Very common just don't hear about been that way for years. This is bread and butter for them not much can do unless have deep pockets to fight them in court most don't. When they lose doesn't matter to them the cost is paid for by the tax payer.
@@JemicoTX Its only illegal if there's honest actors in the government who will enforce the law, but if the whole government is full of corrupt actors, then corruption overrules rule of law. And in America, the number of honest actors atleast in the federal government can be counted on one hand, the number of politicians who haven't received payouts from big businesses. So sorry, the government is corrupted beyond all repair.
Illinois has a law where to open a new hospital you have to prove it won't compete with an existing hospital. We also have some of the highest health care costs in the country.
No no no you're mistaken. The high cost of healthcare is because of evil corporations and if we just had universal healthcare everyone would get the care they need, exactly when they need it.
Monopolies are not only legal, but mandated by the constitution. The constitution at least guarantees copyright and patent monopolies, and there are many other legal monopolies. It is sad but it is not unconstitutional for the government to enforce monopolies IF there is a statute for it.
This happened over 20yrs ago to a friend of my uncle. They were firefighters in houston together and are trained EMTs. His friend wanted to open an Ambulance service in our county because at the time we only had 1 service and it only had 3 ambulances. The county denied him the business permit because they felt adding another ambulance service would drive prices down and his business may fail. So he appealed it and won, he said if my business fails then that is my problem not yours. Fast forward to today and now there is 3 ambulance services in our town and theyve branched out to other towns in the county to better serve the people in the county.
@Dustin277 I am being sued for $10,000,000 by a town council member for exposing this. As much as I love and respect @instituteforjustice , they wont seem to touch a case in NY. Slapp suit and regulatory taking and free speech but won't take it.
@@David_MashThey've done cases in New York and they have pending cases in New York right now. They have limited resources though and they can't help everybody.
@Strideo1 I think its not actually IJ, they just "partner" within NY firm. But from what I've seen, not very active. I get it, and I understand they are very busy, just kinda odd that a case that rings nearly every single one of their bells all in one, hasn't been taken on.
... and here I thought the politicians should represent the people that voted for them. In a multi party ( n > 4 ) that will work. But when the party someone will vote for is defined by 'tradition' and 'values', not by results and accountability, then the politician can sell his influence to the highest bidder!
The problem when cities "give up" and drop thier case, is that IT DOES NOT SET A PRECIDENT. They can turn around and do it all over again to the next poor schlub and legally claim there is no legal precident.
It's the same when victims agree to settle their case and don't go to jury. I get that it is a long, expensive ordeal, and people who have been harmed often need the settlement money to repair their life. For me the most galling thing isn't even about the money, it is when they get to say that accepting the settlement is not an admission of guilt, it is just a financial move. If I ever have to sue, I would insist that any settlement include an admission and apology. If I could, I would require them to allocute, but in civil court I guess that's out.
Doctors have liability insurance. Everyone in public service should have a liability insurance policy which is designated as first payer when they cause legal action to be instituted against their employer. To include legal expenses. This saves the taxpayer from footing the bill for their illegal actions. Sooner than later the bad ones will be out of the position and we can go back to respecting the profession.
Judicial immunity is very powerful. It prevents accountability. A prime example is the Colorado Supreme Court. They approved a measure to ban Donald Trump from being on the election ballot. It was a 4-3 decision. The decision was appealed to the US Supreme Court and reversed. Now was there any punishment or consequences for the four Colorado judges who were overturned for their wrong decision? None, they go on with their lives and their country club memberships. They are shielded from their wrong decisions (even if they are willful wrong decisions) by judicial immunity. Everyone else gets fired for screwups and being wrong, except judges. That is what wrong with the judicial system, and thus the USA. Judicial immunity is the problem. Diplomatic immunity is even worse.
There is laws that corruption starts at the top like it, judges and trickles on down, so everybody covers each other’s ass and denies anything going on
Its great that IJ is suing and helping victims, but if we ever want real change, we need personal consequences for people in government who violate rights. We need jail time and a way to block them from ever seeking a government job.
It's my understanding that if IJ wins this case (and I pray they do), The client may get a settlement, and a precedent may be set. However the settlement will be paid by the taxpayers, not the people committing the crime. Since there are no repercussions to the corrupt board members, they will just continue their illegal and corrupt behavior uninhibited.
In a free and just society, government's ONLY function is protection of individual rights. Government should NEVER have the power to regulate trade or business, other than to protect against theft, fraud and violence.
Why she didn't even check to see if she could open the business there😂 she also thought it was a good idea to open up a salon where there's already three😂😂 but remember it's easy to rile up social justice Warriors and filed lawsuits😂🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
The city county or state shouldn't be allowed to prevent any citizen from starting a businesses anywhere in America as long as it doesn't indanger the public or the environment in a manner that would cause harm. The ability to interfere in a individuals preference to provide for their families is totally tyrannical and a direct threat to our freedom's in every manner. Governments control has got to be restricted to a bear minimum for the American people to keep their rights and freedom's this country allows us to enjoy
I think it should be easier to sue the government in cases where they either take money or prevent businesses from operating in cases where the governments actions are later found to be unconstitutional or if the government decided to drop the case after blocking a business for an extended period just to prevent being sued. The government's lawyers abuse the low risk position they are in far too often.
Local municipalities need to be held accountable for following their own ordinances. Not to mention, federal and state laws. This grandfathered in clause is often abused in small towns and cities nationwide by city officials. Take the local recorder's office. My mum was suppose to operate a mobile home park but because there is a clause in the state of Iowa's business model that women and children as minors are not allowed to have businesses (outdated law in theory but not decreed it in actually) as it was geared to help couples run businesses instead of single people. Meaning a man would be needed to run a business with a woman to make it legal. My mum was taken to court and decreed not the owner because of this antiquated law. The other side didn't use this law on its front, but did imply it later on in court hearings. My mum was planning on hiring a new panel of people for the business of operating the mobile home park, but because in Iowa, attorneys are decree makers for land titles, they wouldn't help her. She needs IJ for a case like this because there was a lot of stuff that occurred occasionally that lead to this case being created against her. Oh, the local court ruled against her because the judge knew the family of the deceased couple that owned the park.
does the IJ actually help anyone? for years i have only seen videos of them presenting the situation and them claiming, they will help. i have never ever seen any update on any of the cases they present here.
That sounds crazy go the local media they love a story where government claims woman are not allowed to own a business. They are living in the 19th century. I never live in Iowa property tax is crazy high.
@@thecursed01 There are privacy provisions in place I am sure that prevent disclosure of outcomes of cases. Very rarely does an IJ case get disclosed after the case has gone through the courts.
@@thecursed01 The Institute of Justice does have lawyers on staff that represent plaintiffs at trial. The thing about that is anything beyond laying out the basic facts of the claim risks venturing into confidential client-lawyer privileged information. As the representing law firm at trial, they are bound by strict procedural guidelines on what they can and cannot say in public about the case. The client can go in front of a camera or press conference and say things at the risk of their own case merits, but lawyers are bound by strict guidelines while a case is in motion. The trick is to follow independent reporting sources that track the case record of whatever relevant case and see what the updates on the paperwork say at any given time.
Being held accountable requires voters to care. 99% of the population doesn’t attend meetings or pay attention to local city and county councils, couldn’t name their mayor, etc. Even if they do vote in local elections, they pick the elephant or donkey and know nothing about the candidates. The sheep are asleep. Accountability won’t happen unfortunately.
Folks spend entirely too much time focusing on national "politics" when they should be looking at their local and state government "tyrants". End these little fiefdoms and it will have a trickle up effect...
I am on the Planning Board in my Town. Listening to citizens and other members argue in favor of business restrictions is very frustrating. Petty power hungry elected unpaid officials who think they are imbued with the power to restrict free enterprise. And the shocking thing is most of those arguing in favor are small business owners who started their own years ago in the Town. We need Constitutional protection for free enterprise. This fight has been going on since Vanderbilt broke New York’s laws that allowed government sanctioned monopolies. It continues to be a fight over implementations, but not about the principle.
Being that you're in this and there's already three businesses in the complex doing how many times do you see multiple liquor stores in the shopping complex😂 but if you cry racism the social justice Warriors will come out and make me make big money on lawsuit
Just shine the light on the corruption of the city council. To verbally communicate that competition is not good and will not be allowed shows pure disdain for their constituents and non protected businesses. This should be an easy slam dunk. Hurts consumers the most but pretty much everyone but the protected business is harmed by this ridiculous action.
It absolutely CAN matter what you do on your property to make a living. As two example, you cannot do anything that damages your neighbors' property nor can you manufacture legally prohibited devices or substances.
This woman come here the right way over 30 years ago work hard started a business and now is being punished for it. She should looked at as someone to be like that hard work and time pay off. Shame on these townships for doing things like this.
Thank you for your public service. Having intelligent, professional attorneys who understand the needs and the options for "the little guys" of this country is heartening. This coming from a long-time Idaho attorney who has taken seriously the ethical obligations relating to pro-bono-publico service. My hat is off to you.
LMAO! Please don't make me shoot coffee out my nose. When you answered the comment about drug dogs and said, "Police departments could also voluntarily hold themselves to that higher standard," I about fell out of my chair. That's a good one.
You talk about enumerated rights. Those of the federal government are few and explicit. Our federal government has, by far, overstepped its bounds and it's about time it be reigned in. There are literally tens of thousands, if not millions, of unconstitutional laws on the books.
In my town a few years ago there were several proposals for new long term stay hotels. Because it was a college town and visiting people need a nice place to stay there was demand. Many people at the city council meeting demanded the city reject the new construction because it would cause blight??? There reasoning was they were worried it would cause too much competition and cause all the hotels to go out of business and be abandoned. Luckily my city rejected it as not their job to worry about competition. Sounds like this council didnt get the memo.
This very nearly repeats the same issues as I.J.'s first case in 1991 defending Taalib-Din Uqdah against an allegation requiring a cosmetology license! History repeats itself!
There is an arguement for too much competition. For example, there were a whole bunch of struggling bars in the city I live in. There was a natural disaster and a bunch of them went out of business and there were no new bars to replace them. The effect was the remaining bars are now profitable and thriving. One could argue that it should be a natural selection process. When there is too much competition, the less desirable businesses should go out of business, in theory. That isn't necessarily what happens in reality. At no point should government decide when there is too much competition. They shouldn't even be allowed to decided which businesses are allowed in the city. But it happens. Licensing schemes, taxing schemes, permits, fees. Most are not so bold about controlling these things but it happens. Shouldn't be a allowed.
As the "Law" primarily rests on "REASONABLE" government employees need to be Certified in their capacity to be Reasonable. Sorry, not REASONABLE; Disqualified.
I would amend the seizure of cash to the crime itself. If 10 mph over the speed limit allows for arrest and you’re carrying a few thousand dollars then they will confiscate your cash. Limit it to a certain amount of illegal drugs.
That sounds nice but in practice that's a slippery slope. What exactly does it mean to have the right to earn an honest living? If you're unemployed and can't find work, does the state have to provide you with a job?
@@siggyincr7447 This is just a weird argument. This is like saying that an amendment that guarantees freedom of speech is a slippery slope because "what if people interpret that to mean the government must provide a venue for their speech and disseminate their speech to others?". Just word the amendment so that it's clear that it is intended to prevent the government from making onerous and unduly burdensome regulations for the purpose of restricting our ability to pursue the lawful work, occupation, or profession of our choosing.
There are hundreds of nail salons with Vietnamese competitors why not African braiding salons competing with each other? Or are the existing braiding establishments fronts for illegal deals?
Competition of similar businesses actually grows both businesses. This is basic economics, and why you see big box stores placed within a small radius of each other, fast food places, etc.
My medium-sized town has five pizza places, two fast food burger joints, a taco bell, two Asian food restaurants, a breakfast/brunch diner, and (at least) two "American" style sit-down places. They are all doing well.
Absolutely amazing! These people in these positions should have some basic understanding of the free enterprise system and the law that backs it up. They have been educated out of knowing what America is all about. They’re basically socialistic in their methods. I hope the lawsuit brings a nice chunk of change for her business to the point that the locals would rather go to her business than the competition! That would be an ironic twist!
That's crazy they should have let her fail and then the social justice Warriors would not have cared when she was homeless😂 she wasn't even smart enough to research if she could open the business there😂🎉
@@privatepilot4064 No, I can't believe you would really think that. Very few people even switch hair places you have a relationship with the person that cuts your hair. She would need mostly new clients. It's ridiculous
@@JacobsNews My wife is a Beautician, whenever they move to a new place many of their clients follow them. I’m sure this lady had a faithful following of clients. Especially in the community where they have worked previously. Now if she was new to the area I would totally agree. We’ll see what happens with the lawsuit.
In response to the last question: sometimes the supreme Court looks for ideal cases to rule on, cases where the issue at have is extremely clear cut. For example Brown vs Topeka Board if Education was not the first case of bussing segregation but it was the case that had the least about of secondary issues to muddy the waters. When making a big change the court wants their decision to be absolutely clear and not something that can be deliberately misconstrued.
I’m a white guy and I’d be honored for her to braid my hair! What little hair I’ve got left! Bless this hard working American business woman! IJ is awesome, thanks guys!
A similar situation occurred in the University of Missouri System but has not (yet?) been litigated. The system instituted a certification requirement to teach online courses, and at first claimed that faculty who already had taught for 5 or more years would not be required to obtain such certification. Then they changed that rule to require all faculty who will teach online to be certified accordingly and the certification is a six week course. When I was about to have knee surgery, I requested to teach remotely during my recovery and the Human Resources department interrupted the approval given by my department to keep me from doing so. In fact, however, still they were allowing other faculty who had no such certification to teach online and remote courses because, as I later found out from the head of HR on my campus (in an email exchange), the policy was not yet implemented on our campus (except of course, in my case).
This is legal in every state in the US when it comes to new car dealerships. You can't open a new car dealership. That's why every town, one or 2 families, own every dealership. And you can't buy direct from the manufacturer. I my city Wallace family own every brand of dealership. And they are terrible.
OK, I remember the homeless shelter case, too. Something about putting it there because it was in the same walkable neighborhood as the thrift store, a discount food store, and other service businesses that homeless - or simply poor - people can patronize without needing to take a bus or walk for hours. I didn't know IJ was involved with that one.
So my business that has been generating and paying taxes for decades to the local township can expect no loyalty or support against a new competitor? Thats horseshit.
First thing is to end government licensing. 100%. If you want to start a business then you just start it. You shouldn't need govt approval to do so. Any sort of licensing or accreditation should be private.
As a town planning board member who has been working to unwind decades of questionable zoning decisions I can say a lot of the time these bylaws and ordinances are put in with good intention but are short sighted
My mother was a lactation consultant. I could just see my mother's reaction if someone would have told her she couldn't do that. Lol. My mother was grabbed by a Nazi during WW2. She grabbed him in return until he let go. My mother didn't take guff from anyone. Lol
This kind of stuff happens all the time on every level of government. Usually, the people in charge are smart enough to keep the real reason to themselves. This often happens the other way too. Small businesses are given restriction on budding industries forcing them to remain small. But once it becomes clear that the industry has some real money potential the government will "de-regulate" in a way that makes it so the regional corporations will crush the little guys. Money talks. Always has.
Rawlins wy did that to Walmart a while back. Walmart threatened to sue so the city worked out a deal but Walmart had to leave out a good portion of what they wanted to put in.
The market is controled in the USA and therefore not free. The even have an era called the Free Banking Era that existed before the federal government took over control of banking. They have since extended their tentacles throughout the economy. That is why the USA has a mixed economy.
The city has pretty much pushed out all other utility companies and has no competion.thus making thrmselves as a monopolizer of electric and water and thus has no reason to worry about charging whatever they want. What would a person need to go about fighting against this. Several cites different states do this same thing to city,county customers. , san marcos , texas, ...columbus, ohio.... bay city, michigan.. to name a few.
I’m all for “economic protection”! However it must be done responsibly. In an area where an additional, redundant business will take business away from established businesses it imperative to protect those businesses.
@@Strideo1 American concrete institute, it's a certification body, and you must have their certs in particular to work in inspections, and the county the largest in Nevada requires you to have this specific certifications, and many of them while they're working in the county sit on the board of directors or at the very least as consultants.
This is happening EVERYWHERE. I used to live in a HOA in CA. One of their list of rules was no satellite dishes on your roof, because it was unsightly. They did allow dishes on the patio & balcony floor. Turns out, 1 of the HOA member has some ties with a cable company, so they effectively remove the competition in the HOA.
A better way to put an end to the issues with drug sniffing dogs is to use the actual police reports to determine the accuracy of the dogs. If they don’t perform much higher than a guess than dogs should no longer be used to enable further searches. This would also work against the police tactic of handlers triggering the dogs to make an identification.
Just wondering if the first business that does hair braiding have the same permits and licenses that South Fulton is requiring of the lady, Awa, who is being denied permission to open her business in the same area/location?
Sometimes a business will approach the city council asking for city code be written that certification be a requirement. Example: a local tree service company approached our local council requesting certification for all other business be required that he currently possessed in able to create a niche monopoly for himself.
The intent may have been good. It sounds like there was a concern about market saturation but that is not their place to decide that. They could have advised the new store to do a market research analysis but stopping her from opening a business should not be done if you ask me
A standardized certification is needed for someone to cut my hair or groom my dog, but not for a dog and handler that can cause you to lose your 4th amendment right and possibly put you in jail. Sounds reasonable...
"The law should require that police or government agents cannot seize assets or effects unless an arrest is made; simple as that." I actually disagree; and agree with the IJ statement. Police already make a lot of arrests, absent a crime, knowing that the charges will be dismissed and the person released quickly. That will not be an impediment to their "stealing" people's belongings. It should be contingent upon an arrest AND conviction.
The free market doesn't give a good damn about competition, but competition is where all the good things are that we claim come from free trade. We should worship competition instead of free trade.
That’s ridiculous that a city council member can decide on their own interests.
hoooray corruption
Very common just don't hear about been that way for years. This is bread and butter for them not much can do unless have deep pockets to fight them in court most don't. When they lose doesn't matter to them the cost is paid for by the tax payer.
It is not just ridiculous, it is illegal.
@@JemicoTX Its only illegal if there's honest actors in the government who will enforce the law, but if the whole government is full of corrupt actors, then corruption overrules rule of law. And in America, the number of honest actors atleast in the federal government can be counted on one hand, the number of politicians who haven't received payouts from big businesses. So sorry, the government is corrupted beyond all repair.
Illinois has a law where to open a new hospital you have to prove it won't compete with an existing hospital. We also have some of the highest health care costs in the country.
We have the same law in Georgia. Certificate of Need laws are anti free market.
No no no you're mistaken. The high cost of healthcare is because of evil corporations and if we just had universal healthcare everyone would get the care they need, exactly when they need it.
Blue states!
That law basically enforces a monopoly on healthcare.
Business monopolies are illegal. Competion keeps price gouging to a minimum.
Monopoly is always government enforced, and doesn’t exist otherwise.
Price gouging isn't possible.
Monopolies are not only legal, but mandated by the constitution. The constitution at least guarantees copyright and patent monopolies, and there are many other legal monopolies. It is sad but it is not unconstitutional for the government to enforce monopolies IF there is a statute for it.
@@johngalt97 "Monopoly is always government enforced, and doesn’t exist otherwise." you are allergic to history books, aren't you?
@@thecursed01 Use of force sanctioned by government is necessary for monopoly to exist.
This happened over 20yrs ago to a friend of my uncle. They were firefighters in houston together and are trained EMTs.
His friend wanted to open an Ambulance service in our county because at the time we only had 1 service and it only had 3 ambulances.
The county denied him the business permit because they felt adding another ambulance service would drive prices down and his business may fail.
So he appealed it and won, he said if my business fails then that is my problem not yours. Fast forward to today and now there is 3 ambulance services in our town and theyve branched out to other towns in the county to better serve the people in the county.
That sounded like profit over people
How is a business permit a good thing? It's a way for established business to keep new business out.
Local control is out of control!
Municipalities with home rule can violate Fed and State and even their own laws without accountability.
They shouldn't but they can and they do.
Why don't we come together and get someone that will fight for it
@Dustin277 I am being sued for $10,000,000 by a town council member for exposing this. As much as I love and respect @instituteforjustice , they wont seem to touch a case in NY. Slapp suit and regulatory taking and free speech but won't take it.
@@David_MashThey've done cases in New York and they have pending cases in New York right now. They have limited resources though and they can't help everybody.
@Strideo1 I think its not actually IJ, they just "partner" within NY firm. But from what I've seen, not very active. I get it, and I understand they are very busy, just kinda odd that a case that rings nearly every single one of their bells all in one, hasn't been taken on.
It is a politician's job to help those who contribute to their campaigns. Politicians are modern crooks
💯 😢
Thus is human nature and history.
... and here I thought the politicians should represent the people that voted for them. In a multi party ( n > 4 ) that will work. But when the party someone will vote for is defined by 'tradition' and 'values', not by results and accountability, then the politician can sell his influence to the highest bidder!
@@alexandergutfeldt1144 💯
@alexandergutfeldt1144 Oh, that's old school. They know better now that is all about how much they can steal.
The problem when cities "give up" and drop thier case, is that IT DOES NOT SET A PRECIDENT. They can turn around and do it all over again to the next poor schlub and legally claim there is no legal precident.
This is why it helps when IJ brings the case against the government they'll take it all the way to the Supreme Court.
It's the same when victims agree to settle their case and don't go to jury. I get that it is a long, expensive ordeal, and people who have been harmed often need the settlement money to repair their life. For me the most galling thing isn't even about the money, it is when they get to say that accepting the settlement is not an admission of guilt, it is just a financial move. If I ever have to sue, I would insist that any settlement include an admission and apology. If I could, I would require them to allocute, but in civil court I guess that's out.
Get them I.J.
We need a law that holds judges reposible for their clear corruption of the law
Doctors have liability insurance. Everyone in public service should have a liability insurance policy which is designated as first payer when they cause legal action to be instituted against their employer. To include legal expenses. This saves the taxpayer from footing the bill for their illegal actions. Sooner than later the bad ones will be out of the position and we can go back to respecting the profession.
Judicial immunity is very powerful. It prevents accountability. A prime example is the Colorado Supreme Court. They approved a measure to ban Donald Trump from being on the election ballot. It was a 4-3 decision. The decision was appealed to the US Supreme Court and reversed.
Now was there any punishment or consequences for the four Colorado judges who were overturned for their wrong decision?
None, they go on with their lives and their country club memberships. They are shielded from their wrong decisions (even if they are willful wrong decisions) by judicial immunity.
Everyone else gets fired for screwups and being wrong, except judges. That is what wrong with the judicial system, and thus the USA. Judicial immunity is the problem.
Diplomatic immunity is even worse.
not just judges. all officials.
There is laws that corruption starts at the top like it, judges and trickles on down, so everybody covers each other’s ass and denies anything going on
There are laws that don’t allow judges to do illegal stuff but it won’t get enforced and it’s a open secret
Its great that IJ is suing and helping victims, but if we ever want real change, we need personal consequences for people in government who violate rights. We need jail time and a way to block them from ever seeking a government job.
Yea, the minions nees to be held accountable
It's my understanding that if IJ wins this case (and I pray they do), The client may get a settlement, and a precedent may be set. However the settlement will be paid by the taxpayers, not the people committing the crime. Since there are no repercussions to the corrupt board members, they will just continue their illegal and corrupt behavior uninhibited.
Tell that to the Supreme Court who have enshrined the opposite for the Executive
We don't have a justice system, we have a legal system that serves the people with the best paid and most numerous lawyers.
In a free and just society, government's ONLY function is protection of individual rights. Government should NEVER have the power to regulate trade or business, other than to protect against theft, fraud and violence.
So the city council thinks the private sector should have monopolies just like the government does.
Punitive and compensatory damages should be paid by the city council members, *_PERSONALLY,_* not paid by the taxpayers.
Why she didn't even check to see if she could open the business there😂 she also thought it was a good idea to open up a salon where there's already three😂😂 but remember it's easy to rile up social justice Warriors and filed lawsuits😂🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
Tell your state legislators
The city county or state shouldn't be allowed to prevent any citizen from starting a businesses anywhere in America as long as it doesn't indanger the public or the environment in a manner that would cause harm. The ability to interfere in a individuals preference to provide for their families is totally tyrannical and a direct threat to our freedom's in every manner. Governments control has got to be restricted to a bear minimum for the American people to keep their rights and freedom's this country allows us to enjoy
I think it should be easier to sue the government in cases where they either take money or prevent businesses from operating in cases where the governments actions are later found to be unconstitutional or if the government decided to drop the case after blocking a business for an extended period just to prevent being sued.
The government's lawyers abuse the low risk position they are in far too often.
"The government doesn't get to pick winners and loosers..." Well, they legally shouldn't, but they've still been doing it an awfully long time.
Local municipalities need to be held accountable for following their own ordinances. Not to mention, federal and state laws. This grandfathered in clause is often abused in small towns and cities nationwide by city officials. Take the local recorder's office. My mum was suppose to operate a mobile home park but because there is a clause in the state of Iowa's business model that women and children as minors are not allowed to have businesses (outdated law in theory but not decreed it in actually) as it was geared to help couples run businesses instead of single people. Meaning a man would be needed to run a business with a woman to make it legal. My mum was taken to court and decreed not the owner because of this antiquated law. The other side didn't use this law on its front, but did imply it later on in court hearings. My mum was planning on hiring a new panel of people for the business of operating the mobile home park, but because in Iowa, attorneys are decree makers for land titles, they wouldn't help her. She needs IJ for a case like this because there was a lot of stuff that occurred occasionally that lead to this case being created against her. Oh, the local court ruled against her because the judge knew the family of the deceased couple that owned the park.
does the IJ actually help anyone? for years i have only seen videos of them presenting the situation and them claiming, they will help. i have never ever seen any update on any of the cases they present here.
That sounds crazy go the local media they love a story where government claims woman are not allowed to own a business. They are living in the 19th century. I never live in Iowa property tax is crazy high.
@@thecursed01 There are privacy provisions in place I am sure that prevent disclosure of outcomes of cases. Very rarely does an IJ case get disclosed after the case has gone through the courts.
@@thecursed01 The Institute of Justice does have lawyers on staff that represent plaintiffs at trial. The thing about that is anything beyond laying out the basic facts of the claim risks venturing into confidential client-lawyer privileged information. As the representing law firm at trial, they are bound by strict procedural guidelines on what they can and cannot say in public about the case. The client can go in front of a camera or press conference and say things at the risk of their own case merits, but lawyers are bound by strict guidelines while a case is in motion.
The trick is to follow independent reporting sources that track the case record of whatever relevant case and see what the updates on the paperwork say at any given time.
Being held accountable requires voters to care. 99% of the population doesn’t attend meetings or pay attention to local city and county councils, couldn’t name their mayor, etc. Even if they do vote in local elections, they pick the elephant or donkey and know nothing about the candidates. The sheep are asleep. Accountability won’t happen unfortunately.
Local Politicians can be the most corrupt.
The smaller the pond the dirtier the water
Two businesses providing taxes to the city is better than one. This is harmful to the tax base the city relies on to fund its operation.
Asset forfeiture is aggravated armed robbery and should be prosecuted as such and resisted in the moment as such.
Folks spend entirely too much time focusing on national "politics" when they should be looking at their local and state government "tyrants". End these little fiefdoms and it will have a trickle up effect...
I am on the Planning Board in my Town. Listening to citizens and other members argue in favor of business restrictions is very frustrating. Petty power hungry elected unpaid officials who think they are imbued with the power to restrict free enterprise. And the shocking thing is most of those arguing in favor are small business owners who started their own years ago in the Town. We need Constitutional protection for free enterprise. This fight has been going on since Vanderbilt broke New York’s laws that allowed government sanctioned monopolies. It continues to be a fight over implementations, but not about the principle.
Being that you're in this and there's already three businesses in the complex doing how many times do you see multiple liquor stores in the shopping complex😂 but if you cry racism the social justice Warriors will come out and make me make big money on lawsuit
Just shine the light on the corruption of the city council. To verbally communicate that competition is not good and will not be allowed shows pure disdain for their constituents and non protected businesses. This should be an easy slam dunk. Hurts consumers the most but pretty much everyone but the protected business is harmed by this ridiculous action.
It’s wonderful we can resolve all this stuff with our words and things, but you gotta sometimes think the old ways had advantages.
Words take years, the old ways had things done same day.
I prefer the old way
It absolutely CAN matter what you do on your property to make a living. As two example, you cannot do anything that damages your neighbors' property nor can you manufacture legally prohibited devices or substances.
This woman come here the right way over 30 years ago work hard started a business and now is being punished for it. She should looked at as someone to be like that hard work and time pay off. Shame on these townships for doing things like this.
Thank you for your public service. Having intelligent, professional attorneys who understand the needs and the options for "the little guys" of this country is heartening. This coming from a long-time Idaho attorney who has taken seriously the ethical obligations relating to pro-bono-publico service. My hat is off to you.
LMAO! Please don't make me shoot coffee out my nose. When you answered the comment about drug dogs and said, "Police departments could also voluntarily hold themselves to that higher standard," I about fell out of my chair. That's a good one.
You talk about enumerated rights. Those of the federal government are few and explicit. Our federal government has, by far, overstepped its bounds and it's about time it be reigned in. There are literally tens of thousands, if not millions, of unconstitutional laws on the books.
If limiting competition because of its proximity to another similar business was legal, then shopping malls would never exist.
😮😮I know a mayor in a small town that used her position to make it difficult for competitors of her business. She got sued and lost.
Don't You Enforce The Law? Not When Government Breaks It (James Freeman)
In my town a few years ago there were several proposals for new long term stay hotels. Because it was a college town and visiting people need a nice place to stay there was demand. Many people at the city council meeting demanded the city reject the new construction because it would cause blight??? There reasoning was they were worried it would cause too much competition and cause all the hotels to go out of business and be abandoned. Luckily my city rejected it as not their job to worry about competition. Sounds like this council didnt get the memo.
Love listening to you guys socking it to the ones who need it!
Go IJ!
This very nearly repeats the same issues as I.J.'s first case in 1991 defending Taalib-Din Uqdah against an allegation requiring a cosmetology license! History repeats itself!
Appreciate your work…
There is an arguement for too much competition. For example, there were a whole bunch of struggling bars in the city I live in. There was a natural disaster and a bunch of them went out of business and there were no new bars to replace them. The effect was the remaining bars are now profitable and thriving.
One could argue that it should be a natural selection process. When there is too much competition, the less desirable businesses should go out of business, in theory. That isn't necessarily what happens in reality.
At no point should government decide when there is too much competition. They shouldn't even be allowed to decided which businesses are allowed in the city. But it happens. Licensing schemes, taxing schemes, permits, fees. Most are not so bold about controlling these things but it happens. Shouldn't be a allowed.
I still don't understand why we have to pay the government for a license to provide for our family ( business license).
Licenses are local and state governments’ cowardly and spirituous way of taxing citizens.
Because voters don’t make it an issue. The government gets away with what we let them.
As the "Law" primarily rests on "REASONABLE" government employees need to be Certified in their capacity to be Reasonable. Sorry, not REASONABLE; Disqualified.
I would amend the seizure of cash to the crime itself. If 10 mph over the speed limit allows for arrest and you’re carrying a few thousand dollars then they will confiscate your cash. Limit it to a certain amount of illegal drugs.
This isn't about economic protection, it's that the city counsel is accepting bribes by from the other braiding place owner
It’s called “legal tender” for a reason!
The right to earn an honest an honest living should have been in the Bill of Rights.
That sounds nice but in practice that's a slippery slope. What exactly does it mean to have the right to earn an honest living? If you're unemployed and can't find work, does the state have to provide you with a job?
@@siggyincr7447 This is just a weird argument. This is like saying that an amendment that guarantees freedom of speech is a slippery slope because "what if people interpret that to mean the government must provide a venue for their speech and disseminate their speech to others?".
Just word the amendment so that it's clear that it is intended to prevent the government from making onerous and unduly burdensome regulations for the purpose of restricting our ability to pursue the lawful work, occupation, or profession of our choosing.
In America the government constantly picks winners and losers. We are rotten to the core.
Hold officer's accountable
Government doesn't have a right to interfere in business. This isn't China, the ussr or north Korea.
The irony of the judge using baseball as a refernce when it is a government endorced example is hilarious.
There are hundreds of nail salons with Vietnamese competitors why not African braiding salons competing with each other? Or are the existing braiding establishments fronts for illegal deals?
It’s a cultural phenomenon. Look up Tippi Hedren Vietnamese.
Shocking Arrest During City Council Meeting | Bodycam Released | Lawsuit Filed (The Civil Rights Lawyer)
Competition of similar businesses actually grows both businesses. This is basic economics, and why you see big box stores placed within a small radius of each other, fast food places, etc.
My medium-sized town has five pizza places, two fast food burger joints, a taco bell, two Asian food restaurants, a breakfast/brunch diner, and (at least) two "American" style sit-down places.
They are all doing well.
Absolutely amazing! These people in these positions should have some basic understanding of the free enterprise system and the law that backs it up. They have been educated out of knowing what America is all about. They’re basically socialistic in their methods. I hope the lawsuit brings a nice chunk of change for her business to the point that the locals would rather go to her business than the competition! That would be an ironic twist!
That's crazy they should have let her fail and then the social justice Warriors would not have cared when she was homeless😂 she wasn't even smart enough to research if she could open the business there😂🎉
@@JacobsNews I don’t think the issue was letting her fail, I think the issue was that they were afraid that she would succeed.
@@privatepilot4064 No, I can't believe you would really think that. Very few people even switch hair places you have a relationship with the person that cuts your hair. She would need mostly new clients. It's ridiculous
@@JacobsNews My wife is a Beautician, whenever they move to a new place many of their clients follow them. I’m sure this lady had a faithful following of clients. Especially in the community where they have worked previously. Now if she was new to the area I would totally agree. We’ll see what happens with the lawsuit.
@@privatepilot4064 No, we'll probably never hear about this again because the social justice warriors will move on to the next case .
In response to the last question: sometimes the supreme Court looks for ideal cases to rule on, cases where the issue at have is extremely clear cut.
For example Brown vs Topeka Board if Education was not the first case of bussing segregation but it was the case that had the least about of secondary issues to muddy the waters. When making a big change the court wants their decision to be absolutely clear and not something that can be deliberately misconstrued.
I’m a white guy and I’d be honored for her to braid my hair! What little hair I’ve got left! Bless this hard working American business woman! IJ is awesome, thanks guys!
She is not going to braid your hair. That's called cultural appropriation. You racist🎉
Steve sent me here 🎉
All govt officials need to carry their own insurance.
Steve Lehto is a great guy
A similar situation occurred in the University of Missouri System but has not (yet?) been litigated. The system instituted a certification requirement to teach online courses, and at first claimed that faculty who already had taught for 5 or more years would not be required to obtain such certification. Then they changed that rule to require all faculty who will teach online to be certified accordingly and the certification is a six week course. When I was about to have knee surgery, I requested to teach remotely during my recovery and the Human Resources department interrupted the approval given by my department to keep me from doing so. In fact, however, still they were allowing other faculty who had no such certification to teach online and remote courses because, as I later found out from the head of HR on my campus (in an email exchange), the policy was not yet implemented on our campus (except of course, in my case).
This is legal in every state in the US when it comes to new car dealerships. You can't open a new car dealership. That's why every town, one or 2 families, own every dealership. And you can't buy direct from the manufacturer. I my city Wallace family own every brand of dealership. And they are terrible.
OK, I remember the homeless shelter case, too. Something about putting it there because it was in the same walkable neighborhood as the thrift store, a discount food store, and other service businesses that homeless - or simply poor - people can patronize without needing to take a bus or walk for hours. I didn't know IJ was involved with that one.
Awa, I hope you have success and prosperity. I am sorry for the un-American idiocy that has hindered you.
My town decided not to let walmart in because it's pharmacy would take out a small local pharmacy and the owner is on the board
Steve Lehto is great
So my business that has been generating and paying taxes for decades to the local township can expect no loyalty or support against a new competitor? Thats horseshit.
First thing is to end government licensing. 100%. If you want to start a business then you just start it. You shouldn't need govt approval to do so. Any sort of licensing or accreditation should be private.
Do the authorities ever get prosecuted?
As a town planning board member who has been working to unwind decades of questionable zoning decisions I can say a lot of the time these bylaws and ordinances are put in with good intention but are short sighted
Support The Institute for Justice. It will make you feel good.
Great video!
My mother was a lactation consultant. I could just see my mother's reaction if someone would have told her she couldn't do that. Lol. My mother was grabbed by a Nazi during WW2. She grabbed him in return until he let go. My mother didn't take guff from anyone. Lol
This kind of stuff happens all the time on every level of government. Usually, the people in charge are smart enough to keep the real reason to themselves. This often happens the other way too. Small businesses are given restriction on budding industries forcing them to remain small. But once it becomes clear that the industry has some real money potential the government will "de-regulate" in a way that makes it so the regional corporations will crush the little guys.
Money talks. Always has.
Rawlins wy did that to Walmart a while back. Walmart threatened to sue so the city worked out a deal but Walmart had to leave out a good portion of what they wanted to put in.
I had no idea this was going on.
The market is controled in the USA and therefore not free. The even have an era called the Free Banking Era that existed before the federal government took over control of banking. They have since extended their tentacles throughout the economy. That is why the USA has a mixed economy.
The city has pretty much pushed out all other utility companies and has no competion.thus making thrmselves as a monopolizer of electric and water and thus has no reason to worry about charging whatever they want. What would a person need to go about fighting against this.
Several cites different states do this same thing to city,county customers. , san marcos , texas, ...columbus, ohio.... bay city, michigan.. to name a few.
Promise you….someone on the city council knows the owner of the other brading shop.
Come to Vegas, look into the American concrete institute and the international code Council especially ACI.
S. Fulton seems to be a great example of B.R.A.
‘Council’? Where is that Word establish in the Constitution, the supreme Law, of the United States of America?
13:28 Its turtles all the way down is a fantastic sentence
I’m all for “economic protection”! However it must be done responsibly. In an area where an additional, redundant business will take business away from established businesses it imperative to protect those businesses.
Thx’s ❤
Our Clark county in Nevada, many sit on the board of the ACI at enormous costs. It's a clear conflict of interest
ACI?
@@Strideo1 American concrete institute, it's a certification body, and you must have their certs in particular to work in inspections, and the county the largest in Nevada requires you to have this specific certifications, and many of them while they're working in the county sit on the board of directors or at the very least as consultants.
This is happening EVERYWHERE. I used to live in a HOA in CA. One of their list of rules was no satellite dishes on your roof, because it was unsightly. They did allow dishes on the patio & balcony floor. Turns out, 1 of the HOA member has some ties with a cable company, so they effectively remove the competition in the HOA.
Now do hospitals and ambulance services.
A better way to put an end to the issues with drug sniffing dogs is to use the actual police reports to determine the accuracy of the dogs. If they don’t perform much higher than a guess than dogs should no longer be used to enable further searches.
This would also work against the police tactic of handlers triggering the dogs to make an identification.
RE: (un) civil forfeiture: Didn’t these people used to be called “Highwaymen”, instead of “law enforcement”?
11:22 can anyone request an amicus brief? Or just courts?
Doesn't their "Super Mayor" own a salon?
Just wondering if the first business that does hair braiding have the same permits and licenses that South Fulton is requiring of the lady, Awa, who is being denied permission to open her business in the same area/location?
Sometimes a business will approach the city council asking for city code be written that certification be a requirement. Example: a local tree service company approached our local council requesting certification for all other business be required that he currently possessed in able to create a niche monopoly for himself.
If you are good at what you do for a fair exchange. You shouldn't view competition as an issue.
Or so she thought....
That middleman mafia needs correcting.
Sre city counce;s member even Elected officials, if not they have no say?
WATCH COURRUPT GOVT TRY TO BAN FREE SPEECH TO STOP RUclipsR EXPOSING THEM! (Shaun Porter)
Has City of New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297 (1976) been overturned?
The intent may have been good. It sounds like there was a concern about market saturation but that is not their place to decide that. They could have advised the new store to do a market research analysis but stopping her from opening a business should not be done if you ask me
A standardized certification is needed for someone to cut my hair or groom my dog, but not for a dog and handler that can cause you to lose your 4th amendment right and possibly put you in jail. Sounds reasonable...
"The law should require that police or government agents cannot seize assets or effects unless an arrest is made; simple as that." I actually disagree; and agree with the IJ statement. Police already make a lot of arrests, absent a crime, knowing that the charges will be dismissed and the person released quickly. That will not be an impediment to their "stealing" people's belongings. It should be contingent upon an arrest AND conviction.
Passport bros movement makes sense.
"And then he made his horse a senator..."
The free market doesn't give a good damn about competition, but competition is where all the good things are that we claim come from free trade. We should worship competition instead of free trade.