‘You’re Not Giving Me A Real Answer’: Elena Kagan Interrogates Lawyer In Key Homelessness Case
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 апр 2024
- During oral arguments in the City of Grants Pass v. Johnson on Monday, Justice Elena Kagan questioned the attorney for the city of Grants Pass, Oregon about the necessity clause for the homeless.
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
account.forbes.com/membership...
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: / forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: / forbes
More From Forbes: forbes.com
It is really nice to be able to hear the discussion on this, because it is so far reaching, and in all this the supreme court justices are asking very valid questions.
I dont think i have a time i can recall when this country had so many problems and such lousy leadership.
Me either. And I'm old. It's a regular clown show.
Then they punish us for the blow back.
The Great Depression, and the country is already there. They keep pointing out the market is up, but it only means that the 1% is doing great as the Pandemic emphasized . Remember they raised oil prices in the Pandemic only because profits were low as they had few buyers
The leaders arise from and are voted for by the populace.
Read history. It's even been worse!
Certainly compelling legal argument. Kagan makes the rare excellent point...especially when they say there is an available 'necessity defense' that will legally resolve the issue. So clutter the legal system and courts with something that will just be dismissed. Fair to ask why pass the law in the first place? It just highlights awful legislators that punt to courts.
Lawyers - hmmm, how can I argue that homelessness should be made illegal w/o saying that.
Homelessness is not the issue, it's where a person chooses to sit/camp/sleep.
Someone can own 3 homes, but this does not give them the right to sit in the back of your automobile without your permission does it?
@@zzzzz4203 what the h are you talking about, z?
@@billgraham861I was wondering the same thing 😂
@@zzzzz4203 There's still time to delete that nonsense.
@@brianphillips9152 That's not a rebuttal. Try next time?
Well what if the person instead of SLEEPING just walks around with a blanket outside is that an 8th Amendment right?
Humanity has been living OUTSIDE for eons
But decent civilizations don't allow people to live like animals on the street, surrounded by trash, so high they can't stand up, crapping in the gutter. If people can't manage their own lives, like most of us manage to do, then they need intervention. We don't need our public spaces defiled by people that don't want to or can't partake in society at even the barest minimal standards. If they need help, they need help. Leaving severely disturbed people to overdose on our sidewalks is inhumane to EVERYONE, not just the homeless population.
@@gardener3017 sounds like your idea of civilisation pretty much aligns with mine: a band of power hungry greedheads
@@gardener3017sounds like we just need to make public bathrooms then? Solves most of the issue.
The Grants Pass attorney deflects too much. She’ll LOOSE by her own bitchy words “it’s a matter of discretion” as to whom a punitive ticket/jail time MAY be given. It’s a VULGAR violation of 8A!!!!
Can you explain? I don't understand.
@@mattstone8878 then get your a off the couch and read a book, matt
@@billgraham861 Officers have discretion to give tickets. How is this a violation of the 8th Amendment?
@@billgraham861 I have read more books than you. Lol.
Based on the arguments I think the outcome will be 7-2 against Grants Pass.
So you can ransack a store and steal under $500.00 with impunity in Oregon ...then why not force your way into a bed store to sleep?
You really have no idea what's going on, do you?
Insurance will skyrocket for stores. Let’s just not have stores. Order online, we can all adjust our lives for the homeless to die happy.
You are presuming that ALL homeless people ransack and steal. Question for you, do you have any homeless friends?
@@orbatos He's asking a logical question. "Homelessness" is not the issue, it's where a person chooses to sit/camp/sleep.
@@zzzzz4203 No he's not. This is a conspiracy laden accusation that a homeless person is inherently bad and that the law won't affect them. Pay attention to what people are saying.
As a former resident of Grants Pass, and the city of my birth, it is of great dismay that this is happening there. That this is even an issue in a black eye on the state of our society.
I was not born there, but lived there for many years. That city was born with a two black eyes. When I found out about this case I let out a high pitched laugh. Only in Grants Pass
Are these lawyers representing Oregon on drugs or nuts. A law regarding sleeping ?????????
It's about criminalizing the poor, and it's on the agenda in most red states and some blue ones.
It's about the blanket !!
Sleeping with a blanket. Both.
I never see homeless with a blanket, I live in cold state. They have big parkas and layers of clothes and relieve themselves at will, where ever they may. This is the destruction of city centers. No one will come in to support the positives in the cities if it’s full af garbage and drugs.
No, they are working very hard to not give a clear answer. They want plausible deniability by implying that the decision to cite or look the other way is solely on the officer; ie they purposefully chose not to give explicit direction to those officers. They want the judges to infer they make no policy, but it seems clear they have an unwritten policy that places all responsibility on the officer.
Good coverage. The legal argument is compelling, it really seems the Grants Pass side is doing their best to not say the status of being homeless is a crime, while passing a law to make it so
"Homelessness" is not the crime, it's where a person chooses to sit/camp/sleep. We don't allow people to sleep along freeway shoulders right? It's about placement.
What if they have nowhere to go? Or the place they have to go is extremely dangerous? In many cities, homeless shelters are not well taken care of at all, and can feel more dangerous than the public park. And just like the judge said, what if the only available shelter is at capacity? Where are they to go? The state can't criminalize sleeping in a public space if it's not offering alternatives to the people that need it.
@@thebreadtable4880
You say:
"The state can't criminalize sleeping in a public space if it's not offering alternatives to the people that need it".
That's not right.
The state has to be able to keep people from doing things that are dangerous, or a major nuisance, otherwise people can sleep on freeways, in your house without your permission, in emergency rooms (heck even in a surgery room) and the like.
The homeless (and everyone else) are free to sleep in certain places, and not free to sleep in others. It has to be that way or anyone can sleep anywhere whenever they like., which of course becomes crazy.
@@zzzzz4203 Mmmmmmmmm..... Where do you allow homeless people to sleep?
@@zzzzz4203 says who, z, says you?
the city does push for officers to mass ticket homelessness, they're called sweeps, anyone caught in the dragnet is ticketed and placed in the machinery of the court. the court has a ~95% rate of "convicting" homelessness using the public defender as representation for the homeless, the homeless are vastly underrepresented in court for the time sapping convenience the court.
One more question? Why is this homeless issue coming to fruition now? Why didn’t we have these issues 5 years ago.
All the clips I've watched from this hearing, whether the justice was conservative or liberal-leaning, feature this appellant going evasive on them.
This push to arrest the homeless is related to "sundowner laws."
Oregon has a history as a Sundown State. This is the law that was created to get all non-white people off the street, and into jails. If you were not white you could not bee seen in town after dark. The idea behind sundowner towns are that by getting non-white people out of town before the sunset, it prevented burglaries, and other disorders.
Sundowner laws were originally used to regulate the movements of the poor in England. These laws, which were implemented to ensure that municipal authorities were under no legal obligation to care for vagrants, proved to be a source of inspiration for American officials who aimed to prevent Black Americans from settling in their communities.
This is more than a law about people sleeping under blankets.
Nice history lesson but not relevant here. These homeless moved to GP to party. They are not from GP. Oregon doesn’t prosecute the use of recreational drugs. This the huge influx of homeless from WA and CA.
I think it's unfair to criminalize homelessness, especially if the city doesn't take adequate action to address the root issue of homelessness
Someone can own 3 homes, but this does not give them the right to sit in the back of your automobile without permission.
"Homelessness" is not the issue, it's where a person chooses to sit/camp/sleep.
Homelessness is absolutely the issue. If there are no safe sites/shelters for an indigent person to sleep or get out of the elements then they must find a place to sleep. If the city has not made efforts, as the city of grants pass has not, then it falls to the indigent to solve the problem themselves. This is an attack on the poor of this country. Billionaires wallow in their obscene wealth and allow this travesty to occur.
@@zzzzz4203...that's very strawman of you. Obviously homelessness IS the issue because one would not find themselves in "your backseat" were it not that absolutely EVERYTHING is your (or someone else's) hypothetical backseat and were it not that necessary resources are localized around a metropolis hub.
@@waynegage2043 Just because there's rich people doesn't mean they made people poor. That's a classical Communist class division argument. Just giving people money does NOT solve the problem.
@@SteadyEddie1983 It's pretty tough to argue the opposite, honestly. Money would absolutely solve 90% of these problems in one way or another. The only thing man need do for evil to triumph is _nothing_
Not giving a real answer is the government’s main objective with everything
Very irritating that the lawyer wouldn't answer what is actually a simple yes/no question.
So let me get this straight. Some people are saying that cities cannot arrest the homeless, cannot force the homeless to accept treatment or shelter, and cannot make the homeless to move from either public or in some cases private property.
What is left for cities to do? Are we as a society supposed to simply embrace the chaos?
A good take would be to help them, which you can accomplish indirectly by either by supporting initiatives of the sort or voting for policies that would do so.
@@grey5751 You can offer help, but you can't force them to take it. That was one of my points.
@@grey5751 You mean spending billions more on "solving" homelessness i.e. addicts and vagrants?
@@charlesmartel3995 Yes.
@@aaroncostello8812 Are you arguing that these initiatives wouldn't greatly reduce the potential "chaos" to levels that deny that very description? If you're trying at an incredibly specific hypothetical that ignores efforts to prevent that hypothetical situation from occurring, what's the point of the question other than to moralize?
My take is they enacted the ordinance to discourage mass migration of homeless there, but quietly won’t punish the few that by circumstance, break the law. That’s why they introduced the necessity defense. It’s difficult to be charitable to local indigents if someone wants to bus more in and overwhelm your resources. You then become a villain because you can’t accommodate the high volume. It’s like border towns being overrun because a federal authority says illegal entry won’t be punished - it leaves the local community overwhelmed.
The part I found least defensible, is citing people sleeping in their car that is parked in a legal overnight parking place as in violation of the no camping ordinance.
LOL!!!
Nobody in Oregon "introduced" the necessity defense.
The necessity defense came to this country from English Common Law and into there from the antiquity of human interaction.
Necessity must be proved by the defendant by a preponderance of evidence.
The defendant must prove all six of the following elements to prevail:
1. Defendant acted to prevent a significant bodily harm or other evil to self or someone else.
2. Defendant had no adequate legal alternative.
3. Defendant did not create a greater danger than the one avoided.
4. Defendant believed that the act was necessary to prevent the threatened harm or evil.
5. A reasonable individual would also have believed that the act was necessary under the circumstances.
6. Defendant did not substantially contribute to the emergency.
you mistake my use of introduce. I meant in the argument before the Supreme Court. It was in another video from the same session. It was used in argument for the ordinance stating there is the necessity defense. Might point is not about the legalities, but about the difficulty that a small town faces that it doesn’t have the resources to handle considering the ballooning of homeless population. Oregon has more attractive welfare benefits & had more lax marijuana use as far back as 2014. So the state made it more desireable for homeless to migrate there, but the local governments don’t have the facilities and budget to handle the influx. They have vagrancy laws in place, also with a long legal history, it’s a complex situation with neither side completely right or wrong.
So, it’s going to ultimately be a compromise decision between humanitarian concern & community safety. And I doubt anyone will be completely satisfied with the answer the Court determines.
I think the compromise will be along the lines of state will provide resources to local govts and cities will have to have designated camping areas with increase in police presence for their protection. That may be the goal of the city in taking the argument this far up the court system.
What do you think will happen? I’m asking genuinely for your opinion since you decided to respond to my thoughts on the situation. Thanks for the engagement.
@@MisterLobb It ain't rocket science. Homelessness is is an economic and humanitarian problem with five possible actions:
1) camping in specific public spaces
(least short-term expense but very problematic and not a solution)
2) adequate shelter beds for all
(very expensive and not a solution)
3) minimal permanant housing for all
THE ONLY LONG-TERM SOLUTION
4) prison
(far more expensive than minimal housing)
5) RUclips won't allow me to say it.
Germany did it before WW2
We ain't doing THAT!!!
@@MisterLobb
You are probably correct in your prediction that "state will provide resources to local govts and cities will have to have designated camping areas."
MORE PREDICTION
It will be another governmen horror show.
1) The cops will not be there but not for "protection". LOL! They will be there for harrassment.
2) A HUGE percentage of the money will be wasted or siphoned off for government officials in the form of kickbacks.
@@MisterLobb "Minimal Housing" means just that. Not everybody gets a pretty tiny house.
Everybody gets a place to sleep in a dry, temperaturte controlled, lockable private space with electricity, access to public transportation, access to communal toilet, clothes washing, sink, and shower. Hot water is metered. Temperature is metered. Electric is metered. Two basic meals are provided. It ain't the Ritz!!!
It is pretty much like prison except that the people can come and go at will. No fence. No guards. The facilities must be bullet-proof construction (like a prison) so they cannot be vandalized.
Residents will be billed for housing and metered items from their monthly welfare payments. They have the remainder for supplemental food and whatever else they want. They may work for more money if they can.
wow... immigrants get housing... your gonna fine these homeless ppl ..where they going to get the $$$ for the ticket... sad
Not sad. They have moved to GP to party because Oregon does not Prosecute recreational drugs. It’s a real problem for a small town to deal with.
So is their plan to have people priced out of renting. Then they are homeless. If they are homeless they are not allowed to sleep outside. If they are caught are they jailed and used for labor within the jail system?
This set of argument is completely non-constitutional. It seems like this is all about what feels good, instead of the law. Amazing that thus our new legal system.
Who does the land belong to ? American citizens or the government?
Trick question, the people are the government and be wary of those who try to paint it differently. Least the answer is corporations
@@robertmacias7920 Biden (a democrat) is supposed to be returning “stolen land” back to the tribal indians along with ordering reparations for legitimate past slaves.
There’s no good reason why this hasn’t happened by now if democrats (aka college educated voters a la 2016 Hillary Clinton) actually BELIEVE what they were indoctrinated with.
As long as it's public property.
Public property is paid for by taxes, and the public want to be able to use it, not have it occupied by encampments of drug addicts.
Same with the freeways, but we don't want people camping on the shoulder do we?
Land has differing practical usability depending on where it is.
For the city to be in this situation means they have failed badly at the duty they were elected for. We need better governments!!!
No, the fault lies with most of the homeless who have made bad choices throughout life and then expect others to sacrifice for them.
That is total bullshit. The liberals in Salem dictate to the small rural communities.
Furthermore, most of those homeless are not from Grants Pass, they are from California or Washington. They gave come to party because Oregon doesn’t prosecute the use of recreational drugs. This is not a case of taking care of your own.
And that brings us to our next point…..Don’t smoke crack!
Futurama suicidebooths. I hope they have them by the time I'm officially homeless.
Yeah, I have more savings then 90% of Americans, but with my burn rate I expect to be homeless by the time I'm 72. Oh well at least my kids will get through high school before I'm living from a car or cardboard box.
@@richdobbs6595 My wife and i figure we've got at best another 5 years before we are down to social security (if it still exists in 5 years), and that won't pay the mortgage. Flying on empty, america
@@richdobbs6595 I'm saving a magnum slug for my inevitable cancer diagnosis. We don't even eat real food in this country... it's not going to end well unless you pick a day. Hopefully it'll be decades later, but who knows. I gave my dad a soft landing in his 90's with Alzheimer's and it cost me a bankruptcy and every last dollar I had. Starting over in my mid 40's... this country is a hostage crisis.
This case is something you might see on The Andy Griffith Show; and Barney Fife would love to arrest someone sleeping with a blanket.😂
Throwing money at the homeless problem has created a homeless disaster in California. Don't entice people to become homeless by making it easy to camp just anywhere they want to. There needs to be restrictions.
There's zero point in fining people who cannot and will not pay the fine. I have no problem with forcing someone into a shelter or otherwise be subject to arrest. BTW, all shelters (except for women with children) should be dormitory style. Nothing more than a warm bunk, toilet, and shower. Just enough to pull yourself up by the bootstraps. And if you abuse drugs at the shelter you get thrown in jail for possession.
They don’t want to go to shelters because the use of drugs and alcohol are not allowed.
Once again the argument is not addressing why there is no low and no income housing available. Getting a homeless person into a shelter for the night is not a solution as they will be on the streets as soon as the sun is up. The State is arguing that officers will use discretion which means they are indeed planning on criminalizing being homeless. If there is no shelter space and camping is against the law the alternative is jail or being herded to the city limit and the problem continues. What Grants Pass wants is full scale crackdown and incarceration.
It's worse actually, because this continues to put additional burdens on the homeless and taxpayers, while filling private prisons.
The existence of low income housing shouldn't matter. This is the supreme court. All they should be doing is interpreting the law.
@@thenightingale7405 It matters in the argument where circumstance and hypotheticals situations are being used. All they talk about is addiction as being the culprit and it is much more dynamic. Nobody is asking why housing for low income is not being built as it is the one and only solution.They are arguing for criminalization of a very simple problem so that the status quo can remain in housing markets.
@@thenightingale7405 Without a solution based argument and law then the point is what? They are arguing for what the punishment is and should be. Not what is the best way to bring solution.
@@thenightingale7405 FYI. That is why condition and status are being talked about.
How many people crossing border illegally will activate Supreme Court to do justice of constitution
What does this have to do with the homeless sleeping under blankets in Oregon?
Justice means they are deported.
what elmer said!
If someone “breaks the law,” they go to jail. That used to be followed, but not anymore.
You want the homeless in jail?
@@elmerkilred159 Have they broken any laws? If no, then no. If yes, then yes. If we broke the law, would we go to jail? While incarcerated and in a controlled setting, would prisoners also obtain treatment for any other underlying conditions? Answer: yes, of course.
@@stevemt3238 Grants Pass wants to make homelessness a crime.
IT IS MORE EXPENSIVE TO IMPRISON PEOPLE THAN TO HOUSE THEM.
@@stevemt3238 you'd make a "good" cop, steve
@@billgraham861 Well, thank you. If I was, I would be doing my best to bring the lawless to justice to protect you and your family. What would you think of me if anyone in your family was harmed or killed by a person who should have otherwise been in jail?
OFFICER: Wake up, you can’t sleep with a blanket.
HOMELESS MAN: I wasn’t asleep, and this isn’t a blanket.
OFFICER: You’re getting a ticket anyway.
HOMELESS MAN: I’ll see you in court.😂
Grants Pass is going to lose 9-0. 🤣
And you know this how? How much are you being paid to troll with such silly comments?
@@vitodanelli watch and learn young grasshopper.
I wouldn't be surprised, but the main issue is the legal precedent established and what is the resolution. Do they come up with some legal nitpicking or do they make a general ruling? Do they shoot down the 9th Circuit saying that their injunction is not based on legal reasoning from the constitution? Heck, they might generate a general rule limiting prosecutorial discretion? Dare I dream that they might put obligations on cities that implement zoning?
@@brianthompson9485 ha ha ha!! You just can't answer the question, can you? You couldn't even say you have an educated guess. Do you really think someone like Justice Thomas will rule against Grants Pass? Don't make such a fool of yourself on social media.
@@vitodanelli Dude, did you listen to the line of questions from the judges? Even the conservative justices were ripping apart Grants Pass argument.
Perhaps replace the policemen who have limited training and limited patience at 3 in the morning with roaming ER professionals who do have training, are familiar with what help is available and how to handal someone high on drugs, perhaps more compassionate. No one is really interested in solving a basic human condition. Failure all the way up to the Supreme court. Where are the churches at 3 in the morning? Just stay at home in a nice warm bed and it is some else's job. They are so high on drugs they do not know their own name. Do not remember where they live or slept last night. They will even try to break in to a police car to sleep on the back seat. Now do you understand the situation? All the way to the Supreme Court😮.
They are so high on drugs they are not conscious. To hell with a blanket, they wouldn’t know if they had one.
@@candykane4271 yer sounding pretty nasty, there, candy
This lawyer is a horrible person
I think the other person is horrible. Why do you think the lawyer is wrong?
I've listened to several of these videos with this lawyer, and I have also come to the same conclusion.
@@elmerkilred159 Can you give me a short explanation of why? Thanks!
This lawyer is being paid to represent the city of Grant's Pass. She may not even believe the BS she is spewing.
@@abeclark524 Thanks for the context Abe Clark
I don’t see homeless walking around with a blanket. They have tents and sleeping bags and all the drugs needed to survive. After they walk blocks to steal stuff outta my garage to pawn. Then they go back to their tent.
I live in a town of 9700 residents. There are homeless people. Many are so broke they carry a heavy blanket with them.
so you are throwing away stuff that is worth money at a pawnshop, candy?
@@daviddelgado6090 then you have a crap city government!
@@candykane4271 Tell me how great your government is.
Aided by the United States of America: California Texas and Arizona helped admit 9.3 homeless ppl from South America so far 2024, AND COUNTING, the yearly total still isn’t official because 2024 isn’t over! Imo just based on that the 🇺🇸 Supreme Court has to side with the homeless ppl because what are other ppl going to do that are certainly going to be homeless because the flood of migrants crossing into 🇺🇸 from California Texas and Arizona is too great a number of ppl!
oh,please.
What all the commenters on this board need to understand is the majority of these homeless people are not from GP or even Oregon. They are from CA and WA. They have come to GP to party because the liberals in Salem made the use of recreational drugs legal in Oregon.
This is not a case of GPtaking care of its own. It is people from all over the three western state coming to a small conservative rural town to party.
This is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.
a burocrate to the core. It is way to doge being human.
Good point! That attorney is NOT human.
So much for “my drug use isn’t hurting anyone”
From the comments I am seeing, the evil of this blatant disregard for human welfare isn't coming from the top; it is festering from spiteful antagonists closer to the bottom than even they may realize. Quite frankly, I am appalled. Whenever I think I have found a new low to human pettiness, the perpetrators of a new low make themselves known.
Then move to Grants Pass and experience it first hand!
Sooo prove to me ur homeless?? ..
Mmmmmmmm......
Show me ONE individual sleeping on public property that has a home to sleep in.
ONE show me ONE.
If a person wants to live homeless, they have the right. It’s their life. The city has no right to remove them from public property- humans were here before governments. Homelessness can not be criminalized.
dont freak out too much because i do lean conservative, but first off Kagan is just killing this solicitor, and she knows it, secondly and to the broader question , i do not think its proper to cite an unhomed individual for sleeping on the street unless the municipality has resources available to give them a location off the street to sleep. be it public or private, if they have a bed and the person turns it down, thats one thing but if there are no beds where are these people supposed to go? i thought vagrancy laws were long since gotten rid of.
Wow, someone that understands the gist of the case. Good for you.
It is difficult for a just individual in ths sea of human iniquity.
Home. They should go home. Many of these GP homeless are rebel teens or young adults that can go home to their families any time they want. They moved to GP to party. Oregon doesn’t prosecute recreational drug use.
@@douglastovey2685 Mmmmmmm...
EVERYBODY sleeps in the best place for them. If young people are on the street rather than with thir families, that means living with their families is WORSE than sleeping in the streets.
@@OldGuy555 that is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. They sleep on the streets because they have no accountability and want to party and/or now the addictions control their lives.
@@douglastovey2685Your hate consumes you. Good luck with that.
Can this woman ever stop interrupting the attorneys?
Congress are you Guys going to allow born Americans in Alameda County to be called Trespassers when they are not Trespassers because real Trespassers were offended. Congress are you going to allow Alameda County Law Enforcement and the Prosecutors to make it appear that because Hayward Police removes a born American Social Security card and birth certificate from a born American purse during an illegal arrest at the place where they live that now Social Security Offices can call born Americans Trespassers. Congress are you going to allow born Americans to be called Trespassers at a Social Security Office because Someone reported that a born American had a dispute over the phone with Someone that works at the Social Security Office. The 1st Amendment right is not a threat. The Social Security Office Staff has all of our very important information they would be the threat. If No One goes go the Social Security Office after an alleged argument on the phone. How is the Staff in danger. I have not been yo the Social Security Office in nine years. Most of us do not know any of the Social Security Office personal information yo ever be a threat to Social Security Staff. These are more attacks to stop certain Black People from working while hiring other Races who are transparently revengeful, judgemental, reckless, and lawless. I would not ever treat Anyone like that if they were just wanting to work and was not a threat like the ones committing these crimes are the real threat. I pass out information when I can about jobs. We do not get questioned or banned about an alleged phone conversation from Social Security Offices. That is personal and devious. I have every right to receive my receipt that I applied for my Social Security replacement card today to show to all Employers. Although all Employers know that information when they look up our names if we have a Guard card or extended work history in Alameda County. Employers are certain if we are born in the USA through our resume. These are attacks on born Americans that are Black and we need Ulysses Grant order back in effect to enforce the law and arrest and prosecute every Race behaving like the former KKK when Black People are applying for more than one job. How can Congress allow Anyone to stare that we are in debt or owe any money when these kinds of crimes mean that we are owed in Alameda County. The State Attorney General cannot not pay us in Civil vlass action lawsuits knowing that these prejudice and racists actions are not errors. Congress enforce arresting and prosecuting Patty Gonzales in Hayward, CA. who knew that I was not a Trespasser and remove or demote the Hayward, CA. Police Officers who helped Patty Gonzales. No forgiveness. I have to get back to work. I can work more than one job if I like. It is better than being lied on and time wasted. How else does bills get paid. If we listen and hear all the stories being told in the Media. Who should have really been enslaved or at least forced to be educated to be Humane. Unacceptable. Thanks for sharing.
If you're sleeping in the streets because you don't want to follow homeless shelter rules then there's a bigger problem than being homeless.
If the shelter rules are so onerous that people would rather sleep in the street there is something wrong with the shelter.
What?