Please sign petition asking Trinity Church to continue sheltering OWS people on Wall Street

The Pastor has been a vocal speaker on behalf of OWS.

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2518/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=8758

Thanks

...the least they can do is provide sanctuary for those who need it.

ask for sanctuary in their own country.

Lets get some facts STRAIGHT:

1. The property in question is NOT near Trinity Church but about one mile away. The "fee-holder" (What most people call "owing" real property) is Trinity Church.

2. The problem is that the property is subject to a LEASEHOLD by someone else (Such leaseholders are often called "Tenants").

3. Since this is a Fee-hold subject to a lease-hold, Trinity is the LANDLORD of the property and retains all the rights of the Landlord but, unless some right is reserved in a written lease, all that means is that the Tenant will pay the rent AND do no long term damage to the property.

5. If the landlord enters property he had leased to another without that LEASEHOLDER'S permission OR by a reservation in a written lease, the Landlord is TRESPASSING on the property and is subject to both Civil and Criminal Sanctions as a Trespasser.

The Letter from the Pastor of Trinity Church reflects the above facts. Basically Trinity Church has no rights, at the present time i.e, till the end of the lease period, to give ANYONE permission to be on the property in question. Thus NOTHING Trinity can do, a point several commentators to the Pastor's Statement can NOT understand. I do landlord and tenant law, and I see this problem all the time. People think Landlord of a piece of property can enter property rented to another, when that has been a CRIME since at least 1385. Thus Trinity can NOT permit the OWS onto the site in question, that right belongs to the TENANT of that property.



Trinty Chruch's statement on the expulsion:
http://www.trinitywallstreet.org/news/articles/a-letter-to-the-trinity-wall-street-community

First, the church is continuing to open its facilities serving parishioners and the public to OWS. That hasn't changed.

The space OWS wanted to "occupy" is private and is leased to the Lower Manhattan Arts whatever - so Trinity can't just let them in. Trinity doesn't have the right to do so.

I think OWS has some nerve just thinking it can take over property, whether it is owned by a church or not. Anyway, if OWS wants to squat there, it would need first to get the current tenant to agree and then ask Trinity to allow it. Right now Trinity really doesn't have the legal right to allow OWS to use that space, according to their statement.

I think Trinity would be foolish to do it, but the arts council thingie could probably be pressured into giving back their lease in exchange for Trinity giving them back their payment.

Any private organization is asking for a major legal problem if it allows OWS to squat. It's legally liable for any crimes that occur there, it's liable for claims from neighbors, it's probably running afoul of about a hundred city ordinances, etc. So if I were on the Trinity board, I would NEVER agree to do it.

NEVER.

this country. Trinity probably doesn't need a petition because they HAVE been supporting the protesters. Not everyone puts fear of losing some money before their country's best interests.

If I were on the board, eg, I would vote to allow the occupiers to be there, only on one condition, that Cop infiltrators, who are mostly responsible for all the violence, be screened out diligently and barred from entering. They are a real threat to the public.

The petition is asking Trinity to open this space (which they cannot legally do) to the protesters. Trinity does support OWS participants with its other missions, but not this way.

And even if you were on the board, you couldn't vote to allow them to be there unless Trinity and the tenant make a new agreement. If the lease is legal, Trinity can't just unilaterally break it. If I lease an apartment, or an office, or any other space, the landlord can't come to me halfway through the lease and say "Oh, I've decided to give this space to someone else." Once you lease a space and pay for it, you have the legal right to the space.

So the petition is directed to the wrong party. And Trinity has already said that it won't open any of its facilities overnight to the OWSers, and it has good legal reasons for doing so.

How could Trinity possibly screen people? I agree that screening out any of the lawbreakers (even if they were cops) would be a good thing to do, but how could Trinity figure out who was who, and how could they enforce it, and how could they pay for it?

This is totally childish and unrealistic. It makes OWS look BAD.

so what lease is there on unused property? Do you have a link to show this property is leased to another tenant?

Bloomberg's thugs arrested people on 'unused property' at Trinity Church. I believe that included at least one journalist. They arrested seven journalists altogether so not sure if more were at Trinity.

The arrests were at a fenced and locked portion of Duarte Square. That particular property is owned by Trinity Church, which is located about a mile distant. According to Trinity Church, that property is currently leased to the Lower Manhattan Cultural Council.

Here are two statements from Trinity Church:
http://www.trinitywallstreet.org/news/articles/statement-on-duarte-square
http://www.trinitywallstreet.org/news/articles/a-letter-to-the-trinity-wall-street-community

If you want to claim that the church is lying, go ahead. They say:

Under English Common Law, the law did NOT look at the BUILDINGS on the land, but the land itself. Now, you can lease Apartments, Rooms, even closets, but the underlying law reflects the idea of leasing LAND not structures. Thus the fact that the land is "unused" is unimportant, the key is who had the RIGHT to use that property and that RIGHT belongs to whoever holds the leasehold.

When landlord and tenant law first developed, what was being leased was land for crops, thus the buildings on the land was of minor concern and only viewed as being leased with the land if they were "FIXED" to the land (and thus called "Fixtures").

Now, I do NOT practice in New York State nor do I know the details of New York Landlord and Tenant law. Each state have modified the Common Law Rules and thus a State by State issue, but I am pointing out the basic concepts behind landlord and tenant law and that fact it developed on the issue of what most people today would call "Unused land". Thus that the land was "unused" is unimportant to the issue of who can permit people onto the property. Only the person with the leasehold has that right and that is NOT Trinity Church.

the issue. There was no information here on what the status of the property on which the protesters were arrested is/was. So, I asked. And I'm still not sure why the petition states the property is unused, if it is rented.

Anyhow, this is a minor issue. The major issue is the attacks on the American people by major and brutal forces being directed by, who? Who is ordering these vicious attacks on peaceful protesters? Who is ordering the media to 'stand down' when these attacks take place? We have received a partial answer to THAT question today. But before each of these military-style attacks on the American people, the media helicopters have stopped filming going back to Oct. 25th.

Those are the questions I am interested in.