Jump to content


Full Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

143 Excellent

About 102IAHexpress

  • Rank

  • Birthday 03/22/1981

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

6681 profile views
  1. Good LA Times article from today discussing all the legal rulings they have to navigate in SoCal to try to be compliant with the 9th circuit. https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-los-angeles-homeless-camping-sidewalks-lawsuits-20190613-story.html Meanwhile over in NYC, this is the new pilot program they are implementing in their fight against homeless panhandlers on the subway. https://nypost.com/2019/06/13/de-blasio-announces-program-to-get-unruly-homeless-riders-into-shelters/
  2. Not sure whats so funny? All the elements of the crime have to be met And be met simultaneously. Again pretty basic crim law 101. Act + intent at the same time.
  3. I thought you would have known the difference between a TRO and Trial? I guess not. As a brief history, the ACLU filed suit and asked for a TRO pending trial. Which is customary. Surprisingly the TRO was denied (that's why it made the news). However, the Trial is still pending. This is very basic civics. You file a lawsuit and then then you have a trail. Not sure what's so difficult about that? The ACLU COULD very well end up wining at trial. In fact they have a pretty good track record of winning. And even if they lose at the trial level, they WILL appeal. They also have a very good track record at appeals. Again, look at all the homeless camps across the country. You think the mayors of all of those cities haven't tried to eliminate them? Of course! But they keep losing the legal battle against the ACLU (see the immutable status argument). Again, I hope the City of Houston ends up making permanent legal victories against the ACLU, but that remains to be seen. We will have to wait and see. If you would like to read more about status crimes, then I encourage to look at the Supreme Court case Robinson v. California. This is very basic criminal law, but essentially every crime requires two things, a voluntary act (actus reus) and intent (mens rea). The winning argument (which I don't agree with) has been that homeless people have not satisfied both the elements above. That is to say, they are immutably homeless at the time of the offense.
  4. When you decide to go to law school, you can take a course on equitable relief. After that, you will understand, that they haven't "lost." The case is still PENDING. Personally, I hope they do lose. It will be great for the city. However, they have clearly been winning all across the country, see, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Miami, etc...
  5. @Houston19514 The "plaintiff's" attorneys as you call them are the ACLU. Whatever I think of their politics, they are clearly more versed in the law than you. They made the immutable status argument. They based it on years of precedent. It's not fake news. I didn't make it up. You can check. The internet exists for free. Can we move on "counselor?"
  6. And this is a good place to post the actual City of Houston Case... Good try. It's fun to play an attorney sometimes. If you enjoy it, look into going to law school?
  7. To be clear it did. "In sum, class members rarely choose to be homeless. They become homeless due to a variety of factors that are beyond their control. In addition, plaintiffs do not have the choice, much less the luxury, of being in the privacy of their own homes. Because of the unavailability of low-income housing or alternative shelter, plaintiffs have no choice but to conduct involuntary, life-sustaining activities in public places. The harmless conduct for which they are arrested is inseparable from their involuntary condition of being homeless. Consequently, arresting homeless people for harmless acts they are forced to perform in public effectively punishes them for being homeless." Pottinger v. Miami, 810 F. Supp. 1551, 1564 (S.D. Fla. 1992) To be clearer, ever since Robinson v. California, status offenses have been unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. That is, criminalizing someone for who they are and not what they do.
  8. Chicago starts its pilot electric scooter program this week. After watching this news story I'm not sure I want them up here. https://abc7chicago.com/technology/electric-scooter-pilot-program-begins-in-chicago-brings-safety-concerns/5336909/
  9. It's a dilemma. If communities try to help by making the camps more "livable" you discourage the homeless from trying to improve their situation. Do nothing and you run the risk of them pitching a tent in front of your lawn/or crapping on your lawn. There is an article in the LA Times today discussing the blowback from taxpayers on the costs of providing mobile toilets for homeless people. https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-homeless-bathroom-restroom-feces-skid-row-pit-stop-20190610-story.html
  10. For context, the link a few posts above regarding the ACLU injunction is referring to Kohr v. City of Houston, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212428. The ACLU has a page dedicated to the case https://www.aclutx.org/en/cases/tammy-kohr-et-al-vs-city-houston Especially useful (if you're a panhandler) is their "Houston Encampment Know Your Rights Flyer" https://www.aclutx.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/houston_encampment_kyr_w_rj_logo.pdf In my opinion I actually think the Mayor is doing a good job on this issue. The city attorneys office is actually making legal headwinds against the ACLU. In the case above the judge denied the injunction while the case is allowed to proceed to trial. For further context, ever since Pottinger v. city of Miami, the ACLU has tried to apply its winning argument in as many jurisdictions as possible including Texas. Keep in mind it is not a supreme court case, just a case from Florida. However, it's been relied upon by many other jurisdictions. Essentially Pottinger says that anti-homeless ordinances are unconstitutional because they punish involuntary conduct that necessarily arises from an immutable status (being homeless).
  11. I don't know of any specific policy. Also, I would differ on Chicago v. Houston homelessness. I would say Chicago is worse. Keep in mind there needs to be a distinction. Like illigal immigrant v. legal immigrant. True homeless people, that is people/families without a home but want one, are different from people who chose to live on the streets for all sorts of reasons. Of the latter, I would say it is far worse in Chicago. The CTA subway stations in downtown are absolutely disgusting and filled with many aggressive panhandlers. My wife and I made the mistake last month of taking the blue line from the downtown subway station. We had a baby stroller with us, so we needed to take the elevator down to reach the platform. The stench of urine on the elevator was pungent. Once on the CTA train, the amount of panhandlers and just plain cray people is unlike anything in Houston. Also, if you were here last week, then you may have not seen that many because it's still cold up here. We were in the low 50s this morning. Last weeks I remember some days being in the 40s. Point is, they come out more in the warmer summer months. You have to be very situationally aware on Chicago's CTA bus and subway/El lines. It's so bad there's a new tv show about the Red Line. https://www.cbs.com/shows/the-red-line/
  12. What is the "restaurant" inside AMC 8 in downtown? Is beer, popcorn and soda a restaurant now? What's on the menu at AMC? My point is I just simply want to know why @CrockpotandGravel was attacked for his MMP restaurant claim, yet this forum was silent on the movie theatre "restaurant" claim just a few posts before. What's the difference? At least Shake Shak at MMP has a hot grill and fryer. Is it that this forum is intellectually dishonest? You can answer yes.
  13. Great! Houstonian's in the loop already have one of the best bus systems in the country. Problem solved.
  14. Counting a concession stand inside Minute Maid Park as one of the "many" restaurants in downtown is pretty ridiculous. However, a few posts back, some of you counted the AMC movie theatre as a restaurant. Just wondering if you guys still do, or if your thinking has evolved?
  15. I'll add my two cents only because I worked for the guy for several years and still consider him a friend. Biggest misconception is that he is a Republican. I'm not sure what he is to be honest. He is truly independent. He previously ran as a Democrat for State Representative, he was the former Democratic Party Chairman for Galveston County. He hosted a fundraiser for then candidate Turner. He is a plaintiff's lawyer who made a career suing large corporations. He sued environmental polluters (I worked those cases) He is pro union, his associate attorneys are the biggest Democrats I have ever met. Yes, he also hosted a fundraiser for Trump (I attended that one, lots of fun) but no one would call Trump a traditional Republican. His biggest ties to traditional Texas Republicanism is his support of Gov. Perry, but I think that is more due to TAMU ties than anything else. He does the like the attention and limelight. That is very true. He hates wasting time. I promise you he would not be running for Mayor unless he thought he could win and he thought it would be good use of his time. He is one of the smartest humans I have ever met. Very book smart. Graduated no 1 or 2 in his law school class, I don't remember. Very street smart too. Has attention to detail like I haver never seen. You do not want to be cross examined by him. He gives away a lot of money to charity. I remember we did a lot of events with the Star of Hope. Lots of six figure checks to them. Gives away toys to children at Christmas time. Etc. Overall great guy.
  • Create New...