trying To Take Back Home From Occupy Wall Street ...
www.foxnews.com/.../single-dad-trying-to-take-back-home-from-oc...46 minutes ago – Occupy Wall Street protesters announced with great fanfare last month that they moved a homeless family into a “foreclosed” Brooklyn home ...
Single dad trying to take back home from Occupy Wall Street ...
www.allvoices.com/.../11302962-single-dad-trying-to-take-back-ho...3 minutes ago – Occupy Wall Street protesters announced with great fanfare last month that they moved a homeless family into a foreclosed Brooklyn, N.Y., ...
Single dad trying to take back home from Occupy Wall Street - Swikflak
swikflak.com/.../single-dad-trying-to-take-back-home-from-occupy-...46 minutes ago – Single dad trying to take back home from Occupy Wall Street protestersFox NewsOccupy Wall Street protesters announced with great fanfare ...
Twitter Trackbacks for OWS Occupies an already Occupied home ...
topsy.com/.../p/.../ows_home_invasion_z9ApqDP6Q0boFviq8CjvALThey're occupying his home. ... Driscoll 'They took my place!' Single dad trying to take back home occupied by OWS - http://t.co/EzqoeLzS #ows #occupyseattle ...
Break out the 12 gauge- OWS steals single father's home & gives it ...
www.conservativecave.com › ... › Current Events › The DUmpsterSingle dad trying to take back home occupied by OWS Last edited Sun Jan 15, 2012, 02:01 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1). Quote. Occupy Wall Street protesters ...
News - New York Post - City Business
fortmyers.citybusiness.mobi/news/nypost/nyp-news/Single dad trying to take back home occupied by OWS They?re occupying his home. Occupy Wall Street protesters announced with great fanfare last month that ...
Single dad trying to take back home from Occupy Wall Street ...
www.mortgageworldsite.com/.../single-dad-trying-to-take-back-hom...1 minute ago – Single dad trying to take back home from Occupy Wall Street protestersFox News“They're trying to take a house and say the bank is robbing the ...
National Interest - Single dad trying to take back home from Occupy ...
us.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=26038&external...fmaSingle dad trying to take back home from Occupy Wall Street protesters. Jan 15, 2012 2:39 PM EST. (page 1 of 3) View Entire Story. They're occupying his home. ...
World News Headlines: New York Post - United States
www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/.../browse.headlines.php?ID=...49 minutes ago – Single dad trying to take back home occupied by OWS They're occupying his home. Occupy Wall Street protesters announced with great ...

[pnorman]

80. This pretty well confirms it. Thanks!

http://occupythe99percent.com/2012/01/single-dad-trying-to-take-back-home-from-occupy-wall-street-protesters/

[nadinbrzezinski]

82. No it does not

read the bottom, for the rest of the story go here...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/15/single-dad-trying-to-take-back-home-from-occupy-wall-street-protesters/

It is going back to a murdoch pub

Also read Cerridwen's post bellow this

[Cerridwen]

64. I checked the public records.

The guy who claims to be the owner, no longer has his name on the property. It looks as though it's bank owned.

I'm not sure how the info will show via link, so here is the link for the lookup. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dof/html/jump/acris.shtml

The first doc image is in Wise Ahadzi's name a mortgage in the amount of $84,900 http://a836-acris.nyc.gov/Scripts/DocSearch.dll/detail?Doc_ID=2007012501041003

The most recent doc image is in the name of MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC.
3601 HEMPSTEAD TURNPIKE LEVITTOWN NY 11756 US and ALLIANCE MORTGAGE BANKING, CORP.
3601 HEMPSTEAD TURNPIKE LEVITTOWN NY 11756 US with 2nd Party listed as
PARTY 2
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC. 7105 CORPORATE DRIVE PLANO TX 75024 US

http://a836-acris.nyc.gov/Scripts/DocSearch.dll/detail?Doc_ID=2008102700199001

If the links don't work, the info for the search is

Borough: BROOKLYN / KINGS
Block: 04300
Lot: 0115

And click document detail when you get the search results.

This looks suspiciously as though the owner the nypost is quoting, is no longer the owner but that the bank is.

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. Good work

I will need to learn that handy trick

[Cerridwen]

71. Fairly straight forward.

I used it to make sure any rentals we looked at weren't in foreclosure. I also used it to track the proceedings against my mother's house; "she'd taken" a reverse mortgage.

Most local governments, in my case it was the county, have property records available for inspection, many online. Generally, start at the county (or parish or whatever that gov't division is in your state) website and begin searching and clicking. The ones I've used are available for free; but some do charge.

Oh, and to check on business entities, you're usually looking to search the Secretary of State website of the particular state; Texas charges for most of their searches, other states make part or all of the record available for free.

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. thanks it will come handy in San Diego

for some fancy investigative reporting.

[Cerridwen]

86. You're welcome.

Bust some chops and keep 'em honest, nadin.

Though, I do want to note, it's not very fancy and is, so far as I'm concerned, very prosaic; and very old-school.

pro·sa·ic/prōˈzāik/
Adjective:

1. Having the style or diction of prose; lacking poetic beauty.
2. Commonplace; unromantic.

[graywarrior]

83. Oh look! Facts!

Wow.

[Cerridwen]

85. .

I almost spewed wine all over my keyboard. In my neck of the woods that's called alcohol abuse so I managed to avoid it. But I did LOL when I read your reply.

It reminded me of the editorial cartoon with the spine standing in the corner. "What is it?" Only in this case, it was plain, old-fashioned facts. And not very difficult to find, either. *sigh*

[Aerows]

88. Agreed

And honestly, who wouldn't be skeptical of anything from Rupert Murdoch in the first place? Plain old-fashioned facts showed the entire article to be a bunch of spin, distortions and lies. In other words, the norm from anything owned by News Corp.

[graywarrior]

95. Thank you vedy much

I'll be appearing here all evening.

[Cerridwen]

96. Cool. Please remind people to tip

their server.

'Tis only fair, yaknow.

[graywarrior]

99. Great idea!

I haz five bucks!

[Cerridwen]

100. Ewwww, ick.

DO NOT search google images for 'five bucks.' Just, ick.

Blech!

[graywarrior]

103. I just did

[HughBeaumont]

186. Er, no get.

I just did . . . aside from Sharon Stone in a bikini, there's no "lemon party" grossness going on?

[Cerridwen]

191. Lucky you.

Mayhaps google serves images based on past google history. Wow! That says something about me and it's ain't good!

[jberryhill]

146. Hack89 will studiously avoid your observation from an authoritative source

[hack89]

152. The one that documents a routine mortgage sale between mortgage companies?

mortgage are bought and sold all the time. Lets see a title.

[hack89]

166. A source that shows that BoA owns his mortgage?

that confirms his story?

[Cerridwen]

193. Naw. He's just going to serve out so many one-liners I don't have time to keep up.

At least, I don't have time to keep up which still trying to research facts.

Oh well. Such is life in the big city.

[hack89]

200. You are the one who completely missed the 1st mortgage on the property or the deed.

and went off spinning a story based on the small second mortgage.

[hack89]

149. Two different documents - the second simply shows that the mortage was sold

my mortgage has been sold three times in 10 years.

[Cerridwen]

155. Was your name removed from the

mortgage at any time it was purchased?

If it was, you'd better do some quick phone calling. You should be listed as either party #1 or party #2 when the holder of the note changes otherwise you might discover you do not, in fact, have any rights to your home. (Perhaps party #3 if there are enough mortgage holders involved).

If you look at the history of the records on the property being discussed in this thread, you will note that Mr. Ahadzi's name has been removed from the note assignment process.

If you have substantial proof that I've mis-read the documents, please provide it. Right now all I see is an assertion with no viable information provided.

[hack89]

153. So you have documented a routine mortgage transfer

mortgages are bought and sold all the time. Lets see a title.

[Cerridwen]

156. I'm not sure why you replied to

me twice, but please see my reply to your first reply...my post #155. Thanks.

[hack89]

158. They are two seperate types of document

one documents the actual mortgage. The second document the transfer of servicing rights and ownership of the mortgage.


Look at your links: one says "DOC. TYPE: MORTGAGE" the other says "DOC. TYPE: ASSIGNMENT, MORTGAGE"

Also, look at the dates: this transfer took place in 2008 - he was foreclosed in 2009.

And finally - banks don't buy foreclosed mortgages - they are worthless. They get titles to foreclosed property.

[Cerridwen]

165. Actually, the bank does buy the mortgage

at auction.

I'm not an expert so I'm going to holler out in the forum for an expert to come check the history of this property.

If I'm reading the history correctly, again, I'm no expert, the property was purchased for 425,500. The next document shows a mortgage for 339,600; perhaps a refi? The next transaction shows a mortgage for 84,900; sold at auction? The final transaction shows a reassignment of the mortgage to a 'new' mortgage servicer.

A little snippet on the general foreclosure process:

Foreclosure Auction

At auction, an opening bid on the property is set by the foreclosing lender. This opening bid is usually equal to the outstanding loan balance, interest accrued, and any additional fees and attorney fees associated with the Trustee Sale. If there are no bids higher than the opening bid, the property will be purchased by the attorney conducting the sale, for the lender.

The part I highlighted was to address the idea that the bank, i.e., the lender, doesn't buy mortgages. Here's the link for the above and please note the process is in generalized form as the foreclosure process is specific to each state in which it occurs. http://www.biggerpockets.com/foreclosure-process.html Oh yeah, I don't know much about the site but the process it describes is almost identical to what we went through with the 'foreclosure' on my mother's home after her death.

[hack89]

172. But you showed that BoA purchased the mortgage before they started forclosure.

2008 does come before 2009.

Mortgage companies sell mortgages all the time - many don't actually service mortgages, just sell them.

[Cerridwen]

181. So which is it? The bank doesn't buy mortgages

or the bank bought the mortgage?

Is it strenuous to keep moving those goal posts?

[hack89]

192. Technically, BoA purchased the rights to service the mortgage.

which in turn makes them responsible for foreclosures if needed.

[hack89]

162. BTW - guess who owns COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC. nt

[Cerridwen]

167. Countrywide was taken over by BofA.

Here's but one article about that:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/business/us-settlement-reported-on-countrywide-lending.html

If you'll click this link: http://www.countrywidebank.com/ you'll have additional proof.

[hack89]

173. So you just confirmed that he has a active mortgage held by BoA. Thanks. nt

[Cerridwen]

180. Nope...unless alliance banking corp is BofA.

Do you have proof of that?

I now see what you're doing. Multiple one-liners with no supporting evidence makes it much easier for you to get out your message while those of us who are trying to nail down factual information are at a disadvantage since it takes time to research.

I've tried to deal with you in good faith. You've returned my efforts with spin, and 'gotcha' one-liners.

I have some studying to go do; interestingly enough about real estate and lands.

Consider yourself the victor. You win. I've no time to continue this farce. Though, maybe I'll throw out a couple of one-liners on my way to study.

[hack89]

189. Shall we review the legal responsibilities of 2nd party mortgage servicers?

Loan servicing companies handle the operational aspects of mortgage lending. They collect mortgage payments, credit those payments, send reminders when payments are overdue, assess late charges, establish escrow accounts for the payment of taxes, hazard and flood insurance, and private mortgage insurance. They pay out taxes and insurance premiums when due, and account for all of the above to the investors who own the loans. They also are responsible for managing loss mitigation when a loan gets in trouble. This can include collection activities, loan workouts, and, if necessary, foreclosure. Some even manage the foreclosed property.

http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/662005_Mortgage_Servicing.asp

Looks like BoA is responsible.

[Cerridwen]

195. So you're saying BofA owns the home and not Mr. Ahadzi?

Yes, I believe that was the point.

[hack89]

199. No - there was no transfer of title or deed. At least none that you can find.

you documented that BoA services his mortgage.

The only official record does not show BoA as holding the deed to the property:

http://a836-acris.nyc.gov/Scripts/DocSearch.dll/Detail?Doc_ID=2007012501041001

[hack89]

184. I found your mistake - you missed the 1st mortgage for $339,600.00

http://a836-acris.nyc.gov/Scripts/DocSearch.dll/Detail?Doc_ID=2007012501041002

there are no further records regarding this mortgage.

He most likely did an 80/20 no money down mortgage.

Here is the record showing the deed transfer to Ahadzi.

http://a836-acris.nyc.gov/Scripts/DocSearch.dll/Detail?Doc_ID=2007012501041001

[Hosnon]

231. That looks like a run-of-the-mill assignment to me.

But the transaction involves MERS, which always seems to muddy things up.

[T S Justly]

66. Lol! But, I think I'll give the benefit of doubt to Occupy, thank you. (nt) (nr)

[jberryhill]

67. There seem to be some apparent facts you are missing in the story

The story characterizes the previous owner as being somehow "fighting" to get his home back, as if he is engaged in some sort of ongoing struggle.

That's obviously not true.

The house was foreclosed on years ago, ownership taken by the bank, and unoccupied since prior to the foreclosure.

In other words, that prior owner had moved on and not been fighting or attempting to renegotiate ANYTHING with ANYONE.

But now, after years of having since moved on, and no longer owning any title or other claim to the house, this guy is dug up and portrayed as if he has been fighting a struggle to keep the place.

THAT IS JUST NOT TRUE.

So, I'd like you to exercise some critical thinking skills of the sort you should whenever you see a news story and ask the initial question - "How did this story come to be?"

Hack89, in your best estimation, why do you think this guy popped out of the woods after having given up on this claim more than four years ago?

[Aerows]

87. I'm waiting to see if you get an answer

I suspect you will get a bunch of accusations if you get anything, because the credibility of the article has been blown to hell. I doubt you will get anything though, but expect a new article to crop up later that bashes, smears or attempts to discredit the OWS movement. There are some who are desperate to shut it down by any means necessary.

[jberryhill]

92. I have a lot of respect for hack89

I believe hack89 is an insightful critical thinker, and he has demonstrated that time and time again.

I don't believe that anything or anyone is above criticism, including OWS. This is a discussion board and that's what should go on - discussion.

It does seem to me that he's not asking himself some critical questions about this story.

If "exposing" OWS as having engaged in political theater is the point then, well yes, certainly, OWS is engaging in political theater. That's not really a damning indictment of OWS, though, if you think about it.

Yes, stunts get attention, and simply getting attention is one of the hurdles that any set of ideas faces in what has become our all too literal the "marketplace of ideas".

There is no sin in that.

However, hack89 does not ask the first question here - how did this story come to be?

Given the clear bullshit impression that this guy has been waging a struggle he lost and abandoned years ago (and I mean abandoned in all of its equitable, common law and statutory glory), how this guy comes to be portrayed this way is a question worth asking.

[Aerows]

94. Understood

I question the motivation for the continuous assault against OWS, though. After a point, it becomes valid to question the motives of someone that will post any old thing to discredit a movement.

Once people get to the point where they are posting articles from questionable sources, it's time to point out that maybe they need to examine why they feel so strongly that they will accept any argument that supports their bias whether credible or plausible.

[jberryhill]

97. My enemies I fight. My friends I criticize.

[Aerows]

102. Well stated

and point taken. I don't believe anyone or any organization is above criticism, including yours truly .

I do tend to get incensed over clear hit pieces, though. Our media in this country sucks and has sucked since the moment Rupert Murdock was allowed to operate here.

[greiner3]

128. " I believe hack89 is an insightful critical thinker"

I have to disagree with you assessment of the definition of critical thinking (CT) then. From Wiki;

"Critical thinking is the process of thinking that questions assumptions. It is a way of deciding whether a claim is true, false; sometimes true, or partly true. The origins of critical thinking can be traced in Western thought to the Socratic method of Ancient Greece and in the East, to the Buddhist kalama sutta and Abhidharma. Critical thinking is an important component of most professions. It is a part of the education process and is increasingly significant as students progress through university to graduate education, although there is debate among educators about its precise meaning and scope."

You may know of posts where Hack89 does engage in this process according to the above definition. However, I have reread the posts he/she made here and I find them lacking in CT.

Here is one of his posts;

62. "So you are categorically saying the story is false?

ok - I understand your reluctance to dig too deep."

Here he is commenting on a post by nadinbrzezinski (59) where she is saying not to take Murdock's take on the news too seriously. Hack89's response is to attack the messenger and question their analytical skills. Another post;

60. "So should OWS actively oppose the reelection of President Obama?

are those of us that support Democrats and their campaigns the enemy of OWS?"

This again is in response to Zhade (58) where the poster comments on the reasons why OWS is not party specific and lays out reasons what OWS is about. hack89's response is to change the subject and begin the attack anew against OWS with charges that OWS is now heading the charge against reelecting the president. And yet another post;

20. "I am willing to wait until you have some actual facts. Take all the time you need. nt"

This is in response to Spazito (17). hack89 is trying to get his detractors to do the fact checking even though several posts have already done this and given links. There have been no media mention to this case EXCEPT for Murdock owned media and the usual Conservative lapdog boards-freepers, etc... obamanut2012 replies downstream,

106. "You cannot prove a negative.

The onus is on the "accuser," which is you, to provide a source that isn't Murdoch. I can't find it anywhere else."

There are many more posts by hack89 to this OP that fit MY CT analysis why I believe your assessment of the poster is a fail.

You post later in the thread;

97. "My enemies I fight. My friends I criticize."

If this critique of mine makes me your enemy then so be it.

[jberryhill]

144. "enemy"?

How about you cool those jets which suggest that you are making either "friends" or "enemies" by discussing a topic with strangers on the internet?

Quite obviously, my point is that hack has failed to apply basic critical thinking to this story. Quoting from this thread has nothing to do with my opinion of his postings on other subjects over a number of years.

[joshcryer]

108. You didn't ask me but... he wants a free house?

This does beg the question though. A lot of people foreclosed upon didn't deserve it. A lot of unoccupied residencies are out there. Perhaps in the future a goal should be to find the last occupants, those who were foreclosed upon, and tell them you'll support their reoccupation of the premises, as opposed to creating your own narrative.

[hack89]

209. Many here think that people should simply accept it when the bank screws you out of your house. nt

[Bucky]

89. There's a group protesting this called "Occupy Occupy"

[randome]

121. LOL!

Ad-infinitum...

[Wind Dancer]

91. There should have been additional info..

...from the OPer since they're quoting an article from a well known right-wing rag.

I don't believe this story. Why were you so willing to believe it and then start a thread without more research? This is a hit piece on OWS, pure and simple. Don't know why it's being posted on DU.

[Odin2005]

98. Why are you using a Murdoch shit-rag as a source?

[Cleita]

111. Sorry but anything out of the Murdoch empire is suspect and

most like is skewed to reflect the propaganda they wish you do believe. If you google the reporter who wrote the story, Candice M. Giove, she is the author of many hit pieces on the Occupy movement. She seems to come out of the Ann Coulter school of journalism and that is to spread any diatribe she can think of to discredit that which she is opposed to. No truth or real research is needed here. There is no unbiased reporting coming out of her.

[coalition_unwilling]

115. Your irresponsibility in posting this yellow journalism smear of OWS is

really quite beyond the pale.

Welcome to my DU3 Ignore list.

[baldguy]

124. Before you start crying about this, find a non-biased source.

Otherwise you're just spreading RW propaganda.

[ClassWarrior]

127. You're probably right.

I've heard that the NYPost is pretty fucked up.

NGU.

[joeybee12]

134. NY Post bullshit, of course...BRING BACK THE UNREC OPTION! nt

[girl gone mad]

217. Agreed. Murdoch lies don't belong on the greatest page of Democratic Underground.

[Gold Metal Flake]

147. But he's a Single Dad! A SINGLE DAD!!!! That makes the lies OK.

[Marr]

150. Look at all the BOGers hopping on this made-up, Murdoch anti-OWS thread.

Always so anxious to say "I support Occupy but...", and always the first to hop on the smear train.

So fucking transparent.

[SomethingFishy]

182. Right?

Not willing to even look at anything a Du'er posts about "the rest of the story" but willing to blindly accept Fox News or the NY Post.

This place is getting bad. It's getting to the point where IMHO it's more harmful to Democrats than helpful.

[Yo_Mama]

206. OK, one red flag

He claimed he lost his job as a day trader in 2009 and couldn’t meet his mortgage payments.

I agree that OWS shouldn't be breaking into and knocking around a house that still belongs to a person. That person is legally liable for the damage. So I don't think there is any excuse for what OWS did here. Why the guy didn't call the police I don't know.

BUT the article also seems to imply that OWS moved in a family they had picked and didn't want to help the man who owned the house, but who loses a job as a day trader? If you are a day trader you work for yourself. I guess he failed at it. So I doubt there is anything OWS could do to help the legal owner/speculator.

[hack89]

207. Or perhaps they wanted a compliant person that would not stray from the OWS message?

why isn't the "homeless family" living in the house?

[MNBrewer]

211. Wow, the anti-OWS brigade has been putting in overtime lately.

[hack89]

214. Not really - don't forget OWS is taking their winter hiatus.

it has been kind of quiet. I have been repeatedly told it will pick up in the spring.

[sabrina 1]

228. It has been anything BUT quiet.

All over the globe, and right here in the US OWS has been extremely active and building this movement. They have been exposing a corrupt system more effectively than any other single entity in living memory for many people.

From Oakland to Brooklyn where over one thousand churches have joined them in occupying homes and helping homeowners to stay in their home, including respected Civil Rights era Pastors.

Chicago, NYC, Albany, SD, SF who are in the process of starting their own banks, a model that hopefully will spread around the country, town after town across the country has been extremely busy and active in thousands of ways, so I'm not sure where you are getting this from.

Maybe don't rely on Murdoch's rags where all you get is propaganda. The Murdoch Empire of lies is crumbling and not a minute too soon.

[hack89]

232. So lots of small scale community activity?

I guess they have given up on mobilizing the masses.

[sabrina 1]

235. Lol, just wait. I guess you don't know what they are doing right now, speaking of largescale

mobilization? As I said, stop reading Murdoch's rags, already exposed over the past few months for their lies about OWS, which is why I was so shocked to see that rag given any space here, and if you really want to know what OWS is up to, find more credible sources.

They have been hugely successful over the winter months on a number of extremely important issues including growth of the movement, and have in fact totally changed the political dialogue, aside from all the other issues being dealt with and ongoing.

This movement is only at the 'beginning of the beginning'. It is going to take years to fix the problems this country has and the early successes of a movement not yet four months old, are simply stunning, way beyond anything anyone had expected.

It has been a great four months so far and all the actions planned for the next few months will certainly be even successful in keeping the focus on the real changes that must happen in this country before it' too late.

Murdoch's Empire are on their way into the dustbin of history and he and his propagandists may end up in jail where they belong. The Post is one of the worst of his tabloids, and why anyone would give any credibility to anything emanating from that source is beyond me.

Not to mention, it grows each and every day and will continue to grow until it is no longer necessary which will be several years from now at least.

[Douglas Carpenter]

219. it it's in the New York Post and Fox News it must be true!!

[hack89]

221. Well, no one seems to have any actual facts to the contrary.

hence all the emotional responses I guess.

[Douglas Carpenter]

222. "emotional responses"?

Fox New and the New York Post would never be anything less than objective when reporting on OWS?

[girl gone mad]

229. Your OP was nothing but one long emotional diatribe against OWS..

published by a sleazy right wing paper with a reputation for lies and distortion.

[hack89]

234. Is that why OWS promptly provided a factual rebuttal? Oh wait...

should be easy to find some facts to support OWS.

[girl gone mad]

237. What's to rebut?

There were no facts in piece from Murdoch's paper, just hearsay from disreputable sources printed by an even more disreputable organization.

[hack89]

240. So those direct quotes are lies? That BoA statement can't be rebutted? OK. nt

[girl gone mad]

242. The direct quotes are half-truths, at best.

Ahadzi wants OWS to fight for him, but he has not demonstrated that he has a claim worth fighting for. The title may be in his name, but he abandoned the property long ago. There is good reason to believe that the foreclosure proceedings will continue to be uneventful. Ahadzi stopped paying his mortgage in any amount years ago. He made no effort to stay in the home and renegotiate the mortgage. He did not participate in the modification program.

This was likely a flip that went bad since Ahadzi bought at the absolute peak of the market. He and his children seem happy renting across town. Why would he even try to get back into this mortgage? My guess is that he got paid for the story.

[hack89]

245. Because you say so. Got it. nt

[girl gone mad]

247. Or you can just believe whatever crap Murdoch tells you to believe.

It seems like that's what you really want to do anyhow.

[hack89]

249. So I should believe the crap you make up instead? Don't think so. nt

[chrisa]

223. Idiots all around

OWS - Hosting "Fuck the Police" rallies. Screaming / acting like spoiled children

The owner of this house - it's been owned by the bank for years, and he just suddenly decides to throw a fit about it now?

[hack89]

233. You are right - people should just give up when fucked by the banks. He needs to learn his place.

According to the bank he is still the legal owner - the foreclosure has not been finalized.

[mmonk]

224. We're pretty fucked up. We found out the problem.

[Aerows]

236. Yep, Rupert Murdoch owned media n/t

[sabrina 1]

227. Lol, Rupert Murdoch's NY Post strikes again.

Together with Fox News and the entire Rightwing Noise Machine.

Nice try, maybe go find some credible sources and get back to us.

The Reichwing we know, has been attempting, unsuccessfully btw, to discredit the American people who are trying to change a system that created monsters like Murdoch.

No surprise there, but to see this trash on a Democratic board is pretty sad.

[TheKentuckian]

254. Taking the story at face value, what is your concern? That OWS isn't a credit counciling/refi outfit

You give the surface impression that this guy was occupying the home and OWS shoved him out in favor of another family when he was apparently doing nothing not paying, not living there, not in any proceedings, nothing.

What would he like them to do? It doesn't appear at all to be the occupation of the home. What is it they are to be doing on his behalf, exactly? Absent some other mission, what they are doing works for me. Homeless folks need a roof, and homes are sitting under control of the banks. Fine by me.

By the way, I don't take the story at face value. First off the guy hasn't been in the place in years which means it starts off at questionable and goes from there.

[hack89]

255. Because victims of the largest financial scam in American history deserve a second chance

if he is the legal owner of the house, then OWS should work to help him. Why can't he move back in instead of a political activist with ties to OWS? They are acting just like the banks they decry - "sorry - can't help you. Just accept your fate." Looks like they agree with and accept the status quo concerning the mortgage crisis. They are either a game changing movement or they are not. Looks like the latter to me.

And handpicking a political activist with ties to OWS pisses me off too - looks like they are more interested in a compliant "homeless family" that won't rock the OWS boat.

[TheKentuckian]

256. Okay, but what do you want them to do for him? Why has he no occupied the dwelling for years?

It still seems you want them to morph into a refi/credit councilling outfit but won't admit it.

[hack89]

257. Your question is very pertinent - perhaps they are truly powerless to affect real change.

They could move him back into his house for starters - instead of picking a OWS connected activist.

Perhaps I am asking to much of OWS. I thought they were a game changing organization - this particular group appears to just be a bunch of squatters.

[TheKentuckian]

258. Move them back in? They were supposed to force these people to occupy their homes, I see.

[hack89]

260. The guy asked for their help and they blew him off for their handpicked "homeless family"

pretty shitty thing to do. Looks like OWS is good for political theater and nothing else.

[ellisonz]

259. Oy Vey

I personally know one of the organizers of this action from college. I was never impressed with his contribution to the conferences I was in him with, and am not surprised they didn't do their homework before taking this action. He never expressed much of an opinion in favor of either Hegel or Marx, in fact, he barely spoke a word and often seemed unprepared for conference. That he has suddenly *now* decided to express his political feelings makes me wonder where he was when I was defending Marx twice a week for a semester.