#county court eviction | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

schraubd · 1 year

Text

Being Perpetually at the Mercy of the Arbitrary Negligence of the State is a Punishment

At the moment, we're seeing two somewhat orthogonal trends developing in conservative legal jurisprudence, both lawless, but in distinctive ways.

The first is an increasing indifference to textualism -- being perfectly happy to manipulate or flatly ignore statutory or constitutional language in order to achieve desired results. Yesterday's Clean Water Act ruling, where the Court held 5-4 that "adjacent" doesn't mean "adjacent" because, well, they don't want it to, is a prominent example. The "major questions" doctrine is another, including the invalidation of OSHA's COVID vaccine-or-test mandate despite the fact that it fell cleanly into the clear statutory language, is another. The Court's recent voting rights jurisprudence, featuring Shelby County's entirely-invented "equal sovereignty of the states" rule, is another. The Court's recent Second Amendment jurisprudence, which has functionally decided the first half of the Second Amendment's text may as well not exist, is a yet another.

The second, by contrast, is a sort of hyper-literal textualism that zooms in so tightly on individual words that it ends up blitzing past how people actually read texts. The opinion striking down mask mandates on planes is one example here; some of the opinions striking down the eviction moratorium fit as well. Though styled as "textualism", this sort of analysis really is a dangerous confluence of putative textualists being bad at reading texts.

Slotting into the latter category is a concurring opinion by 11th Circuit Judge Kevin Newsom in Wade v. McDade, arguing that the Eighth Amendment does not forbid any level of "negligent" treatment of prisoners by prison staff -- not negligent, not gross negligence, not even criminal recklessness. Judge Newsom's argument is deceptively simple: the Eighth Amendment forbids cruel and unusual punishments. But a punishment, he says, can by definition only be imposed intentionally. There's no such thing as a non-intentional punishment. And negligence, in all of its species, is something less than intentional. Hence:

The undeniable linguistic fact that the term “punishment” entails an intentionality element would seem to preclude any legal standard that imposes Eighth Amendment liability for unintentional conduct, no matter how negligent—whether it be only “mere[ly]” so or even “gross[ly]” so.... So on a plain reading, the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause applies only to penalties that are imposed intentionally and purposefully.

At one level, I appreciate Judge Newsom for saying the quiet part out loud here, because normally I'd spend time pointing out that Judge Newsom's position would warrant even the most grotesque acts of wanton disregard for the lives and wellbeing of prisoners. But Judge Newsom is quite happy to endorse (further) converting our prison system into a miniature gulag archipelago, so I guess I can skip that part and move to the textual question: is Judge Newsom's interpretation an "undeniable" inference from the term "punishment"?

And the answer, I think, is clearly "no".

At the outset of his opinion, Judge Newsom analogizes the negligent treatment of prisoners to that of parents and children: "Just as a parent can’t accidently punish his or her child, a prison official can’t accidentally—or even recklessly—'punish[]' an inmate." But in law, "accidental" and "intentional" are not an exhaustive binary. The whole purpose of the negligence and recklessness categories is to account for cases that lie between the pure accident and the specifically envisioned and desired consequence. And that makes sense, because while law contains different levels of "intent", legal fact patterns nearly always blend several of them together.

Take a case where a speeding driver strikes a pedestrian with his car. Did the driver act "intentionally"? On one level, he was likely intentionally speeding (his foot wasn't literally glued to the gas pedal). On another level, he likely did not intend to hit the pedestrian (he did not seek to mow him down). Negligence captures the interstitial position where the driver intentionally acted in a fashion which foreseeably placed the pedestrian in danger (even if converting the danger into reality was not the driver's motivation). In this, negligence is very different from the pure accident not because it lacks intention, but precisely because of its intentionality.

Swap back to punishment. Imagine a more pre-modern society where we outsource punishment to private actors. I catch you stealing tools from my garage. As a consequence, I strip you of your clothes, take all the possessions you have on you (to make sure you have nothing you could attack me with), and drop you off in the middle of the woods without food or water which I can't be bothered to acquire for you, safely away from my house. You tell me "my pills are in my bag; if I don't take them each evening I might die!" I say "I don't care if you live or die. Oh, and watch out for the forest-dwellers -- they aren't always friendly." You do, in fact, have a seizure overnight and die. Are the actions I took "punishing" you?

Plainly, it seems the answer is yes. And this is so even if I genuinely was apathetic to whether you lived or died. Like the driver striking the pedestrian, my conduct is a mix of the purely intentional (I took your possessions, I dropped you off in the woods) and negligent/reckless (I do not care whether you have a stroke, I do not care if the forest-dwellers attack you). Being intentionally placed in a position where one's custodians do not care whether you live or die is obviously a punishment. Indeed, the fact that it's a "punishment" is the only thing that distinguishes it from pure sadism, abuse, or kidnapping. The fact that the seizure was not specifically intended doesn't change the fact that what happened to you in no way could be described as an "accident". It was the result of intentional actions, and the reason I acted in the way that I did -- with reckless disregard for your life or safety -- was very much tied to my desire to punish you.

In most prison litigation cases, there is similar "intent". The failure to, e.g., give a prisoner necessary medication isn't a wholly-accidental whoopsie-doodle (and if it is, then there isn't even negligence). It is an intentional choice. Indeed, a large part of what prison is, and what makes it such a terrifying prospect, is that it is a place the state sends you where the people who have control of your life do not and perhaps need not care if you live or die. Everything about that is intentional. Or put another way, the pervasive, heartless lack of intention is the intention -- being placed in such a situation is entirely the product of intentional choices at every step of the process.

There's a lot to dislike about the "deliberate indifference" standard which has taken over prison abuse litigation, but one thing it gets right is that indifference is absolutely a choice, not an accident. To fail to treat a person in your custody with requisite care is a choice, and it doesn't stop being a choice just because its foreseeable consequences were not expressly desired.

So what makes Judge Newsom go astray here? He seems to think we should chop up "punishment" into each potential negative experience one might have in prison. Being locked up, and being restricted from the yard, and being deprived of medication, and being placed in solitary, and being put into a cellblock with white supremacists liable to stab you -- each of these are separate (potential) "punishments" whose status as a "punishment" must be assessed atomistically. But this approach defies common sense. When someone is sentenced to prison for a crime, we don't think of it as a loose cluster of twenty or so discrete "punishments". It's one punishment. The punishment is being a prisoner and being subjected to the prison experience. Everything that happens in prison is part of the overall context of being punished. There is no need to parcel out individual moments and ask "but is this particular action a separate punishment", any more than we need to ask whether swinging bats in the on-deck circle or jogging out into the outfield is part of "playing a baseball game." It's all part of the game, and the hyper-zoomed-in focus on each discrete moment misses the forest for the trees.

In other words, while it may be true that something must be a "punishment" to fall under the auspices of the Eighth Amendment, all prisoners by definition are being punished. They pass that threshold categorically; none of them have been placed in jail by accident. At that point, the relevant question is whether the set of challenged actions or behaviors or what have you suffices to make that punishment into a "cruel and unusual" one. And certainly, being put in an Arkham City terrordome should qualify even (especially!) if the overseers assiduously do not care if you live or die. Perpetual, ongoing, systematic negligence (to say nothing of recklessness) towards persons who are helpless and in your care is one of the cruelest acts imaginable. Where that is part of the punishment, the punishment is cruel and unusual.

Judge Newsom concludes his opinion with the following:

Maybe it makes sense to hold prison officials liable for negligently or recklessly denying inmates appropriate medical care. Maybe not. But any such liability, should we choose to recognize it, must find a home somewhere other than the Eighth Amendment. We—by which I mean the courts generally—have been ignoring that provision’s text long enough. Whether we like it or not, the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause applies, as its moniker suggests, only to “punishments.” And whether we like it or not, “punishment[]” occurs only when a government official acts intentionally and with a specific purpose to discipline or deter.

This "whether we like or not" language is reminiscent of my Sadomasochistic Judging article. Judge Newsom seems to recognize the cruelty inherent in his position. But he leverages that cruelty into an argument for textual fidelity; the avoidance of cruelty is the hint that his colleagues have been led astray from the strictures of law. As I've demonstrated above, this isn't true; the text does not demand the cruelty Judge Newsom ascribes to it. But the pleasure of the pain of causing pain is too tempting to pass up. It's not good textualism that's motivating Judge Newsom. It's the ecstasy of bad textualism leading to bad results, whose badness is paradoxically metabolized as the purest and most faithful instantiation of textual loyalty.

via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/JxhXtDy

#abuse #constitution #crime #prison

110 notes · View notes

dollsonmain · 7 months

Text

For people that missed it (@giraffeseatingcake), because it's on my mind again, the Tina Dollyhair thing to the best of my ability to remember which we all know is not great and of course I didn't keep links to everything. I could probably find them again but you know, I don't want to. Google it yourself.

I don't know why I started looking into it again. Maybe someone mentioned Tina's supposed death somewhere, or maybe someone mentioned Ida taking over and it got me curious. I don't remember.

Anyway, we never found a public death notice or obit for Tina and that makes sense since obits aren't posted unless a family member pays for one to be printed. I didn't know that before.

What I did find was mention of Heidi with a different last name. IIRC it was through public records, I started noticing clusters of names that were showing up together often across different public record aggregation websites. Tina Amuntula/Kristina Amuntulla/Kristina Miller, Heidi Amuntulla/Heidi with a different name, and Steve Amuntula/Amuntullah who also has a different first name but I've forgotten it. He goes by Steve publicly in the US.

There was also some sort of hint that Heidi was in television or the movies in some capacity which made me wonder if there was an IMDB profile for her. There was! Then I looked her up on wiki and found that Heidi OTHERNAME was also named Heidi Amuntullah.

Also checking the ownership history of DollyHair showed that Steve's other name was registered as owner for some time.

Going around and around in circles with public residential and business records put the whole family together.

That was the first time I'd had anything even close to proof that Tina's Sister Heidi actually existed.

How this led to finding out that Tina apparently really did die is that searching about Heidi and Steve Amuntullah brought up a series of documents about a court case brought against the two of them by Melanie Chan.

I did keep a link to one of the documents but not everything else tying this document to Tina Dollyhair because of course.

Anyway, it's here:

In that document it says:

The FAC alleges that Plaintiff’s landlord, Kristina Miller, passed away in August 2020. (FAC ;41.) Defendants being decedent landlord’s father and sister are inferred to be heirs or successors-in-interest to decedent landlord.

Melanie Chan was suing the Amuntullas for wrongful eviction after Tina died, saying they didn't give her enough warning to be able to find another place to live before changing the locks on her. Heidi and Steve took ownership of Tina's house and wanted to sell it. It's recorded either in this document or some of the others that Tina was letting Melanie live in her upstairs for rent without any sort of official lease.

That's basically it.

Tina really died in 2020 (not any of those other times she said she died before), Heidi does exist and both Heidi (Tina's sister) and Steve (their father) took ownership of Tina's house, kicked out her unofficial renter, got sued for it, won the lawsuit, and sold the property.

As for Ida claiming to not know the family or not knowing any of the drama behind the DollyHair shop, she's mentioned in that document, too.

Plaintiff’s reliance upon the allegations regarding “Ida,” an employee of Heidi, is uncertain to allege a trespass in that it is only alleged that Ida entered the “house” and not specifically her “upstairs guest apartment.”

It could be a different Ida.

She could have somehow not known, I guess. It's possible she worked for Heidi without knowing anything about Tina or DollyHair and Heidi was like "Hey, you want this business because I don't...."

So, it's possible.

Either way, I do hope DollyHair as a company can build a new, better reputation with good customer service and not shorting people on their hair orders, now. They do have some hair colors that aren't available elsewhere and DollyHair has the widest selection of fibers as far as I know.

26 notes · View notes

scotianostra · 1 year

Text

On 15th March 1814 the large scale Sutherland Clearances began.

There are still those out there who push the narrative that the Clearances were natural occurrence, that thousands of families willingly gave up the crofts en masse, leaving crofting settlements that their families had worked and lived in for generations. Ask yourself this, is it likely that the numbers naturally dwindled from a third of Scotland’s population who lived north of the Highland Line; would just fall to the numbers it is today of just five percent? This was a systematic attempt to rid the country of troublesome Highlanders after the Jacobite Uprisings that continued for decades.

In 1811 there were 250,000 sheep there; by the 1840s there were almost a million. Within that period sheep replaced people driven from their homes by direct eviction or through hunger and destitution. After the sheep and over-grazing came deer and the creation of hunting grounds for the elite. By 1884 a tenth of Scotland’s land was given over to deer forests, greater than the size of Wales, and taking up the great majority of the land in the crofting counties (crofts were the small plots of land available to the remaining population)

The eviction of whole communities from Sutherland was done a scale not seen before, or again, during the Highland Clearances.

Families were moved off land to make way for large-scale sheep farming.

Starting in the late 18th Century and running into the 19th Century, the Highland Clearances saw townships occupied by generations of families cleared to make way for large-scale sheep farming and the rearing of deer.

Landowners were seeking to "improve" their estates in line with the industrial revolution.

In some cases people who had lived on the land for generations left voluntarily, while others were forcibly evicted and their homes burned and demolished.

Highlanders did try and fight the movement that saw their ancestral lands given over to sheep farming, 26 years previously and sheep were targeted in 1792 - which became known asBiadna nan Caorach (The Year of the Sheep) - following clearances in Sutherland and Easter Ross.

Four hundred men from families that had been evicted, or were facing eviction, drove thousands of the animals from the hills.

By early August, they had rounded up 6,000 sheep and had reached Beauly, near Inverness, where they were intercepted by soldiers.

Some of the men were tried in court and one man received an order banishing him from Scotland for life.

In the final decades of the 18th century some 200,000 were cleared to make way for sheep.

It wasn't only English landlords that were against the Highlanders, Scots in the Lowlands, perhaps spoon-fed on propaganda about the Uprisings were as much part of the rhetoric that something had to be done about this quarrelsome people.

A young journalist sent by the “Scotsman” to the Highlands exhibited the this while, writing in 1847 he said, that the Highlanders were “an inferior race to the Lowland Saxon.” Robert Knox, the Edinburgh surgeon who bought the bodies from the West Port murderers Burke and Hare believed in the superiority of the “Anglo-Saxon race” and wrote that the Highlanders “must be forced from the soil.”

Then there were the landlords factors, the most hated of whom was another Lowlander called Patrick Sellar , he regarded the Highlanders as racial degenerates. In his racist view they were, “the aborigines of Britain shut out from any general stream of knowledge… ”

Sellar was charged with murder for burning down an old woman’s house, a hand-picked jury of landowners found him not-guilty, but he had brought bad publicity to the Sutherland Estate and lost his job.

James Loch was an Edinburgh lawyer who for 40 years, from 1812, was commissioner for the Marquis of Stafford. He would write an apology for his employers but his racism towards their tenants was never far from the surface, with him complaining:

“… [their] habits and ideas, quite incompatible with the customs of regular society, and civilised life, adding greatly to those defects which characterise persons living in a loose and unformed state of society.” His concern was to provide wool for the “staple manufactory of England” and to convert the people to “the habits of regular and continued industry.

In 1846 matters became desperate as the potato blight brought the likelihood of famine to the Highlands. In response Charles Trevelyan, Under Secretary at the Treasury, wrote: “The people cannot, under any circumstances, be allowed to starve.” Two years later he did the opposite in Ireland, letting hundreds of thousands die. Arguing the famine there was “a mechanism for reducing surplus population.

Yet, as starvation became apparent the British government did intervene to feed the population: just two deaths from starvation are recorded, both on the hard hit population of the Isle of Barra (whose people were largely cleared in 1853 and sent to Quebec). This contrasts with Ireland, where the Great Famine killed thousands. While Ireland was nominally part of the UK it was in reality a colony and seen as separate. The Highlands were regarded by the British government as part of the UK, and starvation could not be permitted there (although emigration was encouraged)

The clearances speak volumes about how capitalism came into being, dripping with blood and at the expense of common people.

There were about 7 million sheep in Scotland nowadays, thats over one for each and every one of us,and estimated to be worth £165m to the economy, according to Scottish Government figures.

Brian McNeil wrote, in his song No Gods and precious few Heroes;

So farewell to the heather and the glen They cleared us off once and they'd do it all again For they still prefer sheep to thinking men Ah, but men who think like sheep are even better There's nothing much to choose between the old vain and the new They still don't give a damn for the likes of me and you Just mind you pay your rent to the factor when it's due And mind your bloody manners when you pay.....

#scotland #scottish highlands #the highland clearances #sutherland.#history

82 notes · View notes

calveesmain · 11 months

Text

Hey y'all's in the state of Kansas DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, RENT FROM EUCALYPTUS REALTY or ANY Property owned by LEW MCGINNIS

First, my experience with them;

I had a 6 month lease filed with an apartment building that ended in October 2021, I signed the paper confirming I would be out in october, I moved out in october 2021. I had an eviction filed against me November 4th, 2021. I just found out they succeeded in filing an eviction against me. I was not contacted regarding this at all, even though they had my active phone number on file and had called me after I moved regarding paperwork on an old roommate who'd moved earlier in the year. They filed an eviction on me, for an apartment I was not living in, after my lease had ended, and made zero attempt at contacting me. I did not find out until attempting to rent a house with a friend. Noone has answered the phone for me, or for the new renting agency, and my application is going to be denied. All because of an eviction filed against me. For an apartment I did not live in anymore. After my lease had ended. What should I do now? I would try to pay anything they're trying to charge if I could get them on the phone. It's not like I can fight it in court, they already won. Everything I'm reading just says "ask the owner nicely to get it removed" and I don't think that's possible now given what I've found since looking into them.

Because HERE'S what I found after a little digging;

The owner is a real estate person based out of Oklahoma, and owns multiple properties in Topeka, Emporia, and Wichita (I found the number 35 in Topeka, but I couldn't verify that or tell you how many in the other two cities) . I'm finding all these news artical now about how he's filed the most evictions out of any realitor in my county, how his properties have major upkeep issues (my apartment had a hole through the glass back door that was never fixed, and I have video I can dig up of a leak in my ceiling from the apartment above me pouring water into my bathroom multiple times a day. Not leaking, or dropping, POURING, and it only got fixed cause I was lucky enough to run into the handyman and speak with him myself, and I'm even luckier he was there to run into) how he's had mold outbreaks in both Topeka and Emporia due to maintenance neglect, literal tax evasion on those Emporia properties , bribing tenants for good reviews in Wichita (he later refused to pay), rent hikes (the whole reason I didn't renew my lease is because of a 100$ rent hikes + new fees), bedbug and roach issues among other things.

This feels completely unfixable. I'm going to have to grovle at this man's feet to fix the fact that HE EVICTED ME FROM AN EMPTY APARTMENT AFTER MY LEASE HAD ENDED and even then it's not gaurinteeed.

Y'all's should boost this cause I don't want anyone else in ks to get stuck dealing with this shit

Don't rent from Eucalyptus Realty or Lew McGinnus

39 notes · View notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 2 months

Text

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

March 27, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

MAR 28, 2024

The news that NBC News reconsidered its invitation to former Republican National Committee chair Ronna McDaniel to become a paid contributor has buried the recent news about some of the other participants in Trump’s attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Yesterday a judge in Minnesota ruled in favor of a warehouse owner who sought to evict MyPillow after it failed to pay more than $200,000 in rent. MyPillow chief executive officer Mike Lindell has complained that his company has been “decimated” by his support for Trump. His insistence—without evidence—that the 2020 presidential election was stolen has entangled him in expensive defamation lawsuits filed by voting machine companies Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic.

Lindell cannot pay his lawyers and claims to have “lost hundreds of millions of dollars,” but insists he is being persecuted “because you want me to shut up about [the] security of our elections.”

Also yesterday, Trump loyalist Kari Lake, who has pushed the idea that the 2020 presidential election was stolen, ran for Arizona governor in 2022, and is now running for the U.S. Senate, admitted she defamed Maricopa County recorder Stephen Richer and that she acted with actual malice when she claimed he “sabotaged” the 2022 election. The request to admit to defamation came on the day that discovery, the process of sharing information about a case with each side, was to begin, suggesting that she preferred to admit wrongdoing rather than let anyone see what might be in her emails, texts, and recordings.

Arizona journalist Howard Fischer reported in the Arizona Daily Star that in a video statement, Lake said her admission did not mean she agreed she did anything wrong, although that is expressly stipulated in the court papers. She said she conceded because Richer’s lawsuit was keeping her off the campaign trail. “It’s called lawfare: weaponizing the legal system to punish, impoverish and destroy political opponents,’’ Lake said. “We’ve all seen how they’re doing it to President Trump. And here in Arizona, they’re doing the exact same thing to me.’’

One of Lake’s senior advisors said: “Kari Lake maintains she has always been truthful.”

Also yesterday, a three-member panel of the D.C. Bar’s Board of Professional Responsibility began a disciplinary hearing for former Department of Justice environmental lawyer Jeffrey Clark, who was so key to Trump’s plan to get state legislatures to overturn the results of the 2020 election that Trump tried to make him attorney general.

Clark joins Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who led the media blitz to argue—falsely—that the election had been stolen. Giuliani’s New York and Washington, D.C., law licenses were suspended in June 2021 after a court found that he made “demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers, and the public at large.” He is now facing disbarment.

Earlier this month, he said on his podcast that he expected to be disbarred because “[t]he Bar Association is going to crucify me no matter what. I will be disbarred in New York. I will be disbarred in Washington. It will have nothing to do with anything I did wrong.”

Today, after a long trial, attorney discipline judge Yvette Roland recommended that John Eastman, the lawyer who came up with the justification for using fake electors to overturn the 2020 presidential election, be disbarred. Eastman will immediately lose his license to practice law. The California Supreme Court will decide whether to disbar Eastman.

Eastman’s lawyer said it was unfair to take Eastman’s law license because he needs to make money to fight the criminal charges against him in Georgia, where he has been indicted for his part in the effort to overthrow the results of the 2020 presidential election there. For his part, Eastman maintains he did nothing wrong.

In her recommendation, Judge Roland compared Eastman’s case to that of Donald Segretti, the lawyer whose efforts to guarantee President Richard Nixon’s 1972 reelection included, as Roland’s recommendation noted, distributing letters that made false accusations against Nixon’s rivals (including a forged letter attributing a slur against French-Canadians to Maine senator and candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination Edmund Muskie). At the time, the court noted that Segretti was only 30, thought he was acting for Nixon, and did not act in his capacity as a lawyer. The court also emphasized that Segretti “recognized the wrongfulness of his acts, expressed regret, and cooperated with the investigating agencies.”

In contrast, Roland wrote, “[t]he scale and egregiousness of Eastman’s unethical actions far surpasses” Segretti’s misconduct. Segretti acted outside his role as an attorney, while “Eastman’s wrongdoing was committed directly in the course and scope of his representation of President Trump and the Trump campaign.” Roland also noted that while Segretti expressed remorse and recognized his wrongdoing, Eastman has shown “an apparent inability to accept responsibility. This lack of remorse and accountability presents a significant risk that Eastman may engage in further unethical conduct, compounding the threat to the public.”

One by one, those who worked with Trump to overturn the election are being held to account by our legal system. But still, they refuse to admit any wrongdoing.

In that, they are following Trump.

Despite Judge Juan Merchan’s gag order, Trump continued today to attack both Merchan and his daughter. On his social media site, Trump posted that Merchan was trying to deprive him of his “First Amendment right to speak out against the Weaponization of Law Enforcement, including the fact that Crooked Joe Biden, Merrick Garland, and their Hacks and Thugs are tracking and following me all across the Country, obsessively trying to persecute me, while everyone knows I have done nothing wrong!” Trump posted in great detail about the judge’s daughter, accusing her of making money by “working to ‘Get Trump,’” based on images shared by an old social media account of hers that had been hacked.

It was President Nixon who perfected the refusal to admit wrongdoing in the face of overwhelming evidence. Even after tapes recorded in the Oval Office revealed that he had plotted with an aide to block investigations of the break-in at the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate Hotel by invoking national security and Republican Party leaders told him he needed to resign, he refused to admit wrongdoing. Instead, he told the American people he was stepping down because he no longer had enough support in Congress to advance the national interest. He blamed his fall on the press, saying its “leaks and accusations and innuendo” were designed to destroy him.

Gerald R. Ford, the president who replaced Nixon, inadvertently put a rubber stamp on Nixon’s refusal to accept responsibility. Believing it was better for the country to move past the divisions of the Watergate era, Ford issued a preemptive pardon for any crimes the former president might have committed against the United States while in office. Ford maintained that the acceptance of a pardon was an admission of guilt.

But Ford’s pardon meant Nixon never faced legal accountability for his actions. That escape allowed him to argue that a president is above the law. In a 1977 interview with British journalist David Frost, Nixon told Frost that “when the president does it…that means that it is not illegal,” by definition.

As Nixon did, Trump has watched those who participated in his schemes pay dearly for their support, but he appears angry and confused at the idea that he himself could be held legally accountable for his behavior.

But without accountability, as Judge Roland noted, there is no incentive to stop dangerous behavior. Josh Dawsey reported last night in the Washington Post that since Trump has taken over the Republican National Committee and purged it of former employees, those interviewing for jobs are being asked if they believe the 2020 presidential election was stolen. Other questions, Dawsey reported, include “what applicants believe should be done on ‘election integrity’ in 2024.”

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

#Letters From An American #Heather Cox Richardson #Jan 6 2021 #MAGA #lawyers #accountability #election fraud #election tampering #unethical conduct

5 notes · View notes

voskhozhdeniye · 3 months

Text

Since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, advocates and policy analysts have warned of a homelessness “tsunami.” It’s the worst-case scenario where the combination of lost income, backlogs of owed rent, and a lack of local government foresight contribute to a surge of people losing housing and ending up on the street. Well, it has arrived—and it’s poised to get much worse as the Supreme Court is set to decide whether to make homelessness a de facto crime.

This past month, many cities and counties conducted their annual point-in-time homelessness counts. The results of January’s counts won’t be known for several more months, but they’re likely to be dire. The end-of-2023 results found that approximately 653,000 people were experiencing homelessness. That’s up more than 70,000 over 2022, or a 12 percent increase. In the 12 months since that data was collected, those numbers have likely gone up.

But the raw numbers are just the tip of the iceberg. As more people end up experiencing homelessness, they’re also facing increasingly punitive and reactionary responses from local governments and their neighbors. Such policies could become legally codified in short order, with the high court having agreed to hear arguments in Grants Pass v. Johnson.

Originally brought in 2018, the case challenged the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, over an ordinance banning camping. Both a federal judge and, later, a panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck the law down, saying that Grants Pass did not have enough available shelter to offer homeless people. As such, the law was deemed to be a violation of the Eighth Amendment.

The ruling backed up the Ninth Circuit’s earlier ruling on the Martin v. City of Boise case, which said that punishing or arresting people for camping in public when there are no available shelter beds to take them to instead constituted a violation of the “cruel and unusual punishment” clause in the Eighth Amendment. That applied to localities in the Ninth Circuit’s area of concern and has led to greater legal scrutiny even as cities and counties push for more punitive and restrictive anti-camping laws. In fact, Grants Pass pushed to get the Supreme Court to hear the case, and several nominally liberal cities and states on the West Coast are backing its argument. If the Supreme Court overturns the previous Grants Pass and Boise rulings, it would open the door for cities, states, and counties to essentially criminalize being unhoused on a massive scale.

If it does so, that will have ramifications for all unhoused people, from those who have been chronically homeless for some time to those currently falling into homelessness. And that last category is a large one: In the time since the January 2023 homeless count, there have been at least 1,076,396 evictions across 10 states and 34 cities, according to Princeton University’s Eviction Lab project, which has tracked data related to evictions through the end of 2023. In December alone, there were more than 69,000 evictions in those monitored areas. According to the data, evictions have almost fully returned to pre-Covid pandemic levels, after federal moratoriums and protections expired.

It’s also becoming harder to pay for housing. The housing market remains tight for anyone looking to buy, and renters are losing options. Inflation has eaten into people’s available income, pandemic-era protections have ended, rents are rising, and data from the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies that came out last month showed that renters are spending more—even as the amount of affordable housing available is decreasing.

Nearly 22.4 million households—or half of all renters—can’t afford their rent, according to an accepted standard that paying more than 30 percent of one’s income on rent renders it unaffordable. Without immediate assistance to renters, it’s a situation that will only worsen. Back rent due, as well as new rent increases, is likely to magnify the financial strain that’s already being keenly felt by renters, forcing more people out of their homes, either to depend on friends and family or end up on the streets.

If the Supreme Court sides with Grants Pass, it will effectively undo all of the protections created by the Boise case, which means that the thousands of people currently experiencing homelessness as well as those likely to fall into homelessness in 2024 will face additional challenges in an already traumatic situation. Added legal and financial burdens will only make it harder for them to become rehoused, creating a vicious cycle of escalating misery that will do nothing to actually solve the underlying causes of homelessness.

Grants Pass v. Johnson hasn’t received the same fanfare as many of the other cases before the Supreme Court this term, but perhaps no other case has as much at stake for some of the most vulnerable Americans, who now face the prospect of both additional financial burdens and the possibility of being transformed into a new class of criminal, solely because so many states and municipalities have chosen to wash their hands of a crisis their own policies have created.

Jesse Rabinowitz, the campaign and communications director with the National Homelessness Law Center’s “Housing Not Handcuffs” program (which plans to file an amicus brief in the case prior to oral arguments but has not as of press time) told The New Republic that an arrest record only makes it harder to get a job or find a new apartment to rent—and unpaid fines can lower a credit score, causing more financial hardship.

If the highest court sides with lawmakers that have abandoned the homeless to face more punitive measures for their misfortune, anyone left on the streets could be subject to arrest or other criminal penalties simply for having nowhere else to go, even in instances where local government has fallen through on the provision of adequate shelters. They will either be left to rot in jail or be forced out of the communities they call home.

The biggest obstacle to solving homelessness is the lack of affordable housing. That’s it. Either people are being priced out of homes or those on the streets can’t afford to obtain a permanent home. Thousands of units are either in the approval process or being built, but at the moment there is a nationwide deficit in housing, and construction is not matching pace with the growth of the unhoused population.

“Homelessness is increasing in many communities because rents are sky high and there is a severe shortage of affordable rental homes. More people are just one financial shock away from falling behind on rent and facing evictions and, in worst cases, homelessness,” Sarah Saadian, senior vice president of public policy at the National Low Income Housing Coalition, told The New Republic. “As homelessness has increased, elected officials are under a lot of pressure to take action, but too many of them are turning to misguided, ineffective, and costly approaches, like criminalization, rather than investing in proven solutions.”

This is not some abstract conundrum. In Los Angeles this past month, before and during dangerous storms that found officials urging sheltering in place for safety, police and city agencies were out dismantling encampments. Efforts by local advocates and organizations to help get unhoused people into promised shelters were met with confusion by local government and a lack of actual help, as documented by the group Ktown for All. Prior high-level sweeps, such as at Echo Park Lake in 2020, cleared the park of tents, but despite initial claims by Los Angeles City Council members, only a handful of the nearly 200 people cleared by the lake found temporary shelter, let alone permanent housing. Additionally, representatives with the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority said such clearances disrupted outreach attempts intended to get people to shelter and temporary housing, undoing trust-building efforts that took time to develop.

And real solutions to homelessness are up against long timelines and limited political will. There are major efforts to build new housing and fund services—the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced $3.16 billion last month for those very issues—but these resources take time to spin up, and they face political challenges along the way. An ambitious plan by New York City Mayor Eric Adams, announced in 2022, shriveled over a year, with several cuts to social services. It’s an initiative that joins other community programs in facing financing and budget issues, all while the mayor pushes increasing money to the already massively funded NYPD. Los Angeles elected a slew of progressive officials in 2022 and passed a mansion tax to fund housing and services, however it will still be some time before any new housing funded by it opens.

Meanwhile the city’s wealthy interests and corporate donors are funding the campaigns of conservative challengers to several progressives this year. If the Grants Pass case ends up allowing widespread criminalization of homelessness, it could lead to major setbacks that could render these projects far less effective.

Even large cities that have committed significant resources to helping unhoused people can’t adequately shelter people. New York, with a right-to-shelter law, still falls short of helping all of the people in need. Los Angeles has initiated several measures—several very good ones, as a matter of fact—to fund housing and services, but new units take time to actually be built, and more reactionary elements in the city government are pushing anti-homeless ordinances of their own.

And shelter, although helpful, is not housing. People in transitional or bridge housing still struggle to find permanent solutions, mainly because there simply isn’t enough affordable housing available. And it’s worth remembering that tens of thousands of people fall into and out of homelessness a year, including many who might experience homelessness for just a brief period of time before safety programs, family, or good fortune help them regain housing stability. Those who fit into this category could find themselves caught up in the criminal justice system for just a few days’ misfortune.

If the Supreme Court does side with criminalizing homelessness, local and state governments could start punishing people very quickly, according to Rabinowitz. “A lot of states have carve-outs that say this policy of criminalization can’t be enacted unless there is adequate shelter,” Rabinowitz said. “I imagine the ‘adequate shelter’ part will go away very quickly if the court rules that way.”

There are even more hostile proposals being dreamt up. In Florida, the state legislature—with the endorsement of Governor Ron DeSantis, fresh off his failed presidential run—is proposing criminalizing homelessness and putting unhoused Floridians in camps. Donald Trump is running on a nationwide version of this same policy. Under his proposal, unhoused people would be sent to “tent cities” on “inexpensive land” (exactly what that means is unclear, but it’s implied to be outside of cities).

Notably, the proposal is missing any real details on getting people out of those camps into actual permanent supportive housing. Trump hasn’t provided any idea of what his indefinite internment plan will cost or how he will pay for it; it goes without saying that it’s impossible to determine whether it would be more cost-effective than simply building more housing. But the former president appears to have retribution, not solutions, on his mind. In his 2023 video, he accused cities of focusing on “the whims of a deeply unwell few,” outright ignoring the root causes of homelessness and the factors that keep people unhoused.

When one considers the draconian ideas being conceived behind closed doors, the implications of any decision in Grants Pass are very real. The mechanisms and political desire to criminalize the homeless already exists, and lawmakers seem to be racing toward drastic and punitive approaches, instead of solutions that might actually ease the crisis. Should the Supreme Court contribute to the momentum of criminalization, it will likely exacerbate the crisis—it certainly will neither contribute to rehousing the homeless nor alleviate the economic conditions that force people out onto the streets. It’s a recipe for shortsighted, “out of sight” policies that will enable officials to pursue the cruelest possible approaches to a problem they helped create.

#Greetings from America

6 notes · View notes

crowrelli · 1 year

Text

Free an innocent woman / Emergency Coms

As some of you guys know we were wrongly evicted and homeless for a while almost exactly a year ago. In that time weve been working our asses off to get back on our feet and try and recover from the abuse inflicted by the man we had lived with. We'd finally escaped him and went no contact and have been loving life without his constant abuse.

However.

Despite our efforts he has decided to rear his ugly head again by filling bullshit charges against his daughter, my mother in law. Shes currently in our county jail awaiting court because of his lies and manipulation of facts.

The only evidence we have are an army of witnesses to his years of abuse and violence and her slaving away to give him every penny she'd earned and then some.

We cannot pay our bills without her income nor pay for legal aid so Im asking for work. Im offering discounted slots to help keep our heads afloat while we fight this stupid, vicious man and free the kindest, most honest and loving woman ive ever met. We have a really good feeling we can fight him and that truth is on our side, we just want to be able to do that without worrying about being homeless again.

Emergency Slot Prices - DM for info: 10$ - colored sketch. Half body, semi painted, normal style. +5 for extra characters 50$ - Bulk Deal. 6 colored sketch commission slots. Usable at any time with no expiration. 100$ - Bulk Deal. 4 Full body commission slots. Usable at any time with no expiration.

thank you so much for you continued support and we're gonna fight this monster tooth and fucking nail to free our mom.

#emergency commissions #emergency coms #commission info #signal boost #digital art #she is the most wonderful loving mother anyone would be lucky to have and hes making her life miserable. please help us get her out

26 notes · View notes

lawofficeofryansshipp · 1 month

Text

St. Lucie County Eviction Lawyers | Law Office of Ryan S. Shipp, PLLC

St.-Lucie-County-Landlord-Lawyers Are you a commercial or residential landlord in St. Lucie County, Florida, facing tenant issues that require eviction? Look no further than Law Office of Ryan S. Shipp, PLLC. Our experienced team understands the complexities of Florida eviction laws and is committed to helping property owners, landlords, property managers, and investors, navigate these…

View On WordPress

#evicting a tenant in Florida #eviction attorney St. Lucie County #eviction lawsuit support Florida #eviction legal help St. Lucie County #eviction proceedings in Florida #Florida eviction notice requirements #Florida eviction process for landlord #Florida landlord eviction guide #florida landlord rights #Florida rental eviction process #Florida tenant eviction services #how to evict a tenant legally in Florida #landlord legal support St. Lucie #landlord rights attorney in St. Lucie #landlord tenant law florida #landlord-tenant court Florida #legal eviction steps in Florida #legal help for landlords #property management legal assistance #rental law attorney St. Lucie #St. Lucie County eviction lawyer #St. Lucie County eviction notice lawyer #St. Lucie County landlord-tenant disputes #St. Lucie County property law #St. Lucie eviction service lawyer #St. Lucie property eviction attorney #St. Lucie rental property law #tenant eviction legal advice #tenant eviction process Florida #tenant rights and eviction

0 notes

lordcephalopod · 2 years

Text

I have next to no social media outside of tumblr, so I might as well finally post here, now that there's something non-portland-folk can do!

We are trying to get representation for all tenants facing eviction in Portland, Oregon, or more specifically, in all of Multnomah county. Not only would this help our county and the thousands facing eviction and homelessness here, there are only a few of these programs in the country, the more of them there are, the more other counties and cities will look to the success of these programs and pick them up themselves!

In pretty much every jurisdiction that does not have an eviction representation program, tenants are not given an attorney, and largely cannot afford one. Their landlords on the other hand almost come to court with an attorney. This helps perpetuate wildly unfair outcomes, and leads to countless evictions and other negative outcomes that could have been avoided in a fairer system.

If you can donate, we would greatly appreciate it. And of course just boosting this post is appreciated if you can't donate!

The dirtbag landlord lobby with their deep pockets have already tried to stop us in court, and lost, but obviously our fight isn't over.

And on the off chance you are a registered voter in Multnomah county, PLEASE sign the ballot petition! https://www.eratenants.org/sign You can also find our canvassers in their bright yellow shirts at many local events.

161 notes · View notes

offender42085 · 1 year

Photo

Post 950

Randy H “Junior” Tundidor, Florida inmate L75549, born 1988, incarceration intake in 2013 at age 24; scheduled for release 08/12/2047

Murder - 2nd degree, Attempted Murder - 1st Degree, Kidnaping, Burglary, Robbery, Arson

A beloved father and Nova Southeastern University professor was stabbed to death. His wife and young son escaping death from their home that had been torched.

Randy H. Tundidor, had testified against his father, Randy W. Tundidor pinning the actual stabbing on him. In exchange prosecutors took the death penalty off the table and downgraded Tundidor Junior's charge to second-degree murder.

Tundidor Junior was sentenced to 40 years in state prison. It was not the outcome the victim's family or the suspect's family expected.

Morrisey's widow, Linda had made an emotional plea in court arguing for the maximum sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. She said that the crime had shattered her sense of safety and that she and her son will forever live in a life in prison of the "voices of that night, the smells and noises."

For his part, Tundidor, Jr. apologized for his actions.

"If I could have stopped him, I would have," Tundidor said. "I'm truly sorry. I know it's not gonna mean anything but I'm sorry."

Earlier this year, Tundidor Jr. laid out his side of the story to a Broward County jury. He said it all started two years ago when his dad called him and asked if he knew anyone that could scare his landlord because he was being evicted and Morrissey was destroying the family. Tundidor Jr. said he would do it.

Tundidor Jr. testified that he tied up Morrissey and his wife Linda, spoke to his father by walkie-talkie, and was told to search for anything of value. He also said he had on latex gloves and had a gun but told his dad he wasn't going to shoot anybody.

When asked why they used walkie-talkies, he said it was because his dad told him "If they used a cell phone, they could be tracked." He also said he covered the Morrissey's heads with towels, "because he didn't want them to see his dad because he knew they would recognize him."

During the crime, the Morrissey's were forced at gunpoint to drive to an ATM and withdraw cash.

"It was dad's idea to get money from the ATM," said Tundidor Jr. He went on to describe the trip and said Linda withdrew the cash because her husband was driving. Linda then gave the cash to Junior.

When they arrived back at the Morrissey's Plantation home, he said he tied them up again with plastic ties and covered their heads with towels. He claimed his dad tried to find more stuff to steal. They found two laptops and he gave his dad the $500 cash from the ATM.

At this point, with the Morrissey's tied up in the bedroom, Tundidor Jr. said he wanted to leave. His dad refused and reportedly said Joseph Morrissey "has to die."

The younger Tundidor claimed that he told his dad he didn't want to be involved in that, but his dad ordered him to retrieve Mr. Morrissey from the bedroom. The son testified his father put the gun to Morrisey's head, but that it jammed. Tundidor Sr. then grabbed a knife and stabbed Morrisey twice, according to the son's testimony.

The son said Tundidor Sr. poured gas around the living room and kitchen and lit it on fire. Morrisey's wife Linda and her son both were able to escape the home.

Tundidor Sr. continues to say he is innocent of all the charges.

Tundidor Jr.'s attorney said that Randy has hope after the sentence was handed down Friday.

"He's going in with a good attitude," said defense attorney Patrick Rastatter. "He going to see light at the end of the tunnel and it's not a train coming towards him."

Tundidor Senior (Florida inmate L97205 was sentenced to death.

15 notes · View notes

beardedmrbean · 2 years

Text

CONCORD, N.H. -- A hermit known as River Dave — whose cabin in the New Hampshire woods burned down after he had spent nearly three decades on the property and was ordered to leave — has found a new home in Maine.

David Lidstone, 82, has put in windows and is working on installing a chimney on his rustic three-room cabin, which he said is on land he bought.

“The foundation needs repair work," Lidstone, who received more than $200,000 in donations following the fire, said in a phone interview on Monday. “It's just an old camp, but I enjoy working (on it)."

Lidstone, who grew up in Maine, declined to say where he was living or provide a contact for the landowner. A search of Maine county registers of deeds did not show any recent transactions involving Lidstone, but a cousin confirmed that he had moved to Maine, and a Facebook post had photos of Lidstone with a family member in his new home.

“He's working on putting it together, and clearing land, and planting gardens, and he's got some chickens. He's moving on," said Horace Clark, of Vermont, Lidstone's cousin.

Lidstone said he had to leave Canterbury, New Hampshire, over his dispute with a different landowner since 2016 over a patch of forest near the Merrimack River that Lidstone called home for 27 years. A judge issued an injunction in 2017 for him to leave after the landowner, Leonard Giles, sued him, and another judge recently ruled Lidstone would receive a $500-a-day fine if he didn't move.

There have been many delays in the case. Besides the pandemic, Lidstone didn't always show up for court, and he was in and out of jail as he resisted the injunction.

It also was difficult to serve Lidstone with a notice to appear in court. There's no road access to the property, which is about a mile and a half (2.4 kilometers) into the woods. In January, one process server slipped, fell down an embankment and injured his leg in his attempt to reach Lidstone, according to a motion filed by Giles' attorney.

In March, a judge said Lidstone would face the daily fine if he didn't leave the area by April 11. The judge ruled Lidstone also has to pay some of Giles' legal fees. Separately, Lidstone faces trespassing charges in connection with the property.

Giles, 87, of South Burlington, Vermont, died in July. It wasn't immediately clear if his death changes the status of the case. His attorney didn't respond to a request for comment.

Lidstone said he was sad to hear that Giles died. “I had nothing against the old man," he said.

But he seems to be embracing his new life.

“I’ve got all kinds of friends up here," he said. “I’ve had friends every weekend, all summer."

Last August, while Lidstone was in jail over the property dispute, his cabin, which had solar panels, burned down as it was being dismantled at Giles’ request. The local fire chief said the fire was accidental.

Lidstone agreed to collect his remaining possessions. He had secured temporary housing as he figured out where to live next — he had offers — and believed that he could not go back to being a hermit. But late last year, he returned to live in a shed on the property that had survived the fire, prompting more legal action.

“Sometimes, you have to stand up for what is right,” he said in January.

Court records said the undeveloped property has been in the Giles family since 1963 and is used for timber harvests.

Lidstone, who represented himself in court, had claimed that years ago, the current owner’s father gave his word — but nothing in writing — allowing him to live there. He also disputed whether he was on the property in the first place.

#nunyas news #poor river dave

21 notes · View notes

the-final-straw-blog · 1 year

Text

Stop Evictions at Winnemucca Indian Colony

On Tuesday, December 13th, I spoke with Kyle Missouri, a resident of the Winnemucca Indian Colony in Humboldt County, Nevada where a longstanding conflict between residents and the Winnemucca Tribal Council has come to a head recently with the evictions of elders, youths, and other residents into the snow. We talk about his family’s roots in the Indian Colony, some background on the place and the conflict with the so-called Roja Council, the contested lithium mine at Thacker Pass and the court challenge to evictions, banishment and house demolition this Thursday, 12/15/22. Check our show notes for links to other sources of information, ways you can show up and places you can donate.

You can follow Kyle on facebook under the name Kyle Missourii (like the state with an extra ‘I’ at the end)

Also see interviews with Elders who’ve been evicted and updates on Instagram at @Neweneensokopa

Learn more about background and legal support by following Water Protector Legal Collective on social media and more at linktr.ee/waterprotectorlegal

And donate to the cashapp for supporting displaced families at $defendWIC. They’re looking for more lawyers who can support the efforts as well as journalists who can be on the ground and talking about this situation or reaching out for interviews.

You can watch the court hearing this Thursday linked in the latest update at Water Protector Legal Collective’s website, waterprotectorlegal.org

Recent interview with Kyle on the B&B Indigenous Podcast

Check out this episode!

#anarchist #podcast #interview #feminist #antifa #anticapitalist

10 notes · View notes

if-you-fan-a-fire · 7 years

Text

"166 IN JAIL AS SARNIA STRIKE TROUBLE EBBS," Kingston Whig-Standard. March 4, 1937. Page 1. ---- Are to Face Court on Friday on Charges of Trespassing ---- TWO BADLY HURT ==== Sarnia Quiet After Riot 1,000 Panes of Glass Were Shattered -- SARNIA, March 4 - (CP) - With only two out of seven men, still in general hospital, reported in a serious condition and production resumed at the Holmes Foundry Company, scene of a clash between non-strikers and "sit-down" strikers yesterday, Sarnia today was getting back to normal routine. The outcome of the fight in and around the foundry was the eviction of the "sit-downers" by the men who desired to continue work. Badly Hurt Condition of Mike Pipliki and Peter Tomko, two participants in the struggle, was causing concern. Tomko has a fractured spine, pelvis, ankle and wrat. "As good as can be ex ported was the word of attending physicians, Pipliki, with a skull frac tam, is in "fair condition." Perey Archer, reported to be seriously injured yesterday, today was officially said to be suffering from cuts about the body and legs. He has no fracture of the leg as at first reported. 66 In Jail In the meantime to men who took part in the fight and were turned over to the police by non-strikers, repose in the county jail and city police lockup awaiting arraignment Friday morning on charges of trespassing on the company property March 1. Forty-seven are crowded into the county jail and 19 remain in police cell. No pleas were made and no bail granted after their arrest. At the plan all non-strikers with out handicapping injuries were back at work and 100 new men have been employed. It has been indicated none of the strikers will be re-empanged. The factory escaped serious damage although about 1,000 panes of glass will have to be replaced. No additional charges have been laid, and there was no intimation of further steps to ascertain the identity of any of the men who may have indicated injuries.

Tomko was said to have suffered Injuries when he jumped from the roof of the structure. Pipliki, it was reported, was injured in a free-for-all and it would be difficult to ascertain the identity of his assailant. Score Injured in Sarnia Foundry Strike Riot Seven men were rushed to hospital, three suffering serious injury, while a score were less badly hurt when four hundred men, armed with clubs and crowbars rushed the strike bound Holmes Foundry Co. plant at Sarnia. and engaged in a terrific hand-to-hat encounter with strikers inside the factory. In full view of hundreds of citizens, the battle raged on the root the plant as non-strikers sought to cast the striking workers who took possession of the plant and flouted police orders to evacuate. Here is one of the casualties being carried from the scene of action as the battle raged. Thirty-one strikers were booked at police headquarters following the fray. There was a possibility that three the injured might die.

#sarnia #strike #sit down strike #factory occupation #foundry workers #metal workers #strike violence #scabs #strikebreakers #strikebreaking #working class struggle #great depression in canada #crime and punishment in canada #history of crime and punishment in canada #county jail #held without bail

2 notes · View notes