It Is Difficult To Trust The NLCHP

The Bell v. Boise case was a sprout of hope on a dark and gloomy judicial branch. Sadly, the all-too-typical strangulation via procedural technicalities occurred, yet again, and this time it was the NLCHP that went limp. One of the excuses used: some plaintiffs were no longer homeless, implying they were no longer at risk of citation (yet another reason why protected class status is needed, for the hate laws are obviously targeted and selectively enforced). Perhaps the NLCHP club was exhausted by the planning of their McKinney-Vento Awards cheese chewing party held at The Liason. I can only wonder if, arriving or leaving, any tipsy attendees stepped over anyone sleeping illegally.

It isn't the first time the fight for homeless civil rights has been used and abandoned. Perhaps there should be laws discouraging such predatory cynicism?

Meanwhile, back in Santa Cruz; Tristia Bauman from the NLCHP will be speaking at Sleep Is A Right. Is it a PR appearance? Prelude to a case? The food will be vegan, so chewing cheese seems unlikely.

The Fed Cometh

A report about the effort to decriminalize homelessness illuminates a recent change in federal posture. DOJ, USICH, and HUD are finally making life difficult for hate groups and their politicians.

The statement of interest brief filed in the NLCHP powered Boise case could lead to a landmark decision. Hopefully one citable in California!

#LegalizeDreaming

Incentivizing Death?

The #Right2Rest bill in California, SB-608, will have a hearing on Tuesday, April 7, 2015.  Some analysis of the bill has been published (see: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB608).  In that published analysis, there is an opposition statement that makes 'incentivize' claims.  Those claims provide no factual basis.  Those claims twist logic, revealing bigoted hate.  Those claims should be deeply shameful, and vigorously challenged at all times, yet are not and have not.

The claim "may incentivize homeless activity" is perhaps more truthful as "may incentivize the pursuit of life and liberty".  The claim "establish a right to live on the streets" is perhaps more truthful as "establish a right to live".  The claim "this bill would usurp voter-approved ordinances that seek to balance the rights, health, and safety of all their residents by preventing camping, sleeping, and lying on the streets" is perhaps more truthful as "this bill would usurp voter-approved ordinances that are hate filled bigotry aimed at the elimination of 'others' by any means necessary".

The hate laws aimed at the homeless are nothing less than torture laced death sentences.  Slower than lethal injections and electric chairs but still death sentences.  The proud promoters, legislators, enforcers, and prosecutors of those murderous hate laws should be investigated, prosecuted, sentenced, and incarcerated.

Too expensive?

If past behavior is a reliable guide, SB-608 will probably be described as too expensive, and not allowed out of committee. Too expensive to protect the civil and human rights of a persecuted group by modification of 647(e).

It would be more accurate to say it would be too expensive to recognize and respect those civil and human rights long denied. It would be more accurate to say the reversal of the blatant disregard for the civil and human rights of a group widely treated as less than human would be too expensive. A group that includes veterans that are placed in harms way by draft dodging politicians.

To be expected, I suppose, given a government founded on the concept of some humans being created equal and some humans being considered 3/5 people and 2/5 property.

Southern California hits the ball!

California Senator Carol Liu (25th District) has sponsored CA SB 608. The Bill seeks to modify 647(e) (see bolded text below) and add new text.

647(e) Who lodges in any building, structure, vehicle, or place, whether public or private, without the permission of the owner or person entitled to the possession or in control of it. This subdivision does not apply to conduct that is protected pursuant to Section 53.81 of the Civil Code.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_0601-0650/sb_608_bill_20150227_introduced.htm

The new text, 53.8 and 53.81, contains classifications and protections intended to defend the rights of homeless people.

Foreshadow

Some were surprised by the ruling by the United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit on Desertrain v. City Of Los Angeles. Anyone that bothered to listen to the Desertrain v. City Of Los Angeles proceedings probably wasn't surprised. The bench was obviously upset by the case, as presented by Los Angeles, and their assertive opinion was a hope filled reminder of common decency. The citable result of Desertrain v. City Of Los Angeles (2014): 'car habitation' is no longer a crime, within the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit. A serious question remains; how long before new 'ugly law' strikedown workarounds become freshly oppressive ordinances?

More recently, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District ruled on Allen v. City Of Sacramento. To me, it isn't clear if the 3rd rejected arguments because of filing technicalities or because of substance, although the opinion is laced with 'sleep is a crime' sentiments. While the 3rd rejected many of the arguments, they did acknowledge equal enforcement as a problem that needed to be addressed. My guess is that the 3th was very aware of the strong 9th opinion, given the similar class of victims of oppression, and didn't want to be embarrassed by the 9th striking down the ruling in Allen v. City Of Sacramento.

Meanwhile, back at the PeaceCamp 2011/2012 case; Ed's procedural trivia appeal held, and the substance of the matter is headed back to the Santa Cruz Appellate. I assume the Santa Cruz Appellate will rubber stamp the initial ruling, yet again, and then perhaps an appeal on substance will occur. Or perhaps not. It's difficult for me to know because, in practice, the case is not mine.

My overall impression; the United States Supreme Court ruling in Papachristou v. City Of Jacksonville (1972), as poetic as it is at times, has been and will continue to be ignored at all levels of executive and legislative influence. Just as the debates leading to the 9th Amendment, as well at the 9th Amendment itself, have been and continue to be ignored. Perhaps because the wealthy are not often found sleeping and when they are, they are excused from any rules of law that might apply.

#LegalizeDreaming