Housing Committee Majority's 2nd try to Silence Mark D. FAIL

[ciwp]

This is the text of the resolution submitted to GA last night, Thursday, Dec 1 that was the latest attempt by the Housing Committee majority to silence Housing Committee member Mark Donaghey under the pretext of false charges of "violence" directed at fellow OcChi members, but in reality for his opposition to locating the offices of Occupy Chicago at 500 W. Cermak - a run-down, badly maintained building in an isolated corner of Canalport.

The first attempt was a gag order that was "unanimously" voted for by only the majority members of the Housing Committee in a closed-door session of the majority faction on Sunday, November 20, 2011. This brazen attempt to gag a member of Occupy Chicago without a hearing or any kind of due process was shot down at the Housing Committee meeting of 23 November, 2011.

For the wanna-be bureaucrats in the Housing Committee majority, this failure to pre-emptively silence the opposition in the Housing Committee was merely a warmup. They prepared to make a second attempt to bring more shame on the Occupy Chicago organization by giving it another go.

This time, the Housing Committee went for an even more severe penalty: the expulsion of Mark D. from the ENTIRE OCCUPY CHICAGO MOVEMENT! In furtherance of this outrageous act, the Housing Committee majority enlisted a number of members of other committees heretofore uninvolved in the conflict between the Housing Committee majority and minority members. Several Housing Committee majority members signed this document under the names of other committees they are members of, in a transparent attempt to hide the fact that the motivating force behind this latest expulsion attempt was, in fact, the same members of the Housing Committee who tried the gag order last time. This latest attempt of the Housing Committee majority to silence Mark D. also failed.

Not only is this an outrageous document which will stand as a severe stain on the political record of everyone who signed it; it is also most likely a fraudulent product, since though it pretends to have been produced and signed on "Wednesday, November the Thirtieth, Two Thousand and Eleven" it must have been signed after the Housing Committee meeting ended on 30 November 2011 - at approximately 11:30 PM! Therefore it was either written and signed in just a half hour between the end of that meeting and the start of the next day or it was actually signed or at least some of the signatures were added the next day. But these are mere quibbles to people who would stoop so low in order to silence their political opponents!

The text of their handwritten resolution of expulsion is as follows:

"We the undersigned, representing our committees and ourselves, do hereby agree to the removal of Mr. Mark Donaghey from Occupy Chicago on this Wednesday, November the Thirtieth, Two Thousand and Eleven. This collective decision has been made in response to his repeated violent acts against members of Occupy Chicago.

(Signed)
[Note: the signatures are presented as best as I can read them - MD]
Ryan Metz (?), Witness Secretariat

Danielle Villareal , Direct Action

Jennifer Lindner, Direct Action and Housing

[Another signature, crossed out]

[Illegible signature], SPC, Occupy El Barrio

Kieran Aarons, Donations, Education

[Illegible signature] Direct Action

[Kurt] (?) [Liebner?] Civil Liberties Defense

Sarah Wild, Education

Ken Irwin, Housing, Visual Media

Bunny, SPC

Alyssa [Illegible], Direct Action

Mark Banks, Labor Outreach

[R.(?)] Herbert, Housing, D.A.

[End of Document]

As you can see, several members of the Housing Committee majority sought a shabby method of hiding their relationship to the controversy in the Housing Committee by signing this document using their affiliations with other committees: Kieran Aarons and Mark Banks both opted for this weak subterfuge.
This is NOT what democracy looks like!

And the wisdom of the GA was once again in evidence on Thursday, December 1 as the membership refused to support such a naked attempt to censor an Occupy Chicago member for voicing his dissenting opinion on a matter of great concern to the entire Occupy Chicago organization!

Mark Donaghey
for the Housing Committee minority

[Bearhair]

This is the text of the resolution submitted to GA last night . . .

Under what section of the agenda was this introduced?

"We the undersigned, representing our committees and ourselves . . .

To those who signed this absurd document - from where do you get the right to represent your ENTIRE committee with your signature?

According to the signatures, individuals signed as representatives of the committees they noted.

Is it true that the Secretariat, Direct Action, Housing, SPC, Donations, Education, Civil Liberties Defense, Visual Media, and Labor Outreach committees all voted in support of this resolution? I know for a fact that four of these committees did not.

Does all of Occupy El Barrio support this resolution? What business is it of theirs?

. . . And the wisdom of the GA was once again in evidence on Thursday, December 1 as the membership refused to support . . .

How coincidental that this resolution was introduced on the day between the Housing Committee vote and the Cermak proposal to the GA. The one day where the so-called "minority" of the Housing Committee were unlikely to attend.

The people involved in circulating this "resolution" have been trying to manipulate the situation, and now the GA, with the use of misrepresentation, subterfuge, and unannounced agenda changes.

I'm proud that the GA has once again seen through the malicious distortion that those people are committing.

Mark Donaghey, for the Housing Committee minority

To be clear and consistent, Mark, the entirety of the "Housing Committee minority," as defined by those voting on Wednesday, do not necessarily even have an opinion on this issue. Given that, no one represents that group.

Thanks for bringing this to the attention of those who were not in attendance at the GA last night.

Lora

[DanK42]

As the Google Group is not a public forum (which in my opinion lacks transparency since it is not available to the public) I would like to post a few statements made in the Google Group from some of the people represented on this proposal:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kieran Aarons, Donations, Education
"I find it extremely discouraging that 6 people tell themselves it's democracy when they stall and impede a plan that 33 people all feel is a great idea.
That's not democracy, it's the tyranny of a minority."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Banks, Labor Outreach (In comments to myself)
"Daniel talks about democracy, but he's part of the very small faction that successfully subverted the committee's democratic process by whining until our vote to suspend Violent Mark was basically nullified and ignored. "

"Fuck this guy. "

"YOU ARE USELESS. "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Lindner, Direct Action and Housing
"If anybody had heard anything valuable from you, they would be
listening."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course I stand for what I feel and will vote for things I agree with and against things that I do not...that IS DEMOCRACY!!

The small minority that is so readily shrugged off by members of the organization has increased from 10% (6 people) to 21% (14 people) in less than a week.

At the last housing meeting, suddenly "Phone In" votes and proxy votes were excepted (allowed by Sean on Conflict and Resolution who was moderating), these votes "oddly" were all in favor of Cermak. Despite the fact that people that were not there never even heard the Michigan Av. proposal. I have never even seen any indication that we accept "Phone In" votes or proxy voting, though perhaps I missed something.

“The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

[Sugar]

So if you do not know by now, I am the one who got shoved by Mark D. I went through the proper channels of filing a report with the Peace Keepers and have spoken to people who are part of the Conflict & Resolution Committee.

Let me be VERY clear. I was assaulted. I do not care why. It happened. I was not physically injured in the process, but I have been emotionally and mentally injured. That day changed my perspective toward everyone in this movement. I went from trusting most until they proved me wrong to trusting almost no one. That is the damage that man did. I am angry all of the time. That light in me that could rally people and inspire people is gone and I do not know if I can get it back. That is a loss.

Frankly, if people do not feel safe around Mark D. because of his violent behavior, then he should be adult enough not to push his way back into a committee where people do not feel safe. That is the consequence of his behavior and he should accept that. At this point, I am wondering if I need to go file a complaint with the police, because it does not seem to me that this man and his friends are at all reasonable or accepting that bad behavior has consequences.

And now my email box is having multiple people asking me to say that it is OK for this man to be around. I WILL NOT DO THAT! For those who feel like they have some right to go at me, you all can leave me the fuck alone. You make me isolate even more and those are people that I will not trust and will choose not to be around.

I do not care if this happened to me or any one else, in that it does not matter who the victim was. I do not care if his style or interaction is in conflict. It matters that what this man did violated the agreed on behavior of people in this movement. People that get in trouble for breaking those rules should be removed. Those selfish actions put the entire movement at risk. People who steel, actively doing drugs in an Occupied space, or people who are violent should be removed from the movement.

And for the record, I have not been at GA or conflict res because I have walking Pneumonia. I have also chosen not to do certain comm meetings because I do not feel safe around certain people any more and I choose to work with those committees in other ways that keep me safe. I have NOT walked from this movement. After this incident, I organized 4 actions for Black Friday, did the fliers for the entire day, and worked on SM for it all. I was up for 41 hrs, and the last 12 were outside. I got massively sick. I continue to work on writing press releases and flush out ideas online. I am still committed, but I choose to interact in a different way now.

[ciwp]

The Big Lie that I attacked 2 members of the Housing Committee simply will not die. The Housing Committee majority continues to lie about this non-event at every opportunity and in front of as many people as possible. There is also a whispering campaign of slander, distortions and outright lies directed at me and I will not stand for it. It is high time that Conflicts and Resolutions set up the necessary hearings and get to the bottom of this at once.

At the GA meeting on Thursday night (Dec. 1), the Housing Committee majority took advantage of the fact that neither of the two people whom I allegedly "assaulted" were present to once again retail their fabrications regarding this incident. They claimed at this GA that A., whom I supposedly "assaulted" (but who testified in a Mediation meeting in which Zoe, Dan K., Lynette, A., and myself were present that he was not assaulted at all), had changed his story. On Friday, Dec. 2, I spoke with A (again) by phone and once again in person (because we are friends) and he once again stated that he does not consider that what happened between himself and myself to be an "assault". The momentary physical altercation that took place between myself and "Sugar" was of the exact same order of magnitude, yet "Sugar" claims that she was "assaulted" by me. This so-called "assault" took place in the presence of at least two Chicago police officers, yet they made no attempt to arrest me, and "Sugar" at that time made no attempt to have me arrested. She was not hospitalized nor did she seek any medical treatment for any injuries she never received from this non-assault. No other witnesses, including the police and "Sugar" herself considered this "attack" to be worthy of prosecution. Instead "Sugar" and her allies in the Housing Committee majority continue to retail this baseless slander in order to defame myself, a person who has repeatedly opposed them POLITICALLY during their underhanded machinations in the Housing Committee. These slanders are completely politically based. The claim that they are trying to protect the movement from my "violent" actions has never had even a toehold on reality. Yet they continue to hurl slander and abuse at me at every opportunity.

The Conflict Resolutions committee has conducted a Mediation to resolve the issue of the alleged "attack" made by myself against A. He stated during that mediation that he considered this alleged "assault" to be a non-event. He signed the document that issued from the mediation that removed the gag order that had been issued by the Housing Committee majority against me. In spite of the fact that A has repeatedly denied that he was assaulted by me, the Housing Committee majority continues to spread the lie that A was assaulted by me. So, I proposed to the Conflict Resolution committee that A, "Sugar" the Housing Committee and I myself meet in a so-called "Peace Circle" to resolve this issue once and for all. I agreed to do this. But both "Sugar" and the majority members of the Housing Committee refused. Why?

I believe that they do not want to resolve this issue because they are utterly determined to keep on slandering me in a continued futile effort to either have me banned from the Housing Committee, or banned from Occupy Chicago as a whole. Over the past two weeks they have tried twice to do so. They have failed both times, and the GA has twice refused to allow their brazen attempt to silence and ban an Occupy Chicago member in good standing without some kind of due process. Still the Housing Committee majority continues their campaign of slander against me. This amounts to nothing less than political banditry.

Having been twice rebuffed by the GA when they tried to silence me, the majority members of the Housing Committee apparently dragged "Sugar" from her deathbed to appear, Banquo-like, at the GA meeting on Friday, December 2nd to once again attempt to raise from the dead the issue of the alleged "assault" I did not commit against "Sugar". "Sugar", who, according to her letter published above, is so dreadfully sick that she could barely function, was somehow able to drag herself from her home all the way out to the GA at Congress and Michigan on a cold winter's night just so she could throw some more slander in my face and the faces of the members of the GA. Sadly, she did not have enough energy to explain to us what, exactly, was the actual nature of this strange phenomenon of a physical "assault" which left no bruises, marks or injuries of any kind and was invisible to two uniformed police officers standing just a few feet away. "Sugar" only had enough energy to blurt out her outrageous slander in public, and then, without taking any questions from the confused audience or myself, she slunk away, her mission accomplished. No one from Conflict Resolutions had the presence of mind - or decency - to coax her back to try to marshal her fast-fading energy long enough to engage in a mediation session between herself and myself, with witnesses present. Hit-and-run tactics are more suitable to her goals and to those of her friends and co-thinkers in the Housing Committee majority. These political bandits shun the light like vampires. Whenever they are given an opportunity to present their evidence to an impartial hearing, they recoil in horror. They know that just as sunlight kills a vampire, so would an impartial inquiry kill their campaign of slander against myself. So far, they have successfully evaded such an inquiry. They will have to face one sooner or later, and when they finally do, they will stand utterly discredited before the entire membership of Occupy Chicago.

I demand that the Conflicts and Resolutions Committee ORDER the entire Housing Committee, "Sugar", A. and myself to participate in a public mediation session where all these lies can stand exposed before the members of Occupy Chicago, so that this disgusting and fraudulent charade can come to an end and we as an organization can finally get back to the important work that lies ahead of us.

Mark Donaghey

[myanswer]

This dispute has nothing to do with the housing committee and never has. The allegations were that Mark D directly tried to derail the Donations committee negotiations with Crossroads (corrected) and that he assaulted Sugar.

Because Sugar was assaulted and felt unsafe at Housing committee meetings and Mark D behavior at housing committee meetings (NOT HIS IDEAS AND COMMENTS) the committee voted to suspend his PRESENCE at meetings his ideas, vote or comments which they voted could be presented by a representative of his choosing.

He continues to LIE and attack the committee. I encourage everyone to read the truth which is fully detailed in all of the housing committee's minutes.

The Big Lie that I attacked 2 members of the Housing Committee simply will not die. The Housing Committee majority continues to lie about this non-event at every opportunity and in front of as many people as possible. There is also a whispering campaign of slander, distortions and outright lies directed at me and I will not stand for it. It is high time that Conflicts and Resolutions set up the necessary hearings and get to the bottom of this at once.

At the GA meeting on Thursday night (Dec. 1), the Housing Committee majority took advantage of the fact that neither of the two people whom I allegedly "assaulted" were present to once again retail their fabrications regarding this incident. They claimed at this GA that A., whom I supposedly "assaulted" (but who testified in a Mediation meeting in which Zoe, Dan K., Lynette, A., and myself were present that he was not assaulted at all), had changed his story. On Friday, Dec. 2, I spoke with A (again) by phone and once again in person (because we are friends) and he once again stated that he does not consider that what happened between himself and myself to be an "assault". The momentary physical altercation that took place between myself and "Sugar" was of the exact same order of magnitude, yet "Sugar" claims that she was "assaulted" by me. This so-called "assault" took place in the presence of at least two Chicago police officers, yet they made no attempt to arrest me, and "Sugar" at that time made no attempt to have me arrested. She was not hospitalized nor did she seek any medical treatment for any injuries she never received from this non-assault. No other witnesses, including the police and "Sugar" herself considered this "attack" to be worthy of prosecution. Instead "Sugar" and her allies in the Housing Committee majority continue to retail this baseless slander in order to defame myself, a person who has repeatedly opposed them POLITICALLY during their underhanded machinations in the Housing Committee. These slanders are completely politically based. The claim that they are trying to protect the movement from my "violent" actions has never had even a toehold on reality. Yet they continue to hurl slander and abuse at me at every opportunity.

The Conflict Resolutions committee has conducted a Mediation to resolve the issue of the alleged "attack" made by myself against A. He stated during that mediation that he considered this alleged "assault" to be a non-event. He signed the document that issued from the mediation that removed the gag order that had been issued by the Housing Committee majority against me. In spite of the fact that A has repeatedly denied that he was assaulted by me, the Housing Committee majority continues to spread the lie that A was assaulted by me. So, I proposed to the Conflict Resolution committee that A, "Sugar" the Housing Committee and I myself meet in a so-called "Peace Circle" to resolve this issue once and for all. I agreed to do this. But both "Sugar" and the majority members of the Housing Committee refused. Why?

I believe that they do not want to resolve this issue because they are utterly determined to keep on slandering me in a continued futile effort to either have me banned from the Housing Committee, or banned from Occupy Chicago as a whole. Over the past two weeks they have tried twice to do so. They have failed both times, and the GA has twice refused to allow their brazen attempt to silence and ban an Occupy Chicago member in good standing without some kind of due process. Still the Housing Committee majority continues their campaign of slander against me. This amounts to nothing less than political banditry.

Having been twice rebuffed by the GA when they tried to silence me, the majority members of the Housing Committee apparently dragged "Sugar" from her deathbed to appear, Banquo-like, at the GA meeting on Friday, December 2nd to once again attempt to raise from the dead the issue of the alleged "assault" I did not commit against "Sugar". "Sugar", who, according to her letter published above, is so dreadfully sick that she could barely function, was somehow able to drag herself from her home all the way out to the GA at Congress and Michigan on a cold winter's night just so she could throw some more slander in my face and the faces of the members of the GA. Sadly, she did not have enough energy to explain to us what, exactly, was the actual nature of this strange phenomenon of a physical "assault" which left no bruises, marks or injuries of any kind and was invisible to two uniformed police officers standing just a few feet away. "Sugar" only had enough energy to blurt out her outrageous slander in public, and then, without taking any questions from the confused audience or myself, she slunk away, her mission accomplished. No one from Conflict Resolutions had the presence of mind - or decency - to coax her back to try to marshal her fast-fading energy long enough to engage in a mediation session between herself and myself, with witnesses present. Hit-and-run tactics are more suitable to her goals and to those of her friends and co-thinkers in the Housing Committee majority. These political bandits shun the light like vampires. Whenever they are given an opportunity to present their evidence to an impartial hearing, they recoil in horror. They know that just as sunlight kills a vampire, so would an impartial inquiry kill their campaign of slander against myself. So far, they have successfully evaded such an inquiry. They will have to face one sooner or later, and when they finally do, they will stand utterly discredited before the entire membership of Occupy Chicago.

I demand that the Conflicts and Resolutions Committee ORDER the entire Housing Committee, "Sugar", A. and myself to participate in a public mediation session where all these lies can stand exposed before the members of Occupy Chicago, so that this disgusting and fraudulent charade can come to an end and we as an organization can finally get back to the important work that lies ahead of us.

Mark Donaghey

[myanswer]

This dispute has nothing to do with the housing committee and never has. The allegations were that Mark D directly tried to derail the Donations committee negotiations 8th Day and that he assaulted Sugar.

Because Sugar was assaulted and felt unsafe at Housing committee meetings and Mark D behavior at housing committee meetings (NOT HIS IDEAS AND COMMENTS) the committee voted to suspend his PRESENCE at meetings his ideas, vote or comments which they voted could be presented by a representative of his choosing.

The resolution below was written by Mark D and was never passed by the housing committee. Again this is his attempt to cover up his assault and deliberately prevent the GA from conducting it's business in an orderly fashion.

He continues to LIE and attack the committee. I encourage everyone to read the truth which is fully detailed in all of the housing committee's minutes.

This is the text of the resolution submitted to GA last night, Thursday, Dec 1 that was the latest attempt by the Housing Committee majority to silence Housing Committee member Mark Donaghey under the pretext of false charges of "violence" directed at fellow OcChi members, but in reality for his opposition to locating the offices of Occupy Chicago at 500 W. Cermak - a run-down, badly maintained building in an isolated corner of Canalport.

The first attempt was a gag order that was "unanimously" voted for by only the majority members of the Housing Committee in a closed-door session of the majority faction on Sunday, November 20, 2011. This brazen attempt to gag a member of Occupy Chicago without a hearing or any kind of due process was shot down at the Housing Committee meeting of 23 November, 2011.

For the wanna-be bureaucrats in the Housing Committee majority, this failure to pre-emptively silence the opposition in the Housing Committee was merely a warmup. They prepared to make a second attempt to bring more shame on the Occupy Chicago organization by giving it another go.

This time, the Housing Committee went for an even more severe penalty: the expulsion of Mark D. from the ENTIRE OCCUPY CHICAGO MOVEMENT! In furtherance of this outrageous act, the Housing Committee majority enlisted a number of members of other committees heretofore uninvolved in the conflict between the Housing Committee majority and minority members. Several Housing Committee majority members signed this document under the names of other committees they are members of, in a transparent attempt to hide the fact that the motivating force behind this latest expulsion attempt was, in fact, the same members of the Housing Committee who tried the gag order last time. This latest attempt of the Housing Committee majority to silence Mark D. also failed.

Not only is this an outrageous document which will stand as a severe stain on the political record of everyone who signed it; it is also most likely a fraudulent product, since though it pretends to have been produced and signed on "Wednesday, November the Thirtieth, Two Thousand and Eleven" it must have been signed after the Housing Committee meeting ended on 30 November 2011 - at approximately 11:30 PM! Therefore it was either written and signed in just a half hour between the end of that meeting and the start of the next day or it was actually signed or at least some of the signatures were added the next day. But these are mere quibbles to people who would stoop so low in order to silence their political opponents!

The text of their handwritten resolution of expulsion is as follows:

"We the undersigned, representing our committees and ourselves, do hereby agree to the removal of Mr. Mark Donaghey from Occupy Chicago on this Wednesday, November the Thirtieth, Two Thousand and Eleven. This collective decision has been made in response to his repeated violent acts against members of Occupy Chicago.

(Signed)
[Note: the signatures are presented as best as I can read them - MD]
Ryan Metz (?), Witness Secretariat

Danielle Villareal , Direct Action

Jennifer Lindner, Direct Action and Housing

[Another signature, crossed out]

[Illegible signature], SPC, Occupy El Barrio

Kieran Aarons, Donations, Education

[Illegible signature] Direct Action

[Kurt] (?) [Liebner?] Civil Liberties Defense

Sarah Wild, Education

Ken Irwin, Housing, Visual Media

Bunny, SPC

Alyssa [Illegible], Direct Action

Mark Banks, Labor Outreach

[R.(?)] Herbert, Housing, D.A.

[End of Document]

As you can see, several members of the Housing Committee majority sought a shabby method of hiding their relationship to the controversy in the Housing Committee by signing this document using their affiliations with other committees: Kieran Aarons and Mark Banks both opted for this weak subterfuge.
This is NOT what democracy looks like!

And the wisdom of the GA was once again in evidence on Thursday, December 1 as the membership refused to support such a naked attempt to censor an Occupy Chicago member for voicing his dissenting opinion on a matter of great concern to the entire Occupy Chicago organization!

Mark Donaghey
for the Housing Committee minority

[DanK42]

^^Bump^^ You know that was a double post. Nonetheless, I have to agree with Mark D. He presented me with the information in question and I have yet to see any evidence that he ever stated anything other than what happened. Which I can attest to Abel agreeing with and I'm sure Abel will as well. I participated in the mediation with Lynette, Mark, Myself, and Abel. Sugar had no interest in discussing the matter with me despite my being involved in the mediation and having all sides of the story except hers. I thought it appropriate that I heard her side of the story, for transparency's sake I have included the conversation:

Greetings Sugar,

I wanted to chat with you a bit about what happened with Mark D at Xroads. I have heard his side of the story and Abel's and have not had the chance to speak with you. I have maintained that I was not there and do not know what happened but to be clear, as Abel and Mark's story have matched up, more so than that of anyone from Housing it is very difficult for me to take anything other's say seriously, as two of the three people ( Mark and Abel) involved have agreed on the circumstances. As you may already know, many in Housing seem to think that I am advocating violence on this issue and I most assuredly do not. However, I participated in the mediation with Mark, Abel, Zoe and Lynette to allow Mark back into the Housing committee pending Conflict and Resolutions outcome. I respect if you do not wish to talk to me, though I feel the diffusion of this matter will unload a lot of angst currently running rampant in the Housing committee.

BTW I'm the long-haired blonde guy always wearing the cowboy hat , if you are not sure who I am,,,

Thank you for your consideration of this conversation, I know we only brushed shoulders in the past.

Hi,

I do now know who you are, and I have given my full statement to Sean on Safety and Peacekeepers. If you want it, see him.

Mark D shoved me. I will be no where near him, or Mark B for that matter (but different issues).
- Show quoted text -
--

In Solidarity with our Occupy Family around the world,
Sugar
Occupy Chicago

Thanks so much for the quick response, I have spoken to Sean about the issue. That is more or less exactly what I heard. And Mark B has been causing endless problems agreed, though no such ban took place and oddly he has threatened Mark D and is the primary one claiming that I endorse violence as well not to mention being extremely aggressive with myself and others.

If you wish me to discontinue the conversation I understand but I would simply like to know if you think it is reasonable to say, that he did indeed shove you, but this shove was not intended to cause physical harm? Or were you injured? By no means am I justifying this occurrence it was certainly inappropriate and unacceptable.

I know I was not part of if it but I am sorry it happened.

My understanding is that it was a matter of expediting the closure of the door in order to avoid unwanted peoples from entering the building. Again, not a justification but simply an explanation. I understand that you do not want to be around him, but do you feel he is truly a violent threat or rather that he acted inappropriately and you simply do not want to deal with him?

Thanks so much for talking to me about this. I fully understand Mark D comes off rather aggressive, I too took some offense to his general attitude, though I was not shoved. Just saying I understand how he can be abrasive, I think he does too...he's from Boston . Just a joke, no real prejudice against Boston, that is just what him and I came up with as to why he comes off abrasively.

Anyway, thanks again for the talk.

I have spoken to Lynette about your last email. Having found that you are not on that comm, and were there to support a guy who used violence, means that your contacting me about this issue is totally inappropriate.

Mark B has never been violent. But as I said, those issue have nothing to do with Mark D putting his hands on me. And, frankly, if people do not feel safe around Mark D. because of the situation, then he should be adult enough not to push his way back into a comm where people do not feel safe. That is the consequence of his behavior and he should accept that.

That day changed my perspective toward everyone in this movement. I went from trusting most until they proved me wrong to trusting almost no one. That is the damage that man did. That is how I was injured.

And the fact that you are at all supporting him in this, makes me question your judgment and hope that you stay away from me.

I am including the peacekeepers on this so that it can get to Lynette and so that there is documentation with what you are trying to do. DO NOT contact me further. I will count it as harassment.

As far as I can tell I never suggested I was on any committee that was involved, other than those that I am on (Housing, Tech & PLURaL), however I stated I was involved in the mediation, which I was. I will continue to defend Mark D, while I agree the action may have been handled differently, an act of violence by definition is:

Definition of VIOLENCE
1a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in warfare effecting illegal entry into a house)

In my understanding this never occurred. Again, I accept that this was not the most appropriate behavior however it is my opinion it is a far cry from violence. I think all of us in the Movement have seen real violence, yet no one has been removed for that, or drug use, or a variety of other issues. Most of which were simply handled on the sidelines with little if any transparency. This matter, in my opinion, due to statements of his mind, that oppose the majority of the housing committee, has been used to remove his voice from The Movement. Doesn't it seem awfully unusual that this is the first instance of removal brought to the GA? Perhaps I am wrong, please point me at other instances if I am? I have yet to see any reasonable argument, behind Mark D's "violent" behavior at best he made a mistake and has agreed to a "peace circle" and resolution of the conflict and has presented zero aggressive behavior since and again feel free to point out if he has.

[myanswer]

Sugar said she was assaulted. Definition of Assault "In law, assault is a crime causing a victim to [b]fear violence[/b]. The term is often confused with battery, which involves physical contact. The specific meaning of assault varies between countries, but can refer to an act that causes another to apprehend immediate and personal violence, or in the more limited sense of a threat of violence caused by an immediate show of force."

^^Bump^^ You know that was a double post. Nonetheless, I have to agree with Mark D. He presented me with the information in question and I have yet to see any evidence that he ever stated anything other than what happened. Which I can attest to Abel agreeing with and I'm sure Abel will as well. I participated in the mediation with Lynette, Mark, Myself, and Abel. Sugar had no interest in discussing the matter with me despite my being involved in the mediation and having all sides of the story except hers. I thought it appropriate that I heard her side of the story, for transparency's sake I have included the conversation:

Greetings Sugar,

I wanted to chat with you a bit about what happened with Mark D at Xroads. I have heard his side of the story and Abel's and have not had the chance to speak with you. I have maintained that I was not there and do not know what happened but to be clear, as Abel and Mark's story have matched up, more so than that of anyone from Housing it is very difficult for me to take anything other's say seriously, as two of the three people ( Mark and Abel) involved have agreed on the circumstances. As you may already know, many in Housing seem to think that I am advocating violence on this issue and I most assuredly do not. However, I participated in the mediation with Mark, Abel, Zoe and Lynette to allow Mark back into the Housing committee pending Conflict and Resolutions outcome. I respect if you do not wish to talk to me, though I feel the diffusion of this matter will unload a lot of angst currently running rampant in the Housing committee.

BTW I'm the long-haired blonde guy always wearing the cowboy hat , if you are not sure who I am,,,

Thank you for your consideration of this conversation, I know we only brushed shoulders in the past.

Kind Regards,


Daniel (DanK42)

Hi Daniel,

I do now know who you are, and I have given my full statement to Sean on Safety and Peacekeepers. If you want it, see him.

Mark D shoved me. I will be no where near him, or Mark B for that matter (but different issues).
- Show quoted text -
--

In Solidarity with our Occupy Family around the world,
Sugar
Occupy Chicago

Thanks so much for the quick response, I have spoken to Sean about the issue. That is more or less exactly what I heard. And Mark B has been causing endless problems agreed, though no such ban took place and oddly he has threatened Mark D and is the primary one claiming that I endorse violence as well not to mention being extremely aggressive with myself and others.

If you wish me to discontinue the conversation I understand but I would simply like to know if you think it is reasonable to say, that he did indeed shove you, but this shove was not intended to cause physical harm? Or were you injured? By no means am I justifying this occurrence it was certainly inappropriate and unacceptable.

I know I was not part of if it but I am sorry it happened.

My understanding is that it was a matter of expediting the closure of the door in order to avoid unwanted peoples from entering the building. Again, not a justification but simply an explanation. I understand that you do not want to be around him, but do you feel he is truly a violent threat or rather that he acted inappropriately and you simply do not want to deal with him?

Thanks so much for talking to me about this. I fully understand Mark D comes off rather aggressive, I too took some offense to his general attitude, though I was not shoved. Just saying I understand how he can be abrasive, I think he does too...he's from Boston . Just a joke, no real prejudice against Boston, that is just what him and I came up with as to why he comes off abrasively.

Anyway, thanks again for the talk.



Kind Regards,


Daniel (DanK42)

Daniel,

I have spoken to Lynette about your last email. Having found that you are not on that comm, and were there to support a guy who used violence, means that your contacting me about this issue is totally inappropriate.

Mark B has never been violent. But as I said, those issue have nothing to do with Mark D putting his hands on me. And, frankly, if people do not feel safe around Mark D. because of the situation, then he should be adult enough not to push his way back into a comm where people do not feel safe. That is the consequence of his behavior and he should accept that.

That day changed my perspective toward everyone in this movement. I went from trusting most until they proved me wrong to trusting almost no one. That is the damage that man did. That is how I was injured.

And the fact that you are at all supporting him in this, makes me question your judgment and hope that you stay away from me.

I am including the peacekeepers on this so that it can get to Lynette and so that there is documentation with what you are trying to do. DO NOT contact me further. I will count it as harassment.

As far as I can tell I never suggested I was on any committee that was involved, other than those that I am on (Housing, Tech & PLURaL), however I stated I was involved in the mediation, which I was. I will continue to defend Mark D, while I agree the action may have been handled differently, an act of violence by definition is:

Definition of VIOLENCE
1a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in warfare effecting illegal entry into a house)

In my understanding this never occurred. Again, I accept that this was not the most appropriate behavior however it is my opinion it is a far cry from violence. I think all of us in the Movement have seen real violence, yet no one has been removed for that, or drug use, or a variety of other issues. Most of which were simply handled on the sidelines with little if any transparency. This matter, in my opinion, due to statements of his mind, that oppose the majority of the housing committee, has been used to remove his voice from The Movement. Doesn't it seem awfully unusual that this is the first instance of removal brought to the GA? Perhaps I am wrong, please point me at other instances if I am? I have yet to see any reasonable argument, behind Mark D's "violent" behavior at best he made a mistake and has agreed to a "peace circle" and resolution of the conflict and has presented zero aggressive behavior since and again feel free to point out if he has.

OCCUPY THE WORLD FOREVER!!!

DanK42

[Andrew Smith]

First I want to start off and say that this thread is distasteful to say the least. This is an internal matter first and foremost, UNTIL the assaulted party chooses to pursue another avenue. That being said this is a simple issue. And to clarify yes there have been other unfortunate instances where others have become violent with occupiers and they were dealt with in a similar manner. Now to the heart of the matter. An act occurred, that is not in dispute. In fact I have not seen one instance in which the party has refuted the fact that they did in fact put their hands on another member. The question then becomes what level are we acceptable with and what are we not. I would submit that it is unacceptable for ANY member to be physically aggressive to another at any level. This is the issue at hand. Are we as a NON VIOLENT movement going to allow the physical altercation of anyone to occur at any level. I would suggest that we do not. This is not a political disagreement and to characterize it as such is ignoring the core facts, facts that are not in dispute. We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard. It deeply saddens me that this conversation even needs to take place on something so fundamental. At a critical time in our movement, this is an incredible distraction that need not to have ever taken place. We need to do a much better job of supporting ourselves and holding each other to a higher standard then the system that we are fighting to change. I hope this matter is concluded in a respectable manner that takes into account the seriousness of what took place. I am confident this matter will be, but it would be in everyone's best interest to keep in mind the matter at hand, facts that once again I must stress are not in dispute, and not muddle the conversation with personal grievances. Lets please handle this in the proper manner so we can move forward with our occupation and our core goals.