Helping Others: Amplifying Revolutionary Love, #Jan4Foundation and More

Well, I'd like to take a break from the regularly scheduled programming, to have what amounts to -- in the blog world -- a "little chat" with you on how we can truly help others.  It seems to be a topic that has often been the subject of much discussion, debate, and protest recently.

• My original post on this blog was titled "The need for revolutionary love" and I stated in this piece that Revolutionary Love meant, to me, "to really apply love in everything you are doing in a revolutionary way, so that if you plan change in society, the change you are planning can be developed as a way of enhancing the total well-being of people who you are working with, but it should also be designed to imbue the change you are performing as a type of love for the people who may routinely perceive change resulting from new movements as difficulty or hardship for their system or way of life. As this concept develops further and as revolutionary practices and concepts are posted here, the revolutionary love idea will be developed further."
• Well, today it is being developed further.  Indeed, I will also address as part of this post, a new way that you can help the disenfranchised and homeless, as I previously announced.  But that's later on in this blog post.  I felt a brief prelude, and some background information, would be in order first.
• Since the beginning of this blog, I have been a part of different opportunities for activism in society, including #OpESR (the progenitor of the #OWS movement) from well before its June 14 nationwide protest launch that I helped plan and coordinate, throughout #OpBART (and as documented on my blog, I've been active in a form of activism which has involved development and pursuit of a formal legal petition to the FCC against BART's cell phone shutoff and cell shutoff policy); most recently, I've been involved in #Occupymonterey since its mid-October inception and its November 4th Camp launch at Veterans Memorial Park and various activities and General Assemblies oriented around Colton Hall in Monterey. 
•  
• I have thus developed a good amount of insight into who participates, who is just "along for the ride," and -- more to the point of this particular blog post -- who needs help, and how that can be done in a way that makes sense.
• Revolutionary love also means, in addition to the concept that I have previously shared, that we all need help to varying degrees.  We can help ourselves, but we have an obligation to help others that are disadvantaged and / or find themselves, regardless of whether by choice or by life's circumstances, in situations which are difficult or even oppressive.  (Obviously, this does not only mean people who are in difficult economic circumstances -- it also means we have an obligation to help people who, regardless of their wealth, for example, a person who may have a high degree of wealth and a great amount of power or authority, and yet may feel constrained or unable to act in a way which is fair or equitable all of the time, because of the accruing difficulty or danger that those who are in fact wealthy or powerful perceive is a result of any positive actions that they may commit.)  When we see these people in these same situations it presents the moral circumstance of a choice that we must make as to whether or not to commit the time, energy, and resources we have to helping, supporting, and sheltering those who find themselves in difficult or oppressive situations -- often in situations far more difficult than we might be in, but in situations which we might imagine ourselves being in if we were in a different economic situation, or if anything unexpected happens to us.  They are different depending on the person, because each person's individual needs [often including things that can be sacrificed if necessary] are different, but much of what a person's basic needs are, and the essential rules that are vital to maintaining order in a group are the same -- key amongst these are respect, nonviolence, and absence of abuse as rules, and the ability and dedication of group members to cultivate those qualities (as well as to expel members who persistently refuse to adhere to them) -- are at the core of what holds both traditional, hierarchical society together, as well as more unconventional, communal groups and societies (one example being #Occupymonterey Camp).
• Having concluded this prelude and having made clear that our obligations to helping others within the context of revolutionary love extend not only to the economically disadvantaged, but also to those persons who may in fact be both well-off and yet in situations which are both difficult and / or oppressive (which as many of us know, is an increasingly easy situation to find yourself in regardless of your economic state), I believe emphatically this message and those to whom we shall help with it is completely content-neutral, economically speaking.  And there is no question that my suggestions below can aid our society in helping those who are, in fact, disenfranchised and homeless, as part of that overall process.  Fair warning:  while some of this stuff described below is actually pretty easy to do in terms of physical effort, overall, it does take time and work and a lot of patience to accomplish, and the change that results from it can be stressful to quite a few people even when the results are positive.  (Don't Say I Didn't Warn You) The only thing that remains is whether or not you, the reader, desire to use these ideas and put them to work.

These concepts can be implemented anywhere

1) Recently I was visiting the Salinas Chinatown area and as part of that visited the Community Learning Center.  Next to it is a Garden.  There is some information on that here: http://www.salinasdcb.org/crp/csumb.html I was meeting with the people that help coordinate activities here, and talking about some new initiatives that they are starting.  This is all right next to Dorothy's Place, which is a dedicated structure with a kitchen and a space for community building, where homeless persons live.
More information on Dorothy's Place here. http://www.dorothysplace.org/ Various homeless persons are in fact employed there under the auspices of Peter Maurin Screen Printers, Red Artichoke Culinary School & Catering, as examples. The street and its buildings (Dorothy's, Community Learning Center, the Community Garden, more) used to be basically abandoned and vacant properties. Now these places are staffed by a combination of nonprofit staff, university volunteers, and homeless persons in transition and is improving with infusion of redevelopment funds.  This particular case is not an example of a battle between economic groups (such as the homeless and the homeowners, or advocates of street people versus people in government), instead, in the case of the Salinas Chinatown area, it is a constructive collaboration that has worked.  More information on the renewal plan here. http://www.salinasdcb.org/crp/overview.html

2) The #Occupymonterey Camp concept (in the City of Monterey, California) was an example of a permitted Camp that has resulted in an #occupy consensus on a matter of direct civic benefit to the larger community which has been considered part of the movement message.  It was pretty simple, actually.  I kept the idea as simple as possible (the "K.I.S.S." thing always works) -- something "Civic" or a "Civic Group" that would do "projects" -- I introduced the idea in community discussions for possible consensus at the local #occupy -- and the rest just took off organically.  On 12/7 the Occupy Monterey Camp Direct Action Group passed a Civic Working Group concept, which a day later was adopted by consensus of Camp Assembly [Family Gathering], at a location allowed under permit by the City for the Occupy camping activity, within a tiny site of Veterans Memorial Park serving as a traditional public forum where public discourse has been facilitated by the City government. On 12/10, the Civic Working Group was adopted by consensus of Occupy Monterey’s Colton Hall General Assembly. The adopted concept can involve such things as street or park cleanups and assisting in a homeless shelter, or other community needs, and can include service initiatives and agreements with the City and is intended to involve both people who are currently active with Occupy Monterey and as well, any member(s) of the general public.  Sadly, as we were made aware of on 12/21, extension of our permit to Camp in the tiny site (Group Site 2) of Veterans Memorial Park in Monterey beyond January 4th is in jeopardy although there was a General Assembly consensus prior to the 21st requesting that the City extend the permit; based on what we've found out from our meetings with the City, it's clear that this is a City management decision.  Words of support and encouragement for Occupy Monterey can be sent to the City Council, as we would like to be heard before the City Council on the 17th.  (We'd also like to help the City out with putting one or more vacant structures in the City to good use, as they've done in Salinas -- that wouldn't hurt, either, since the Assistant City Manager has written to us and told us that "lawfully occupying a vacant building, or collaborating on future service initiatives are all things that we would be willing to discuss" (partial quote from his e-mail, but significant if it could be made to happen in the way it did in Salinas, for example -- since there's really nothing like that happening right now in Monterey).

To contact the City of Monterey City Council regarding this matter, and to suggest that our permit to Camp be extended and that we be allowed to be heard on appeal before the Council on the 17th of January, please send e-mail to gawf@ci.monterey.ca.us (The City Clerk of the City of Monterey) and request in bold at the top of your message, that your message be routed to "Mayor and All City Council Members."

  To inquire or propose an idea that you (and some friends) would help with via the Civic Working Group, contact civic@occupymontereypeninsula.org

Of course, wherever you are, you can replicate the Civic Working Group concept in your community too.  As you can see from the example above, it wasn't just a bunch of working people participating in a beach cleanup somewhere, as a matter of fact, many people participating in this decision, who deliberated and helped formulate opinions about how the Civic Working Group should work, were in fact homeless or youth in transition and many of them who helped create the consensus that resulted in the Civic Working Group decision still are part of #occupymonterey.  People, regardless of their economic situation in life, are usually happy to contribute time and effort to help improve the community in which they live.  The caveat to that, is they must feel as though the community they are in is also supportive of them as well, in order for it to happen.  It helps if the civic endeavor involves people from all sectors of society and all walks of life, otherwise it will begin to feel isolated and empty.

3) #Jan4Foundation

I don't know if you use twitter.  I do, and I use hashtags to spread my message a little bit more broadly on twitter.  If you do, you are probably familiar by now with some common ones associated with twitter, including #FF (which I don't use) or, pretty common, #OWS or #Occupy (associated with many Occupy Wall Street tweets). 

My latest hashtag development is #Jan4Foundation.  It's actually inspired by the fact that Occupy Monterey Camp's permit is expected to be pulled (revoked) on Jan. 4, that the various amongst Occupy Monterey are resolved to continue with Occupy in whatever form we can after this happens, that there is going to be a very profound and transformative process happening (and it will not simply be defined by going head to head with police at a campsite somewhere, because our movement will continue regardless of what occurs with Camp), and it's also inspired by the song, June 4th Foundation, by Laura Love, which is actually sort of about Tiananmen but also is about a lot more than that and will hopefully inspire you and many other people to move beyond their comfort zone.  You can listen to it here: http://www.myspace.com/lauralove1/music/songs/june-4th-foundation-72747 

If it inspires you, use the #Jan4Foundation tag for whatever tweet you think is appropriate that represents taking you or others beyond the comfort zone..

"liberty in tiananmen
 flowers placed in the guns of men
 stop the tanks with one bare
 hand together
 june fourth foundation"

As American as Apple Pie, or, Who's on the Right Side of History in the First Amendment Debate, (and did I mention #Anonymous?)

Today, September 27th, 2011, I want to use this blog post to address a question raised by  @pixplz who asked in a tweet sent on 26 September, "Maybe now would be a good time to look back at what #OpBART accomplished, and what issues remain unresolved." If the title of this post is any indication, it might lead you to believe you were going to read about something "as American as Apple Pie," and that's true. That's the case. But these days, the people who are the real "Captain Americas" in my book, and who are making and baking the good ol' American Apple Pie, are in fact those who are associated with #OpBART and #Anonymous, because they have taken a critical stand in favor of, and not against, our 1st Amendment.

So, what has #OpBART accomplished, if anything?

1) Its protests (seven of them, so far, counting #OpBART-7 ~ Ride the Streets http://opbartsf.tumblr.com/post/10687247060/every-monday-5pm-civic-center-bart-station | http://bit.ly/phN4yX ) have resulted, without the shadow of a doubt, in increased public awareness about the issues surrounding Oscar Grant and BART Police methods, and have resulted, by and large, in general public dismay regarding BART's response (via shutdowns of wifi and cellular service nodes) to public protests.

2) It has challenged the unconstitutional notion adopted by BART that people cannot express themselves freely wherever they please.

3) It has presented an opportunity for public interest groups and individuals to submit to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) not only public comment on these issues, but an Emergency Petition for Declaratory Ruling.  An Emergency Petition was sent to the Commission by @publicknowledge with the following parties also joining as petitioners: @CenDemTech @mediajustice @EFF @mediaaccess @NewAmericaOTI @NHMC @mmtconline and the Broadband Institute [ at @santaclaralaw ] -- and the text of the petition that these public interest groups joined together on is available online at http://www.publicknowledge.org/files/docs/publicinterestpetitionFCCBART.pdf

Additionally, another Emergency Petition specifically having to do with the cellular service shutdowns conducted by BART on August 11, 2011, was submitted by me to the FCC, and is available for download as a PDF at http://bit.ly/nkBTcV - which contains arguments based on the Communications Act of 1934, Telecommunications Act of 1996, and rights of the person based on our rights to speech, travel, and case law pertaining to the same. It also gives a nod to #Anonymous and the role of dissent at the tail end of the Petition, and requests as part of the Petition for Declaratory Ruling that the FCC designate specific types of training be mandated for BART personnel.  (To the best of my knowledge, my Petition is the only one that specifically requests the FCC take the step of designating mandated training for BART personnel.)

4) Because my Petition, at http://bit.ly/nkBTcV has not yet received a docket number and is not yet published at the FCC website (to enable public review and comment) despite the fact that it was received by the FCC on September 9, 2011, and neither is the Petition that was submitted by Public Knowledge, and because the FCC has suggested, as I have inquired about what my docket number is (or when it will be given to me) that I speak to the Chief of Public Safety and Homeland Security, I have decided to take advantage of the strengths of my Congressman and his staff and use their constituent casework services.  Some good news today I received from his office, which is in receipt of my petition as well as a copy of this http://bit.ly/njWwpd (the results of a CPRA request from Christopher Soghoian and Jacob Appelbaum) - is that if the FCC does not act to provide a docket number on or before thirty days have passed from the FCC's receipt of my Petition (by Monday, October 10), then the Congressman's office will be contacting the FCC directly to inquire and request that this be done, and I will be contacted when the docket is provided to the Congressman's office.   

Only when this Petition is docketed will the FCC have to consider public comment associated with it, and will the FCC have to render a decision that takes into account not only the Petition but any public comment submitted online through the site where this customarily occurs at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/hotdocket/list.

5) #OpBART has, to some extent, placed pressure on the legislative establishment, which held a hearing today, Sept. 27, 2011 on BART Police Oversight in the California State Capitol, as special hearing of the Assembly Public Safety Committee.  It is clear from the remarks of the legislators at the Committee that there are some changes that they desire to see at BART:  For example:

     a) Crisis Intervention Training - Most BART officers have not been receiving it, and both legislators and BART police agree that it is needed for the bulk of the BART officers.  See http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/09/27/BA3M1LADBL.DTL

     b) Board of Directors and BART Governance - The BART Board is "negligent," according to Chair of the Assembly Public Safety Committee Tom Ammiano.

     c) Cell Phone Service Cuts by BART Police -  According to Assemblymember Nancy Skinner, "I think the decision to cut off the cell phones (...) indicated to me there is not good understanding by BART and the deparment management about how to deal with these crowds and protests."  It is clear that the concerns of cutting off the cell phones and the issue of whether or not this will become a precedent are on the minds of the Assemblymembers and not just on the minds of protesters and some members of the public.

See http://www.baycitizen.org/blogs/pulse-of-the-bay/bart-police-state-hearing/

I am aware of some Anons who attended and at least one made a blog post of the experience that he/she had while at the Assembly Public Safety Committee.

6) I believe this is in no small part due to the influence of #OpBART.  Recently, something that could not make it as breaking news in any mainstream media San Francisco newspaper (nor on TV in San Francisco or anywhere else as far as I could tell), broke in Bloomberg, in a story here, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-26/phone-web-clampdowns-in-crises-are-intolerable-susan-crawford.html thanks to the efforts of Susan Crawford

@scrawford and George Anders @GeorgeAnders who are to be commended for their work.  It is not easy to take something like an FCC petition and turn it into a really interesting story for public consumption, while also suggesting a proper course of action, and they have done just that.

7) And, finally, it would be wrong for me not to mention that #OccupyFDSF / #OccupySF is growing, a movement which has been periodically joined with #OpBART, and which has found itself at times participating in or near Civic Center or other BART stations. The FCC petition(s) and other legal measures will continue to reinforce the rights of people to exercise means of free speech and communication without threat or compromise of the systems they use for the same. The twitter accounts for these two movements, which I recommend you follow, are at @OpBART and @OccupyFDSF and also @OccupySF (appears to be a branch movement similar to #OccupyFDSF) which is at Civic Center (location similar to #OpBART's standard practice) at the time of this post publication to the web.

8) This is not going away!  The public is waking up to what is going on.  If one type of protest diminishes, another effort occurs in another venue, and the struggle transforms and continues.  There is no question that there are issues unresolved relating to BART, including the lack of training for BART personnel generally on how to handle difficult encounters, training on how to properly respond to protest situations, and there remains unresolved the issue of the regulatory response from the FCC and how it will rule on the matter of the Petitions submitted to it, but if anything this whole matter has cast into stark focus who we are as Americans and whether we are willing to be cast down a dark hole into submission and the endless creep of relinquishment of our rights until there is nothing left, or whether we are willing to take a stand and make a change to make something right.  There are those among us who have chosen the latter.  And we will be on the right side of history.

An Explainer for the BART 'Emergency Petition'

Today, September 6th, 2011, I sent something in the mail called an Emergency Petition to the Federal Communications Commission, relating to BART. Having made the text of this petition public (you can see it at http://bit.ly/nkBTcV), I've already received some questions: 1) Have you informed others how to do this, too?  2) Is there any reporting on what it means? 3) Who is pushing it? 4) What can it do (what's the point of it)?  I thought I would dedicate this blog post to answering these, and perhaps some other questions in a down-to-earth explainer, without any of the "legalese" that was in the Emergency Petition itself.

Before I get into answering the questions that have been asked, I should point out that, at least one other Emergency Petition of this sort was previously sent to the Federal Communications Commission relating to the BART controversy of August 11, 2011.  The Emergency Petition was sent to the Commission by @publicknowledge with the following parties also joining as petitioners: @CenDemTech @mediajustice @EFF @mediaaccess @NewAmericaOTI @NHMC @mmtconline and the Broadband Institute [ at @santaclaralaw ] -- and the text of the petition that these public interest groups joined together on is available online at http://www.publicknowledge.org/files/docs/publicinterestpetitionFCCBART.pdf

Now I can get on to answering the questions: 
1) Have you informed others how to do this, too?
No, not yet.  It's been quite a task just to get to the point of getting this Emergency Petition out the door.  However, I had help.  One, all the ideas and legal references I would never have come across were it not for other people, either for their inspiration or for information that literally landed in my lap as it flew from them to me or in front of my eyes after someone else had put the basic thoughts together.  As one example, @zennie62 was key in alerting me to the existence of the Communications Act of 1934, which I may never have been aware of had I not seen his information and very early discussion of that in relationship to BART's actions on August 11. 
Another thing is that although the process for launching an emergency petition (or for commenting on an existing one) is actually very simple, I don't think I ever would have been able to prepare myself to do either were it not for an incredible federal employee at the Federal Communications Commission, who shall remain unnamed, (perhaps, I may say, who shall remain #Anonymous), and who brought me patiently through the process of understanding what to do, and in what order to do it, and what online resource(s) I had at my disposal from the federal government as well should I choose to utilize them.
At the end of this post I'll describe how to create an Emergency Petition as well as how to find existing ones and how to comment on them.

2) Is there any reporting on what it means?
Not that I am aware of, not by mainstream media, that is.  As of right now, my tweet of the link to the text of the petition (to a page where people can download the full PDF of the petition) has been retweeted quite a bit.  I think that's some good reporting and exposure.  In terms of this blog, I can report here that what the legalese that you see in the Emergency Petition at http://bit.ly/nkBTcV actually means is that -- well, I'll just repeat some of the closing words of the Petition, "What does all this mean? It means BART can’t do what it did on August 11, 2011. And neither can, nor should anyone else here in the U.S. (Nor for that matter should anyone do the same thing elsewhere.) It also means, that despite whatever misgivings many in the United States have about #Anonymous, that many of them have taken the right stance in being present, in a nonviolent way to protest what BART has done. The history of the United States and where we are is arguably built on a certain level of dissent."

3) Who is pushing it?
With respect to the Emergency Petition at http://bit.ly/nkBTcV -- the one that emphasizes free speech and rights of the person, and makes reference to #Anonymous at the end -- I am "pushing it." There is no-one else behind it.  Anyone who would like to help support the effort in any way is welcome to contact me.

With respect to the Emergency Petition at http://www.publicknowledge.org/files/docs/publicinterestpetitionFCCBART.pdf -- the people pushing it are a group of public interest groups spearheaded by @publicknowledge as previously mentioned.

4) What can it do?
That's the question, isn't it?  What can it do?  What's the point?  Well, unless you feel like taking #BART to court for what happened on August 11, 2011 (or subsequently, for any policy or action it takes which would ultimately recreate the conditions of August 11, 2011 or create a precedent elsewhere in which the same thing could happen) in the United States District Court, Northern District of California [San Francisco venue, San Francisco / Oakland interdistrict assignment] over violations of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, then you will have to rely upon the Federal Communications Commission for some level of review.  Absent a condition in which specific regulation exists, and without a specific request for the creation of a type of regulation, a type of request can be made to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for what is called a "Declaratory Ruling."  According to FCC rules, this can be done as follows:

                 § 1.2 Declaratory rulings.

                 The Commission may, in accordance

                  with section 5(d) of the Administrative

                  Procedure Act, on motion or on its own

                  motion issue a declaratory ruling terminating

                  a controversy or removing

                  uncertainty.

                 (5 U.S.C. 554)

One would certainly hope that the FCC will remove any controversy or uncertainty as to whether BART is allowed to perform the kind of actions that they did on August 11, 2011.  It is my view that the FCC will ultimately rule favorably towards the public, which is to say in favor of users of cellular devices who do not want to have their ability to use those devices suddenly yanked at the discretion of a transit agency.  If I am wrong, then the FCC and BART will likely find themselves in a court battle with forces far more powerful than I.

  There is no required format for submitting the petition for declaratory ruling, however, it has been made known to me that if you are submitting a petition to the FCC, you must provide your name, address, telephone number, and signature on one copy (that will be your "original"), make four copies of the "original," and mail (by U.S. Postal Service) these five documents in a single envelope to:
              Office of the Secretary
              Federal Communications Commission
              445 12th St. SW
              Washington, D.C. 20554

Of course, you will need to comply with any requirements of the FCC rules and the Administrative Procedure Act, etc.  Get started on your reading by looking at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_10/47cfr1_10.html

Now, I didn't ask this question, you did.  So if you are falling asleep reading the answer, don't blame me.  There's one more thing, though.  If you want to comment on any existing petitions for declaratory rulings, keep an eye out at  http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/hotdocket/list -- this is FCC's list of items that are up on its docket and are now ready for public comment -- and especially keep an eye out for any related to BART.  (Once submitted, it takes time for submitted petitions to get a docket number, so you may not see any BART related items right now.)  The little "i" next to each number gives you links to more information and a page that has document links that gives clarification about what each item is really about.  It may be worth your while to just keep a close eye on that page rather than writing up a whole new petition for declaratory ruling; the reason I wrote mine was that there was material that I felt was absent in the first one (spearheaded by @publicknowledge) that I needed to provide in a newer one.  Time will tell if I was right or not.
 

#BART Complaint Process, or: The Reality of Necessity of Public Response to Censorship

As those who have been paying attention to California events in recent days have been aware, there have been some significant issues percolating to the surface in terms of issues of travel, censorship, and the ability to freely use digital means of communication.  We have often looked askance at dictatorships in the Middle East or North Africa when we have seen cellular service and internet suddenly drop off or disappear in these countries in response to protests. Yet here at home in the United States, we now are experiencing this very same thing.  And interestingly, it has come to us not from the hand of the federal government, but rather, from unelected officials acting in their capacity as employees of BART (a transportation district brought into being by the State of California), who cut off power to wireless nodes of a cellular network in their fearful anticipation of a protest.  Unfortunately, the actions of the BART employees who are responsible for the censorship have so far gone unpunished by the BART Board and so far have not resulted in penalties from the Federal Communications Commission, although the Federal Communications Commission is investigating the BART action. Without action from the public, BART's actions of censorship soon will become the standard for the rest of the nation, regardless of what the BART Board does.  (It is scheduled to meet today at 9:00am, Kaiser Ctr 20th St Mall 3rd Fl, 344 20th St, Oakland.)

Actions of the BART Board, no matter what they are, will be insufficient to address the dangerous precedent created by BART employees who assumed they had the right, in a way nearly equivalent to judicial power as created and effected by the BART employees, to encroach upon the basic rights of travelers and protesters alike; the actions of the BART employees threaten to criminalize basic patterns of speech and dissent that are protected under our First Amendment, most especially if other organizations and jurisdictions adopt the approach that BART as an organization has so far taken.

It is for this reason that I provide a tool to affected San Franciscans who were in particular in the area of the protests and who either had your travel impacted by the events of August 11, 2011, or had your cell phone service cut as a result of the events of August 11, 2011 (probably between the hours of 4:00 PM and 7:35 PM PST, approximately).  I've provided a document, available at the attached link to this post, and also here http://www.datafilehost.com/download-e3d18d9b.html that you can use to either file a complaint to the Federal Communications Commission at https://esupport.fcc.gov/ccmsforms/form2000.action?form_type=2000B (you'll have to exclude the document's references to venue and jurisdiction in the District Court, however, in your complaint to the FCC) or alternatively, you can use the document to file suit at the U.S. District Court, Northern District (no small task, but the document does enable you to do so if you wish to dive into an expensive and lengthy lawsuit on your own). Particularly if you had your cell service cut on August 11, 2011 and you were in the BART trains or platforms, your cell service company will have a record of either dropped call or service that you can print out and / or describe and will establish your standing as an affected person.  It is for this reason that page 1 and 7 of the document are left with some blanks:  Page 1 has areas where you must fill in the plaintiff (you) and defendants (BART representatives named in the document, and BART itself), and page 7 has areas that you must fill in with information that you will write yourself to provide further authorship of the document should you wish to take the route of suit.

Some disclosures are in order:  I'm not a lawyer, and I won't pretend to be.  The document you'll find at the link isn't perfect.  However, I've done my best in putting together something I hope you'll find useful.  I've also gotten a bit of review of it from someone who actually is a lawyer in hopes of remedying my general lack of expertise in the area.  Here is what the comments are from the professionals (paraphrased):

- That my 'Claim 1' is flawed because it would be tough to get a claim against BART under 47 U.S.C. 332, §(c)(7)(B)(i)(II)

- That 47 U.S.C. 326 applies just against the Federal Communications Commission (this has to do with my 'Claim 4').

Despite this, I've left the document as it was originally because the whole area is uncharted territory, the question of what is 'modification' under 47 U.S.C. 332 can in my view include many things; increase in power to a wireless node or a decrease in power (from my perspective) constitutes a type of modification (and, unless under prior authorization by the FCC considering we are speaking of a licensed system, as I see it, it would seem to be an illegal modification).  I've seen "modification" being referred to by some only as 'improvement, upgrade, expansion, or replacement of existing wireless facilities' however, 'modification' has a broader meaning that does not only imply improvement, but can also mean, simply, alteration of any kind, without necessarily enhancement of service per se. Additionally, where in 47 U.S.C. 326, it states that "no regulation or condition shall promulgated or fixed by the Commission which shall interfere with the right of free speech by means of radio communication," I look beyond the Commission's role to the involvement of BART in that if its contract with respect to the carriers in the Transbay tubes as approved by the FCC is claimed by BART to allow a modification (cutoff) of service in certain circumstances, then BART is responsible for correcting the violation of the First Amendment that such a contract or condition related claim creates so as to cure any interference with the right of free speech within the meaning of 47 U.S.C. 326.  Perhaps I am being far too creative with my claims and don't have a proper legal mind, but I choose to leave my document's claims as they are.

Although I did not mention it in my document, our California Constitution makes the point quite nicely:

Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.

Any person from San Francisco who is not a lawyer wishing to use the document I've created to file suit must first read the Pro Se handbook available via link at http://t.co/0reFxfm 

Any filing San Franciscan will also need to fill out a Civil Cover sheet, available at http://t.co/JgobrE8 and consult with the Court Clerk, filing, at minimum, the Civil Cover Sheet and the (completed - see pg. 1 and pg 7 incomplete areas requiring your attention!) document with any required fees, with the Court Clerk.

The Court Clerk is at United States District Court, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 16th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 -- 9AM – 3:30PM -- tel. (415) 522-2000.

 

NOTE:  I totally disclaim any liability from any injury, damage, problem, or general thing of any kind that may result from anyone acting upon the material they are reading in this post.   That being said, in the words of Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, “The First Amendment protects the opportunity to persuade to action whether that action be unwise or immoral, or whether the speech incites to action."

Crowdsourcing the “Revolutionary Goal” Concept Using the Allourideas.org widget: What can most meaningfully change U.S. society?

The question that is posed here for you is, "What revolutionary goal, if successful, can most meaningfully change U.S. society?" There is a unique instrument set up to allow for this question to be answered.  It is allourideas.org -- which instead of having the answers already provided for you, allows anyone answering to provide the answer (and allows any participant to rate answers provided).  True crowdsourcing at its finest.  I've thrown in a few initial ideas to get the ball rolling.  You can link to this online instrument at http://www.allourideas.org/revolutionarygoal -- or via my blog at http://globalrevolutionary.blogspot.com/ -- have fun!

Leadership and Analysis of U.S. March 24 Day of Rage / #OpESR June 14 Protest

In today's #OpESR Daily http://bit.ly/e2HY9l I include tips from Jim Parker, frmr Southwest CEO & cover the Operation Empire State Rebellion

A simple poll... and other ways to gather ideas

Near the bottom of this blog I've posted a simple poll titled "What could be a broad-based revolution objective?" It is a very limiting instrument and there are some choices I've thrown out including an "other" choice which encourages you to send me a twitter with your ideas.  But there is a better tool at  http://www.allourideas.org/ -- as the webpage states in the registry area, "You are about to create your own website where your visitors can vote on existing ideas and upload new ones."  I encourage you to please vote on the simple poll I've set up below, but in the near future know that I will be embedding something else into this blog from the AllOurIdeas site that will let visitors to this blog contribute collaboratively to the formation of revolutionary objectives, consistent with the principle of 'revolutionary love' as described in the opening statement of this blog site.

The need for revolutionary love

There is a need for revolutionary love in a society which is transformative -- with greater frequency, violently so.  What is that?  What it means, I am thinking, is to really apply love in everything you are doing in a revolutionary way, so that if you plan change in society, the change you are planning can be developed as a way of enhancing the total well-being of people who you are working with, but it should also be designed to imbue the change you are performing as a type of love for the people who may routinely perceive change resulting from new movements as difficulty or hardship for their system or way of life.  As this concept develops further and as revolutionary practices and concepts are posted here, the revolutionary love idea will be developed further.

You can reach me at @pcvcolin on Twitter.