The following resolution was passed by consensus by the General Assembly of Occupy Boston, November 3, 2011. It was distributed along with a list of grievances against Paul Carnes and copies of receipts from various transactions paid for with Occupy Boston funds.
[Download the original packet as a PDF]
November 3, 2011
Proposal to Ban Paul (Fetch) Carnes and Sydney Sherrell from Occupy Boston and the General Assembly and from Representing Occupy Boston.
Whereas Carnes and Sherrell have previously been banned from the Financial Accountability Working Group (FAWG) for inappropriate handling of funds and unsavory behavior, and
Whereas Carnes and Sherrell have already been brought before mediation and were asked to cease and desist actions on behalf of Occupy Boston, and
Whereas Carnes went to Occupy Cleveland, claiming to have been sent from Occupy Boston, and to be a representative of the National Lawyers’ Guild, and attempted to claim vertical leadership there, much like he did here, and
Whereas Carnes and Sherrell passed out a flyer at camp dated November 2, 2011 that was not approved by the GA, the Media Working Group that issues releases, or any form of consensus with the movement, which read: “Occupy News: Occupy Boston Resolves Legal Dispute. Last night the General Assembly welcomed Paul Carnes and Sydney back to Occupy Boston with open consensus-hands followed by an announcement by the Financial Accountability Working Group (FAWG) of Occupy Boston. The announcement stated that Carnes and Sherell have reached an agreement with members of the financial working group on behalf of Occupy Boston to work out their differences after weeks of a communication break-down and an intensive mediation lead by the attorney David Kelston. Over 150 news articles and blog post were written about this issue alone… When Carnes and Sherell took the stage at General Assembly, it was clear that lessons have been learned, their motives were pure at heart, and they truly care about the occupation… The goal is to unite together and fight for what we believe, in solidarity for the good of us all. Both Carnes and Sherell came to an agreement with Occupy Boston to do just that. All is live and well in Occupy Land,” and
Whereas Carnes and Sherrell have set up a series of fundraising sites purporting to be for Occupy Boston among other occupations but are not part of FAWG, and
Whereas Carnes has attempted to remove previously published information about his unsavory activities from the Occupy Boston website, and
Whereas Carnes and Sherrell have shown repeatedly that they have no respect for horizontal democracy, of the wishes of the General Assembly, and are still attempting to manipulate both Occupy Boston and the people outside of the movement,
Therefore, this ad-hoc group of concerned individuals propose the General Assembly of Occupy Boston agree by consensus to not allow Paul Carnes to represent Occupy Boston in any capacity. Should Paul Carnes or Sydeny Sherrell attempt to speak for the movement or Occupy Boston again, further releases and proposals will be issued to make it clear they are not representatives of Occupy Boston. We will continue to disseminate this information about Paul and Sydney to the entire global movement including Occupy Together as well as individual occupations.
Paul Carnes and Sydney Sherrell are also hereby removed, which means they are no longer allowed at Occupy Boston sites.
[Point of Information/Correction: On the second page of the list of grievances against Paul Carnes, it reads that Carnes forced FAWG to allow him back in as a bargaining chip. FAWG points out that this is not the case, and this is false. See agreement between Carnes and FAWG for more information.]
39 Responses to “Paul “Fetch” Carnes and Sydney Sherrell Banned”
Can we get pictures of these guys?
this idiot: http://paulfetch.com/
and this idiot: http://twitter.com/#!/h5d6g7
my group MGA (Major General Assembly) we had a vote and we have a concensus that all occupy sites will be returned to the people. All occupiers must go home or have police use force to bring to jail. The MGA has spoken.
http://www.paulcarnes.com/
Thanks for the transparency.
What’s with this pseudo-legalese garbage? It just sounds silly.
Q: What kind of vetting is done when committees are put together? Especially financial ones?
Good job, by the way.
Whereas I have hitherto conveyed the information upon which this said missive hath been undertaken.
Good job. I don’t get Arnie Fein’s objection, it doesn’t read like legalese to me. Factual, a certain gravitas to it which is appropriate for kicking these two guys out (e.g., such things are not done lightly.)
Minus two douches. Right on.
MAKE UP YOUR AFOREMENTIONED FUCKING MIND
At the GA there was actually some discussion as to why the back-and-forth occurred. In short it was back and forth because PC scammed and strong-armed his way around.
Specifically, PC only met with the mediator (which was a quicker resolution than suing PC would have been) to transfer the funds he had collected under his DBA under the condition that he be let back into FAWG. Also, the improper press releases were PC scamming Media and other Occupy movements with false claims. Now that this is official and ratified by the GA, OB can publicly disavow any connection to PC and SS should they attempt to continue their scams. (Which, it was rumored, they were trying to do at OWS last night.)
Nicely played.
Read the details in the PDF. I was confused too (he is in, out, then in and out again), but this answered it for me…
Bottom of page 2 –
“…FAWG was forced to let him back in the committee…”
Good luck trying to enforce a ban on public land assailed.
yeah, i get it now. you guys probably could’ve gone about this in a better way. i like that he got the 10% police discount at dunkin donuts. the receipts would be hilarious if they weren’t so sad.
“inappropriate handling of funds and unsavory behavior” please say what actually happened. what did they do? this is not transparent? what did they do?
Evidence (copies of receipts) was passed around last night. There are plans to post it publicly, though I don’t see it on the wiki yet.
TL;DR version of the evidence: He bought unauthorized goods and services (a lot of food, clothes, cell phones, cab fare and more) for personal use with the OB funds.
Oh, evidence is in the PDF link at the top of the article. Missed that the first time around.
One person did state there is even more evidence which is yet to be disseminated.
FINALLY. Some hard facts and decisive action. Unfortunately, movements like Occupy sometimes attract megalomaniacs and sociopaths looking for fame and glory and money. Also unfortunately, the ‘flat democracy’, all-inclusive, consensus requiring structure you have makes it hard to get rid of them, doesn’t it?
Looks like you’ve done it, though. Good.
Hopefully when they pop up someplace else, and they surely will, folks will have read this and will be on guard.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON PAUL FETCH:
Paul Fetch has been at “war” with Anonymous for the past four years. He did this on purpose (duh) as an act of revenge toward Anonymous whom he falsely believes is the sole drive of this movement.
Anonymous, while we certainly owe the founding of this movement to, is hardly the crowd at Boston, New York, Oakland, or anywhere else today. HE ROBBED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. He’s no better than the 1% we fight. He’s a thief and a traitor… and he’s malicious. He’s out for revenge. I suspect he could even commit violent acts.
Be weary.
On the night of Saturday October 15 a wave of violence broke out over the camp. At least one person was physically dragged out of the camp by a group that included masked people. At least one other was banned. For heroin, wrongful urination or whatever. Looking back I think maybe it was necessary but there was no due process and an atmosphere of absolute intimidation. I was kind of freaked out as the situation seemed to be getting worse and I seemed to be the only one concerned. Several times as more events occurred I would stop at the Legal tent to talk to a young lady to explain what was happening. I am quite sure this was Sydney Sherrell. I told her I just wanted her to hear what was happening since she was sitting at the Legal tent. She ended up listening to me and this was very helpful. At the end a large pile of belongings remained near the front entrance in the main walkway near the Legal tent looking like a trashy eviction with people put out into the streets. To hear that she of all people is now to be thrown out of Occupy Boston is heartbreaking. Please I would like this to be appealed. We need some type of due process here with notice ahead of time so we can participate.
Shut the fuck up. SHE STOLE MONEY.
no, it is called sharing the wealth. That is ther ultimate goal of this occupy thing. You can’t be a thief when you take money from those that have it for those who don”t, but of course then those that didn’t have money but now do , should be on the look out for those who don’t have money trying to take their new found money.
So no due process? No notice? An order to be silent? Your regime would be no better than the one we have now…
Relax.
(sorry, bad keyboard, please post the following instead):
i second that. correction: this regime is FAR WORSE in this case than what’s outside dewey square. people getting booed down and populism instead of due process just reflects poorly on an otherwise well-run effort.
there’s good stuff in US law; don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.
If you want to appeal the decision bring it up at a GA or possibly with a working group so they can get it to GA. Be prepared to bring evidence to indicate she is not a complicit accomplice to Paul Carnes if you want a chance.
It is entirely possible decisions could be incorrect and I assume that the people would be rational enough to hear evidence that contradicts former actions.
(Note: PC and SS are currently “removed” which, as I understand it, means they personally cannot appeal to the GA but it doesn’t seem to prevent any representatives from appealing on their behalf.)
So what happened, the time for nonviolent conflict resolution was expired, and we are now violent? They go off and start a warring tribe? Be aware that violence extends beyond the physical. You are starting to re-enact Lord of the Flies. Reach out to the elders.
By removing someone who was STEALING MONEY? Cool bro, why don’t you go occupy your fantasy land where every person on earth is a special flower who deserves love from all.
beef, you DO deserve love. I care about you. Please be well.
I was deeply troubled by the way this problem was being handled and the lack of transparency surrounding it. This action by the GA puts these concerns to rest. A movement with minimal organization like this one is vulnerable to self-promoters and scoundrels and needs to be extra-vigilant. I hope a lesson has been learned and we can return to the true work of the movement.
The true work of the movement – Like the MF Global collapse, talked about back on the front page. All the Occupy movements could really make hay with this. It’s the very same thing that happened back in 2007/2008 – Nothing Has Changed on Wall St. or in Washington! And nothing will ever change unless movements like this keep demanding it.
Agree with Paul – ” All the Occupy movements could really make hay with this.”
Unfortunately the coordination does not yet exist to mobilize ALL movements on ONE specific core issue and run with it. When they do – and if they do – that will have the most impact.
OB – is there a Working Group that is accountable for reaching out to all other movements? Do you realize the power that this movement would have if on the same day all the movements mobilize their supporters on a series of issues? I truly hope that day will come. Way more effective that having all these academic speakers come speak, which is great since Boston is a University town but the downside is that actionable calls to action that produce results and have a real impact don’t materialize. There needs to be a balance between SPEAKING EDUCATIONAL EVENTS and ….CALLS TO ACTION.
Is this Paul Carnes?: http://vimeo.com/19077966
Did I read that one receipt correctly? Bananas are only $0.24 each at Target? Well hot damn!
fyi, banans are $0.19 at trader joe’s. and $0.25ish for organic bananas.
The part about Paul Carnes and Sydney Sherrell being banned from the Occupy Boston sites is not in the PDF version. It appears to have been added later. Was this part passed by the General Assembly meeting? I find no record of this General Assembly meeting. How many people were there? Is there a video of this General Assembly? Is there a transcript? http://wiki.occupyboston.org/wiki/GA_Minutes Were Paul Carnes and Sydney Sherrell present and given opportunity to oppose this resolution? Is this ban an actual part of a passed resolution?
.
What does this ban actually mean? Is this an order to Paul Carnes and Sydney Sherrell to stay away or face further censure? Is this an order directing the people of Occupy Boston to shun them if they reappear? Are there penalties for those who fail to shun? Will the police be called in an attempt to have them removed from Occupy Boston? Will they be physically dragged out of the camp by Occupy Boston persons or caused to feel this will happen?
.
Why are they to be banned when they are already fully censured and barred from office? What is it that they are still able to do that is so dangerous? Will others be able to do the same? Is there some protection that can be put in place to prevent those who would take advantage of these power opportunities to commit abuses?
.
Why does the PDF assert that Carnes forced FAWG to allow him back in as a bargaining chip but this webpage now assert that “FAWG points out that this is not the case”?
.
What of the “Stealth” group the PDF asserts Paul Carnes created to report only to him “to protect camp”? The PDF asserts $1400 was “misappropriated” to supply the 7 member Stealth. Is this group still possibly loyal to Paul Carnes? Is this group now loyal to others? Is there danger here?
So I’ll try to answer these questions as I saw it. I was at the GA where this was passed.
.
From my memory I estimate there were somewhere between 40 and 60 people for this proposal (attendance quickly dropped off after this passed). There was at least one person taking videos around this time of night but I do not know who he was, if they are posted anywhere and whether this resolution was filmed. I don’t know anything about meeting minutes or a transcript. Paul Carnes was not present — it was rumored he was in or traveling to New York City at the time. I know nothing about Sydney Sherrell. The removal order was formally amended to the proposal.
.
The removal order is per http://wiki.occupyboston.org/wiki/Proposal_for_Removal_Process — I assume that being amiable to them will not “spread” the removal order. (If it does I’d vote to amend it — being nice should not really be a punishable offense.) I don’t know much about the removal process, but from a cursory glance at the wiki it looks like an entirely camp-centric action.
.
The reason for the ban was to, if I overheard correctly, “prevent them from wasting anyone’s time.” I would assume that any other citizen may appeal the removal order like any other proposal. If PC and/or SS want back in they just need to find a sponsor willing to work on their behalf.
.
The mention of “forcing” FAWG to reinstate PC was a mistake by the drafters of the original proposers, I assume. If PC or anyone else thinks that this particular clause significantly affected the vote, bring it up as an appeal.
.
No information on “Stealth” beyond what is in the proposal was provided. My assumption is that unless PC finds a way to financially supply himself further “Stealth” won’t be much of a threat.
.
Again, I’m just one person who was at the GA. My memory’s not perfect but I feel that I have captured the gist of the night.
Thank you for your reply. I wonder if I was standing up against the Paul Carnes Stealth Group three weeks ago on Saturday October 15. (See my comment half way up the page.)
Hi, I have a point referring to the overall procedure. I know this is frustrating and hard to deal with. But, I wonder how it is that you all can ban someone from public lands that you are occupying, expressly because they are public property? I do have a problem with this part of the decision of the group because it seems to be very against what the Occupation is based upon. I would just hate to see the oppressed becoming the oppressors – please reconsider this part of the group decision.
that this resolution has been passed is very troubling. the reality is that the square is public property and occupy boston has no legal basis to ban anyone from it. everyone has the right to every part of the park including where the tents have been pitched. the real law is enforced by the police right outside the park, and all someone who is “banned” has to do is to appeal to them. one solution si not work with these people you don’t like and to spread the word, without slander or libel. talk to the legal desk at OB.
an unrelated point: crime is starting to go up in boston indirectly because of occupy boston, according to the report presented by a senior police officer at a south boston neighborhood meeting. the extra police at OB have to come from somewhere so the patrolling of the rest of the city has been stretched thin. this will probably have the predictable effect of less safety and higher crime, especially more so in at-risk neighborhoods.
someone always pays the price, unfortunately. one option i can think of is to negotiate with the city to lower the police presence by somehow giving them more assurances, so that at least some of them can resume normal activities. this might be a win-win for all.
gay