Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Leopolds Ghost

(12,875 posts)
Sat Feb 25, 2012, 03:31 PM Feb 2012

Concerns about Michael Pollok (the Chairman of the 99% Declaration, Ltd.)

Last edited Sat Feb 25, 2012, 05:21 PM - Edit history (3)

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-declaration-from-nycga-net/

http://press.nycga.net/2012/02/23/ows-pr-statement-on-99-declaration/


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-receives-vote-%E2%80%9Cno-support%E2%80%9D-op-ga )


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 it’s 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-individuals-arrested-in-the-united-states-for-alleged-roles-in-cyber-attacks; http://www.fbi.gov/losangeles/press-releases/2011/member-of-hacking-group-lulzsec-arrested-for-june-2011-intrusion-of-sony-pictures-computer-systems </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-declaration-from-nycga-net/
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/02/24/147349639/occupy-wall-street-doesnt-endorse-philly-conference 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-about-everything-ever-end-the-fed-edition
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/weekinreview/01fed.html?pagewanted=all

http://the99facts.blogspot.com/

http://occupytheplanet.org/2011/12/21/operation-clean-house-is-the-99-declaration-a-fraud-group-questions-persist/

http://www.truth-out.org/ows-pr-working-group-statement-99-declaration/1330101568



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.
9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

starroute

(12,977 posts)
2. There are a lot of detailed accusations, with links to back them up, at the link below
Sat Feb 25, 2012, 04:49 PM
Feb 2012

I have no direct knowledge of the matter, but these are damning accusations if correct.

http://the99facts.blogspot.com/2012/02/former-sachs-vp-ny-corporate-crime.html

The corporation has applied for a trademark for the phrase “National General Assembly,” and has already threatened to sue those Occupiers who use it despite the fact that the phrase has been in use nationally for months. . . .

In February, Pollok took control of the corporation in a coup after a dispute regarding transparency of finances, allegations of misconduct, and a significant portion of the group voicing a lack of confidence in Pollok’s leadership. . . .

Dissenters to the process used by Mr. Pollok have been silenced by removal from discussion within the 99% Declaration online community as well as threats of litigation despite his clear knowledge of the standards of defamation yet one of the points of the declaration condemns any censorship of the internet. . . .

Ocupy Groups did not receive of the intention to send a press release affiliating the group with the Occupy Movement, and Occupy Philadelphia is calling for a major protest of the event should it take place. “A million expected in Philly this July” is the phrase being passed via text message.

Leopolds Ghost

(12,875 posts)
3. Sounds like what happened to
Sat Feb 25, 2012, 05:19 PM
Feb 2012
on the Gulf Coast after Katrina...

Infiltrators gaining control over the levers of the nonprofit corporation and taking it over.

Isn't protesting pseudo-Occupy groups getting off message / drawing undeserved attention?

Leopolds Ghost

(12,875 posts)
4. Another disturbing bit of info: Pollok chaired group meetings consisting of himself and two infants
Sun Feb 26, 2012, 10:05 AM
Feb 2012

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-declaration-from-nycga-net/

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.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
5. I think it's pretty clear the guy is either an infiltrator, and not a very good one considering his
Sun Feb 26, 2012, 04:22 PM
Feb 2012

behavior, and/or a rightwing troll. But it seems he has been exposed. As to what to do about his efforts to claim the language by copyright, I don't know what can be done about that. But anyone who would try to do that, then go after the people who invented legally? I don't think there are any questions left about his agenda.

He did raise the issue of copyright though. Maybe the ACLU and/or the The Lawyers Guild could address that before he succeeds. Seems to me he was out to destroy the movement by attempting to 'own' and control one the most successful aspects of it.

I have no idea whether he can do this or not, but I hope someone with legal knowledge will look into it.

Leopolds Ghost

(12,875 posts)
6. Why not fight fire with fire
Sun Feb 26, 2012, 04:32 PM
Feb 2012

The guy he's threatening, the one that has been trying to do an online, "inclusive" version of what Pollock proposed, should ask the GA to expropriate Pollock's language for the more inclusive version of a National Assembly and steal his thunder. I think the idea itself is legitimate, simply that Pollock's group is a narrow and unaccountable vanguard composed of people who have a poor opinion of the "rest" of Occupy.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
7. Yes, I agree. Especially since this WAS an OWS idea to begin with. I believe they talked about it
Sun Feb 26, 2012, 04:51 PM
Feb 2012

in NY and I would have to check, but in at least one other state, I think they are doing it. I always thought it was a good idea. Iow, he stole the idea to try to coopt it and control it, it seems.

So they should just go ahead and do it if they get a consensus. His 'OWS is a failure' statement totally gives him away imo. That is a rightwing talking point.

But I do agree with you. Let me see if I can find the other state which talked about this and if they are going ahead with the idea.

The reason I first thought the group was legitimate was because I remember them talking about doing this.

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
9. I think your questions are important. I have no idea either...but, important to think about. n/t
Sun Feb 26, 2012, 08:21 PM
Feb 2012

starroute

(12,977 posts)
8. Some of the people behind this were also involved with the Justice Party
Sun Feb 26, 2012, 06:04 PM
Feb 2012

That was the group trying to get Rocky Anderson to run for president.

These were the same people who Pollok had a falling-out with that led to the alleged "coup" where he kicked all of them off the board, so I wouldn't necessarily conclude they and Pollok shared the same agenda

But it does seem as though the general attitude was to try to channel Occupy back into more conventional lines.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Occupy Underground»Concerns about Michael Po...