Posted on 04/20/2010 9:07:43 AM PDT by bcsco
You’re welcome. My best to you.
ping!
Ping!
We both left a year before the collapse ;-)
I just regret I didn’t buy San Diego RE in 2000 and sell it in 2007 when we split.
You’re correct, and this judge is a disgrace. Here in Texas, if a plaintiff doesn’t show up for trial, the case gets dismissed or, if the party’s counsel shows good cause, continued or reset. It DOES NOT go forward.
Colonel, USAFR
Non-criminal mis-demeanors are frequently used to deny a person a job or credit or other privileges of society. True both in the public sector and private sector.
Even arrests/accusations without any finding cause people their job. For example, our IL governor was “fired” by the legislature for being arrested. He has been convicted of nothing. The same thing that happens in that high profile situation happens with even higher frequency among those with lower profiles.
One of the reasons (but not the only reason) for both a high rate of job openings that employers can’t fill and a high rate of unemployment is that the unemployed tend to have those pesky misdemeanor records and reputations.
Which reminds me of one of those "great moments in Social Science". The discovery of the primary aspect about life in the slums that produces such high crime rates there. "Street hood" isn't a particularly high paying occupational choice. That's where the rents are cheapest, so that's the only place they could afford to live.
also dont forget that qualify for the 'in state' rates too...
“Access to American courts should be barred by anyone who is not in this country legally. Period.”
What about the 14th Amendment? It clearly says that “all persons” within the US have rights to due process and equal protection of the laws, though it also makes clear that citizens have more rights:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Here’s another weak link.
http://www.examiner.com/x-35821-Immigration-Reform-Examiner~y2010m4d21-ICE-attorney-convicted-of-taking-bribes-from-illegal-aliens
**Stupid activist judge is part of the ninth Circus district, home of the overturns. **
Well, HELL ... that explain it all .. this verdict is NOT NEWS. It should have been expected.
That’s nice to know. Thank you!
” That’s where the rents are cheapest”
Not true. After 18 years As an inner city slumlord / citywide co-chair of numerous Alinsky organizations / fulltime inspector for property insurance and researcher for UNCLE SAM’S CABIN, the facts I have seen are that rents are often higher for those on welfare.
The old welfare plans, and now Section 8, create a ceiling. That ceiling always becomes the floor and never the ceiling.
Several things are true.
Smart landlords seek out good tenants. Smart tenants seek out good landlords. Smart home buyers seek out stupid sellers. Smart home sellers seek out stupid buyers. There is an extremely wide variance in both rents and sale prices of housing.
Enough tenants and home buyers are willing to pay extra for prestige address, cosmetics and fluff that it skews the price from what others would consider intrinsic values: quality of local school, quality of the housing unit, and especially price.
The result is that stupid people on welfare who think their rent is no concern because it is paid by Santa Claus end up in high priced slums where they don’t get their money’s worth.
On the other hand, the working poor who don’t take welfare often get some of the best deals on housing ... the most for their cheap rent. That is because they value their money more as it takes them 80 hours a week to earn what the middle class earns in 40 and the welfare class earns in 1 hour waiting in line at some bureaucrat’s office.
If the defendant subpoenaed the plaintiff as a witness (something we don’t know), the judge’s decision will promptly be reversed — not on confrontation clause grounds (since it doesn’t apply in non-criminal cases), but on due process grounds. In any event, this case would have been a slam-dunk verdict for the defendant if he’d merely hired any compentent lawyer to represent him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.