I would like to ask the Occupy protesters, "Who are you trying to influence?" It's not a rhetorical question. I hope it's not your governments. They are working for the 1%. They knew you didn't want them to give all your money to the IBCS (international banking crime syndicate). They knew, but they didn't care, because they don't work for you. They work for them. Surely their actions have proved this. Your governments have also used violent force to suppress your protests. By their actions, they have made their true loyalty abundantly clear. They couldn't address your grievances without condemning themselves, so it isn't going to happen.
I hope you're not pleading your case to a criminal justice system. The judges and prosecutors were appointed by your governments to serve their common masters. They have made it very clear that the 1% are above the rule of law. The 1% brazenly admit their crimes in public, in print and on camera, and nothing happens. The inexcusable inaction on the part of prosecutors and judges has made them directly complicit in these crimes. Don't expect any of this to change from within.
I really, really hope you're not appealing to the 1%, because they truly don't give a shit about you.
None of these groups can fix what is wrong because their survival depends on preventing it from being fixed. Any solution they offer is a trick. Don't even speak to them. There is only one source of power that can respond to your legitimate demands, and that is the 99%. The message has to be intended for us, not them. We need to talk to each other. We need to decide what is important and valuable to us, and then work out how we are going to act on that.
If there is an award category for "worst invention of the year", it should go to the "human microphone". What a terrible idea! Why would you do that? Whoever came up with this is working for the enemy (or might as well be).
First of all, it sounds awful. It ruins the flow of spoken communication, making its content difficult to follow. Everything takes at least twice as long to say and, it's just plain creepy. I can't be the only one who finds it extremely unpleasant.
So what if there's a bylaw against using microphones without a permit? I'm pretty sure the Occupiers are already violating several other bylaws. I suppose the police could battle their way to the microphone and try to take it, but not without it being widely viewed on You-tube. The movements could organise a microphone replacement fund if necessary.
It shouldn't just be assumed that amplification is needed, or even good. Is it really preferable that a single voice should be heard by everyone at the same time? Consider that all other conversation is made difficult, if not impossible. Might it not be better to have multiple speakers' places, conveniently spaced so as not to overlap? Natural consensus is best achieved through dialogue, in small scale discussions. People should mill around and talk to one another, consider many different ideas. There is time for that. And consensus should take some time to develop if it's going to be wise consensus.