Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Concerns about Michael Pollok's management of the 99% Declaration Group

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-12 10:50 AM
Original message
Concerns about Michael Pollok's management of the 99% Declaration Group
Reposted from DU3:

OK, He threatened to "out" an Occupier for allegedly being affiliated with Anonymous...
Gee, I wonder who can raise awareness about the problem with this guy's organization?



This saddens me because I would love the idea of a Continental Congress (so-to-speak) if it was done right, with a proper setup (not an LLC), with consensus sought from all communities, even if that consensus took a long time, which it did the last time someone tried to do something like this. And it sounds like the man he is accusing in the e-mail below is trying to start a competing effort to do the same thing on-line, and feels the 99% Declaration group is going about it the wrong way. My personal feeling is that it is not "direct democracy" for individual GA's to control the setup of a national GA for individual little committees to tack on a laundry list of lifestyle-liberal demands, but it is necessary that each and every one endorse such an effort and sign off on the means to involve the citizenry directly, and you can't do that if a single man that is opposed to the GA process is directing it. Also, people need to learn to distinguish between different types of representative democracy. What we are familiar with in Congress and local elected officials who run for office on a platform of representing themselves, their friends, and the interests of the monied factions that paid for their campaign is not what the more radical Founders had in mind when they talked about "servants of the people, chosen by the people". It is possible to have a representative spokescouncil and still have direct democratic process. Just my personal opinion though.

Why The 99 Declaration is bad for Occupy, and for everyone
by Teri Bidwell on Friday, February 24, 2012 at 4:59pm

It is time for everyone to take a serious look at the questionable beginnings of a group that purports to have as its single goal to self-elect over 800 delegates and assemble them next summer for the purpose of demanding changes to the constitution..... without having given you or anyone not affiliated with the group a single iota of input into the content of the demands they will issue to Congress on behalf of the Occupy movement.


No national vote on who shall be those delegates will be taken and no forum exists in which to give you any say in who attends the assembly or what is decided there. In short, you are not represented by this group, despite their claim. And yet, The 99 Declaration at every turn exploits Occupy websites and groups, attempting to inflate its member base while simultaneously decrying Occupy's goals and methods.


The man behind The 99 Delcaration is Michael Pollok, whose email address is the99declaration@gmail.com . He has stated on the New York city GA's website that his group does not support Occupy, while at the same time soliciting its members and those of other Occupy GA's to join his effort to create a National Assembly next summer in Philadelphia.


Fact: Despite several Occupy General Assemblies in specific towns which have reached consensus in support of The 99 Declaration, the goal and means of achieving those goals used by the group are diametrically opposed to the goals and methodology used by OWS, that is, to be leaderless and reach consensus on all major decisions affecting its actions. Specifically, the NYC GA, where Occupy began, does not support The 99 Declaration because it proposes representative democracy and gives no voice to the people whom it purports to represent.

http://www.nycga.net/2012/01/05/removal-of-99-declarati... /

http://press.nycga.net/2012/02/23/ows-pr-statement-on-9... /


Fact: Michael Pollock is a New York attorney who has claimed to prosecute cases on behalf of the FDIC, RTC, and Manhattan DA's office, and has many "friends" in the FBI. The 99 Declaration group is a non profit 501C with a board of directors that reads like a playbook for creating more of the same kind of bad representative politics that got us to where Occupy was necessary in the first place, to-wit:


"Despite their tumultuous relationship with OWS, the group continued to develop its plans and formed its own nonprofit, The 99% Declaration Working Group, Ltd. The board members include founder Michael Pollok, a former white collar crimes criminal defense attorney who ran for Congress in 2009; Nancy Marcus Newman, whose father Steve Newman was involved in a bribery scandal with Vince Fumo; Adeline Malone, a former VP at Goldman Sachs; and an unknown Kevin Archambault."



(source: http://occupyphillymedia.org/content/99-declaration-rec... )


Fact: Michael Pollok himself has withdrawn support for Occupy via a declaration made on the New York city Occupy website nycga.net:

OWS is a failure and there is no backup plan. it is antidemocratic and censors people outside of the narrow agenda of the small elite oligarchy that runs it; I have been down there and I saw them in action; they are a star chamber made up of anarchists and other antidemocratic movements who want everything and nothing. it cannot succeed; it has consumed its own oxygen and now the flame is out what a waste. we will press on with the nationwide election of delegates to a National General Assembly


this is an anti-democratic movement and we withdraw our support.



And yet, any page you read about The 99 Declaration includes language giving the impression that this group is a sanctioned working group of Occupy Wallstreet. Well, it is not. And I ask you, what kind of person or persons have the unmitigated gall to claim they speak for a group of people they have publicly denounced?


Further, as evidence of the character of a man who may lead a future National General assembly of delegates you did not vote for, I present to you proof that Mr Pollok has made direct threats against those with whom I have been involved who have opposed him in the past. In the email, Michael (who was present at the mentioned meeting) threatens to disclose the recipient's supposed but unproven affiliation with the group Anonymous.


On a side note, the recipient of the email is still working toward a national virtual assembly to include all citizens for universal direct democracy, while Michael Pollok, the man behind the99delcaration@gmail.com, still struggles to achieve and often does not find support at the individual Occupy GA's .


---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: The99%Declaration <the99declaration></the99declaration>@gmail.com>

Date: Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 11:50 AM

Subject: Re: nice job

To: xxxxxxxxxx <xxxxxxxxxxxx></xxxxxxxxxxxx>



Well that got your attention after ignoring me for the past two weeks, phone calls, emails when you were suppose to be "liaising" between me, OWS and our group. You are the worst double agent/infiltrator I have ever seen. While you were jerking off in that dumb ass forum with <redacted> and <redacted>, we recruited more than three thousand people to real working group webpages.</redacted></redacted>



Everyone knows what you did including the NYCGA. They publicly posted what you did on the NYCGA website today. It is clear in the public posting they made today regarding "<redacted username="" on="" nycga.net="">" that you pulled the plug on that 99% Declaration Group without authority and you have dragged <redacted admins="" of="" nycga.net=""> into this with you. Everyone knows you deleted the group without authority of OWS or the NYCGA. That forum motion thing was a bullshit diversion so we could recruit real people on FB and Yahoo. We have more than 3000 people working on the election and National General Assembly.</redacted></redacted>



You have no desire to see OWS succeed or anyone else.



But since you have threatened a lawyer, another really stupid move, you better get your facts straight:



Wrong, I worked for the FDIC and RTC and prosecuted accountants and lawyers who defrauded the government at big banks during the S&L crisis when I worked at BGC&S. We were outside counsel but you probably do not know what that means so look it up. I also worked at the Manhattan District Attorney's Office and the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office and for two Supreme Court judges in New York. Get your facts straight if you want to threaten an attorney.


You also have no idea what you talking about on the not for profit entity. I have a former IRS attorney who works in my firm filing the paperwork for me as we speak and you have the wrong section of the law we are filing under. Your ignorance is stunning. The bank account was not even set up and pay pal sent back the $95 dollars we collected when I was threatened. You didn't have anything to do with that threat did you <redacted> right? Just like you had nothing to do with the consensus vote on the conference call or the email I got at my firm from "anonymous." Do you even realize what you said on that conference call I recorded? Everyone on the line knew what you and <redacted> were doing. You seem to always think you are the smartest guy in the room but associating yourself with a group of wanted criminals on a conference call full of strangers? You should read up on your buddies you are so proud to know: http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/sixteen... ;
http://www.fbi.gov/losangeles/press-releases/2011/membe... </redacted></redacted>


I am giving you one final warning if you fuck with me again, I will completely expose you. You don't think I have experts, former FBI agents and investigators from past criminal cases who can trace every email and webpage intercept we get? Tell your pals <redacted> I know all about what they did and who they represent. <redacted> is so dumb she accidentally cc'd half her emails to me. You didn't fool anyone.</redacted></redacted>


<redacted>, you are an arrogant asshole who is only out to help himself and not anyone else so don't try and act like you want to help OWS. All you and <redacted> did was divide and cause distress to a lot of people who were trying to help.</redacted></redacted>


~~~~~~end of email~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Fact: The goal of the group is to self-elect delegates from each congressional district who will assemble in Philadelphia and present to congress a list of demands upon which *they* will vote. It presumes that each general assembly should create a committee to elect these delegates, on the authority of no one and without consensus of the GAs for doing so. Therefore, you nor anyone else not affiliated with the group will have one iota of input into that process or the result of it prior to that vote. What is their plan? To inform people they "can" register to vote for delegates in areas without GA consensus (*if* they hear about it beforehand, and I have to say, the effort to inform the masses results to not much more than a single tv commercial, a website, and a facebook page.)

http://www.the99declaration.org /

Fact: While a few small and select individual assemblies have achieved consensus in support of The 99 Declaration, the vast majority of Occupy GA's do not support the 99 Declaration's concept of a national assembly. From everyone I have spoken to, the preferred consensus building mechanism for creating a list of demands to be presented to congress should include every eligible voter on a virtual platform, such as a national voting platform made available to anyone with a pc and a browser, and that it is especially important to provide a voice for disenfranchised groups such as minorities who may not be able to afford a pc.

I have seen nothing in the 99 Declaration's charter that would adequately provide for the majority of citizens, much less disenfranchised minorities, to have a say in the creation of the demands for change to the Constitution. The demands document as it stands is woefully lacking social changes to protect the rights of minorities without a voice in how the changes would be implemented. Which in my opinion is likely the precise reason the forces behind the group are pushing so hard and at such a frantic pace to achieve their goal before anyone realizes what has happened.

http://www.nycga.net/2012/01/05/removal-of-99-declarati... /
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/02/24/14734963...
http://www.nycga.net/resources/statement-of-autonomy /

Fact: The list of demands to be presented to congress include ending the Fed. This is patently a position of the Ron Paul campaign and not that of Occupy as a whole nor of 99% of the people, whom the group purports to represent. This alone should bring into doubt who is *really* behind The 99 Declaration group.

LG's note: I have no idea what Teri is going on about here. While nopony here is a supporter of Ron Paul for reasons that even anons are aware of, and most DUers are not gold bugs, and I fail to see how any true radical populist would be a supporter of the Fed. JFK tried to replace the Fed. But this part is Teri's own opinion, I guess, and that is fair.

Few people understand economics well enough to comprehend the necessity of the job provided by the Fed in regards to staving off financial crisis. Yes, it lent out unimaginable sums of money during the global financial crisis of 2008. Then again, we aren't in global depression, are we? So who's to say the people who have jobs today can directly *thank* the efforts of the Fed.

While it is damning that it is indeed the central bank of America, the forces behind ending it in my mind are taking advantage of uneducated hysteria fueled by a high unemployment rate and human desire to blame *something* for their financial ills...and are not considering the fact that ... going onto a non fractional banking system backed by an inadequate supply of real mined gold possessed by the USA would plunge the US economy into a full blown depression far worse than the 1930's due to the overnight inability of companies and local banks to obtain money to borrow.

The end result of such a scenario is that the dollar would be backed by the renminbi. You know, that currency that is kept artificially low by the Chinese, that one. So what happens when The 99 Declaration is successful in achieving it's demand 18 (end the Fed) but not demand 15 (end currency manipulation)? War, perhaps? Fuel for the military industrial complex, something Ron Paul supporters can *really* rally behind!

http://fourstory.org/posts/post/why-ron-paul-is-wrong-a...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/weekinreview/01fed.ht...

http://the99facts.blogspot.com /

http://occupytheplanet.org/2011/12/21/operation-clean-h... /

http://www.truth-out.org/ows-pr-working-group-statement...



Dallas Wonderland replies: despite the value of what you expose... and of which it makes me curious... and with much of which I agree....like this 99 nonsense highly non-inclusive, non-consensus, etc... despite that...i must say...

defending the Fed is a little too much for my tastes. twinkle down on that part.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-12 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
1. Another disturbing bit of info: Pollok chaired group meetings consisting of himself and two infants
In order to meet the letter of OWS requirements for a Working Group to have regular meetings with a quorum of participants in order to be considered active in OWS. (According to the thread here) --

http://www.nycga.net/2012/01/05/removal-of-99-declarati... /

I had high hopes for this Philly idea, but I thought they were moving way too fast to try and do a Continental Congress of some sort... it almost sounded like organizational provocateurs coming in and trying to restructure the movement to their liking. Now it appears my fears are correct.

Especially if the goal is to form another Reform party of some sort and sap the energy of the movement, like when William Jennings Bryan screwed over the Populist Party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-12 11:05 AM
Response to Original message
2. He sounds like a real beaut. (Doing my best to channel Ralph Cramden's sarcasm.)
Edited on Sun Feb-26-12 11:05 AM by No Elephants
Great post. (no sarcasm intended.)

One wonders what form of government the Founders would have created if the world wide web existed then, as it does today.

Would they have given every citizen a computer and let us have an Athenian style democracy, voting directly on every issue we cared to vote on? (Too unwieldy and/or too easy to rig?)

Or would they have gone ahead with democratically elected representatives that we allow to clump together, neatly out of sight in the nation's capital, except when they go to their respective "home" states to campaign and raise money?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Jan 26th 2020, 11:49 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC