"Occupy L.A. members filed a request for a temporary restraining order on Thursday that would prevent the Los Angeles Police Department from closing their City Hall encampment without notice, said Chief Deputy City Attorney William Carter.
"According to Carter, the motion seeks to prevent the LAPD from shutting or removing parts of the encampment without 30 days notice. City attorneys plan to challenge the motion on Friday morning in L.A. Superior Court, he said.
"'There's no legal basis for this,' said Carter. 'The LAPD needs to be able to go in if there's a public safety issue.'
"The Occupy L.A. group didn't appear to have an attorney and filed the motion themselves, according to Carter."
Let’s look at this article piece by piece. First, there is no such thing, legally or otherwise, as “Occupy LA members” though it has been a convenient term to refer to all of those camped on City Hall park space. Occupy L.A. is a movement with participants, founded by a voting body known as the Los Angeles General Assembly. Therefore, it is currently unprecedented for “Occupy LA members” to file any sort of suit due to lack of standing. “We” the people who occupy that space, have spoken to no one who offered, notified, explained or advised of any impending litigation with the City of Los Angeles. If such a person or organization exists, they have concealed their identity and the auspices of their “representation” of those who have no knowledge of their existence.
The Los Angeles Times has reported the existence of a lawsuit, though they have not identified the source or the premises of it. They have not provided any of the claims nor any evidence whatsoever that any such suit was filed. They have suggested “it” is intended to preclude a raid by LAPD without supplying any documentation to support that reporting. The Los Angeles Times has also failed to follow up in a timely manner. No one associated with Occupy Los Angeles has circulated any such information, documentation or the identity of any such “representatives” that have allegedly filed suit. In other words, no one from the Los Angeles Times bothered to check with anyone on site about the validity of their reports.
If they have spoken with people who claim to “represent” Occupation Los Angeles, they have also failed to identify or publish the quotes of those they spoke to. Instead, they have based their reports on assumptions like the one above: “The Occupy LA group didn’t appear to have an attorney and filed the motion themselves, according to Carter.” At some point, responsible journalists would present some basis for the reports and the questioning of Mr. Carter who may be as perplexed as the rest of us based on the reporting of the Los Angeles Times.
These reports do not benefit the public, LAPD, the City Attorney’s office, or the Occupy Los Angeles people who have gone out of their way to make sure an adversarial relationship is avoided; the sort of adversarial relationship that lawsuits cause. In this case, there is no “action” necessary because there is still no indication that any legal remedy was sought to any grievance by anyone except “someone” who the Los Angeles Times apparently failed to locate, interview or identify.
Therefore, it is not incumbent on anyone associated with Occupy Los Angeles to respond to shoddy reporting by news organizations that have demonstrated hostility toward the Occupation Movement in the past; especially those organizations that happen to be members of the Central City Association. When the Los Angeles Times identifies its sources, (or substantiates its reports) consistent with fundamental journalistic practices, we will endeavor to verify or disavow the statements or activities they claim are on behalf of Occupy Los Angeles.
We ask that anybody who wishes to take legal action on behalf of this movement check with our legal committee and distribute hard copies of said litigation around the camp for all community members to see, along with hard copies of the proposal for the Los Angeles General Assembly.