Homeless Man Evicted Under Patriot Act

[Fantasea]

Yeah, I checked out that site, it's an all out liberal hater site. It plays the :spin: card at every turn. Making seemingly ordinary take an extremist tone.

Oh, yeah, that's what I call hard hitting journalism, right up there with Faux Gnus. :shock: :bs

Mocking and scoffing seems to be your strong suit. The truth posted on a website that you don't care for is, nevertheless, the truth, isn't it?

Be that as it may, perhaps the same story with an Associated Press byline might have a pedigree more to your liking. Here's an excerpt.

Read on.

Kreimer garnered national attention in 1991 after suing Morristown, the Morris Township public library and the police department over his treatment there. The library threw him out at least five times, claiming his body odor and the way he looked at library patrons offended them.

A federal judge ruled the library's rules on hygiene were unconstitutional — a decision that was overturned, but not before Kreimer had been paid. Kreimer has said he spent the settlement on lawyers, living expenses and medical bills.

In the latest case, Kreimer is seeking at least $5 million in damages from the city of Summit, NJ Transit, nine police officers and several others, claiming he and other homeless people have been unlawfully thrown out of train stations since August.

Read the whole thing here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050630...vVG2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

 

[Fantasea]

So what if it is about money? The government should be penalized for abuse of the law. Its a good thing that there are people like him who will stand up against the government. I hope he wins.

Hey, maybe Mr. K. is on to something. I think I'll follow his lead, gain some notariety, and make some easy money. If I'm not mistaken, these settlements have the added advantage of being tax free. In the words of the Russian immigrant comedian Yakov Schmirnoff, "What a country!" :lol:

Exactly what does this prove? Nothing. Just because a person cannot say something is incorrect, does not make that something right. You say the Patriot Act was not abused and yet you cannot prove that it provides the government the right to evict people from subways. The Justice Department is even on the side of the homeless man. They say the Act was misused.

There you go, trying to find the fly turds in the pepper. If people are a public nuisance in a transportation center, especially these days, what difference does it make which law is used to clear them out.

Perhaps if a terrorist gets the urge to give us some grief in a ground transportation facility, he'll take a lesson from Kreimer.

 

[Alex]

Hey, maybe Mr. K. is on to something. I think I'll follow his lead, gain some notariety, and make some easy money. If I'm not mistaken, these settlements have the added advantage of being tax free. In the words of the Russian immigrant comedian Yakov Schmirnoff, "What a country!"

If he has no case, the court will throw it out. Apparently someone thinks he does have a case, including the Department of Justice. This is not "easy money." It is money that he deserves for being treated wrongly by the wrong law.

:lol: There you go, trying to find the fly turds in the pepper. If people are a public nuisance in a transportation center, especially these days, what difference does it make which law is used to clear them out.

Perhaps if a terrorist gets the urge to give us some grief in a ground transportation facility, he'll take a lesson from Kreimer.

Homeless people are not public nuisances. They are people just like anyone else. If you are bothered by homeless people, then that is a problem within yourself. I doubt they are bothered by other people. Maybe you should be removed from the subways when homeless people are around. They could use the Patriot Act to do it.

"What difference does it make which law is used to clear them out."? That is a serious misunderstanding of any law system. Laws have intend. When that intent is misused, it is corruption. We have gone over this already. Do you have no real valid points? Why must you return to your already disproven statements? As much as your overactive imagination would like to think so, homeless people are not terrorists.

I am still waiting for you to prove that the Patriot Act is meant to remove homeless people from subways.

 

[Fantasea]

If he has no case, the court will throw it out. Apparently someone thinks he does have a case, including the Department of Justice. This is not "easy money." It is money that he deserves for being treated wrongly by the wrong law.

Homeless people are not public nuisances. They are people just like anyone else. If you are bothered by homeless people, then that is a problem within yourself. I doubt they are bothered by other people. Maybe you should be removed from the subways when homeless people are around. They could use the Patriot Act to do it.

"What difference does it make which law is used to clear them out."? That is a serious misunderstanding of any law system. Laws have intend. When that intent is misused, it is corruption. We have gone over this already. Do you have no real valid points? Why must you return to your already disproven statements? As much as your overactive imagination would like to think so, homeless people are not terrorists.

I am still waiting for you to prove that the Patriot Act is meant to remove homeless people from subways.

Give me a break, will you? You're bleeding all over my 18.1 inch flat screen and making it exceedingly difficult to for me to read.

Our friends in London have just announced that they have discovered proof that the folks who caused so much grief in the transit system the other day are born, bred, and raised right there in Britain.

I don't care how the authorities clear them out, I don't want to have folks loitering in places where they don't belong.

 

[ShamMol]

Give me a break, will you? You're bleeding all over my 18.1 inch flat screen and making it exceedingly difficult to for me to read.

Our friends in London have just announced that they have discovered proof that the folks who caused so much grief in the transit system the other day are born, bred, and raised right there in Britain.

I don't care how the authorities clear them out, I don't want to have folks loitering in places where they don't belong.

Fine, create a law for that. Don't use a prexisting law that doesn't apply to do what is unconstitutional. Fair? I think so.

 

[Windy]

Give me a break, will you? You're bleeding all over my 18.1 inch flat screen and making it exceedingly difficult to for me to read.

Our friends in London have just announced that they have discovered proof that the folks who caused so much grief in the transit system the other day are born, bred, and raised right there in Britain.

I don't care how the authorities clear them out, I don't want to have folks loitering in places where they don't belong.

Your Friends in London must also see that a series of government legislation
is extremely threatening to the freedoms that the britts have always held so dear.
This sends a message to the terrorists that their plans have worked.
And shows the government of england to be as draconian as they are.
Their measures on immigration have been pathetic and must take
the blame for allowing terrorists to have free reign in the u.k.

 

[Fantasea]

Re: Homeless Man Evicted Under Patriot Act

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Give me a break, will you? You're bleeding all over my 18.1 inch flat screen and making it exceedingly difficult to for me to read.

Our friends in London have just announced that they have discovered proof that the folks who caused so much grief in the transit system the other day are born, bred, and raised right there in Britain.

I don't care how the authorities clear them out, I don't want to have folks loitering in places where they don't belong.

Fine, create a law for that. Don't use a prexisting law that doesn't apply to do what is unconstitutional. Fair? I think so.

Whether or not you are aware, there are presently more than twenty thousand laws in force across the country which regulate the purchase, ownership, and use of firearms. Yet, there is a constant cry for more gun laws.

The IRS code runs thousands upon thousands of pages.

Visit the office of any attorney and look at the size of his law library.

The last thing we need in this country is another law. There are multiple laws which regulate every aspect of ones life.

I would be perfectly willing for Congress to remain in permanent recess allowing the members to stay home and collect their paychecks. It would be far cheaper than having them in Washington, conspiring to find new ways to spend every dime of the tax revenues.

I'm sure there are a hundred different laws under which folks can be tossed out of railroad stations. But what difference does it make which law is chosen?

By the same token, I don't believe that the Patriot Act contains any provisions which do not already exist in a number of other laws.

Stop trying to find fly turds in the pepper.

Instead of this incessant creating of law after law, I'd be much happier if the ones on the books were enforced with more energy.

 

[ShamMol]

It makes a difference which law is chosen because it is the "law" (aka constitutionality) that you have to use the right law. Create a law regarding this. Don't overextend a law meant to govern one thing only.

 

[Alex]

Whether or not you are aware, there are presently more than twenty thousand laws in force across the country which regulate the purchase, ownership, and use of firearms. Yet, there is a constant cry for more gun laws.

The IRS code runs thousands upon thousands of pages.

Visit the office of any attorney and look at the size of his law library.

The last thing we need in this country is another law. There are multiple laws which regulate every aspect of ones life.

I would be perfectly willing for Congress to remain in permanent recess allowing the members to stay home and collect their paychecks. It would be far cheaper than having them in Washington, conspiring to find new ways to spend every dime of the tax revenues.

I'm sure there are a hundred different laws under which folks can be tossed out of railroad stations. But what difference does it make which law is chosen?

By the same token, I don't believe that the Patriot Act contains any provisions which do not already exist in a number of other laws.

Stop trying to find fly turds in the pepper.

Instead of this incessant creating of law after law, I'd be much happier if the ones on the books were enforced with more energy.

Still waiting for you to prove that the Patriot Act is meant to remove homeless people from subways.

 

[JustineCredible]

Still waiting for you to prove that the Patriot Act is meant to remove homeless people from subways.

It's not and she won't. She's using the very typical Neo-republican tactic of "Keep'em talking about ***** that really doesn't matter, and no one will notice while we scr*w up everything we touch."
What I like to call: WMD's (weapons of mass distraction)

 

[ShamMol]

There is a book called weapons of mass deception, fun book by some great authors

 

[JustineCredible]

There is a book called weapons of mass deception, fun book by some great authors

You do mean this one, right?

Weapons of Mass Deception
The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq
by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber

The one with the cartoon front cover?

Yeah, I think I thumbed through it once. I'll check it a bit more thuroughly next time.

 

[ShamMol]

Well, they have some really great books, like Toxic Sludge is Good For You.

 

[Fantasea]

Still waiting for you to prove that the Patriot Act is meant to remove homeless people from subways.

After the fireworks in the transportation system in London by four home grown British subjects, the Homeland Security folks are already looking at the risks to our own transportation a bit differently.

Homeland Security Advisory System

Current Threat Level ​

July 7, 2005 (11:45 EDT) - The United States government is raising the threat level from Code Yellow --or Elevated-- to Code Orange--or High--for the mass transit portion of the transportation sector. This only includes regional and inter-city passenger rail, subways and metropolitan bus systems.

I think that Mr. Kreimer's complaints will be falling on deaf ears. Perhaps he will turn out to be a victim of bad timing. When the intent is to remove loiterers from train stations, any law which proscribes such conduct is applicable.

What we have here is just one more example of socialist-lib-dems latching on to something they believe can be used as a complaint against the Administration, coming to the rescue of an extortionist who ran through his last nuisance settlement and is looking for his next one.

It has already been mentioned that the self-styled champions of the helpless ignore the most helpless of all, the million and a half American children who die each year in abortion clinics.

Lunacy prevails on the left.

I find the following language in the Patriot Act:

`Sec. 1993. Terrorist attacks and other acts of violence against mass transportation systems
`(a) GENERAL PROHIBITIONS- Whoever willfully--

`(1) wrecks, derails, sets fire to, or disables a mass transportation vehicle or ferry;

And then it goes on to enumerate the penalties for doing so.

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems clear to me that, in light of the need to avoid occasions which may result in an infraction of the above, the authorities would be correct in citing this section of the Patriot Act for evicting Mr. K. to ensure the safety of others and to reduce the risk of an accidental or deliberate act which could cause damage or worse.

Deterrence is better and cheaper than the alternative.

Not very long ago, a "homeless" person, either accidentally or on purpose, set a fire in the New York Subway System. The act caused considerable confusion, damage, expense, inconvenience, and all the other things one would expect of a fire in a subway.

Should we be nutty enough to expose ourselves to the proclivities of these persons who care, not a wit, about the risks or results of their actions?

Should we wait until damage is done before we act?

"No Loitering" has been the rule, and with good reason.

 

[Alex]

After the fireworks in the transportation system in London by four home grown British subjects, the Homeland Security folks are already looking at the risks to our own transportation a bit differently.

Homeland Security Advisory System

Current Threat Level ​

July 7, 2005 (11:45 EDT) - The United States government is raising the threat level from Code Yellow --or Elevated-- to Code Orange--or High--for the mass transit portion of the transportation sector. This only includes regional and inter-city passenger rail, subways and metropolitan bus systems.

I think that Mr. Kreimer's complaints will be falling on deaf ears. Perhaps he will turn out to be a victim of bad timing. When the intent is to remove loiterers from train stations, any law which proscribes such conduct is applicable.

What we have here is just one more example of socialist-lib-dems latching on to something they believe can be used as a complaint against the Administration, coming to the rescue of an extortionist who ran through his last nuisance settlement and is looking for his next one.

It has already been mentioned that the self-styled champions of the helpless ignore the most helpless of all, the million and a half American children who die each year in abortion clinics.

Lunacy prevails on the left.

I find the following language in the Patriot Act:

`Sec. 1993. Terrorist attacks and other acts of violence against mass transportation systems
`(a) GENERAL PROHIBITIONS- Whoever willfully--

`(1) wrecks, derails, sets fire to, or disables a mass transportation vehicle or ferry;

And then it goes on to enumerate the penalties for doing so.

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems clear to me that, in light of the need to avoid occasions which may result in an infraction of the above, the authorities would be correct in citing this section of the Patriot Act for evicting Mr. K. to ensure the safety of others and to reduce the risk of an accidental or deliberate act which could cause damage or worse.

Deterrence is better and cheaper than the alternative.

Not very long ago, a "homeless" person, either accidentally or on purpose, set a fire in the New York Subway System. The act caused considerable confusion, damage, expense, inconvenience, and all the other things one would expect of a fire in a subway.

Should we be nutty enough to expose ourselves to the proclivities of these persons who care, not a wit, about the risks or results of their actions?

Should we wait until damage is done before we act?

"No Loitering" has been the rule, and with good reason.

This still proves nothing. The homeless man did not "wrecks, derails, sets fire to, or disables a mass transportation vehicle or ferry." That is a stretch on your part. Any person can "either accidentally or on purpose, set a fire in the New York Subway System." It is not exclusive to homeless people.

Still waiting for you to prove that the Patriot Act is meant to remove homeless people from subways.

 

[ShamMol]

No circuit court justice would buy that argument by itself Fant. What you need are cases supporting a ruling that his being there constitutes a violation of the Patriotic Act and his being there is a safety hazard. It is impossible to do both.

 

[Fantasea]

This still proves nothing. The homeless man did not "wrecks, derails, sets fire to, or disables a mass transportation vehicle or ferry." That is a stretch on your part. Any person can "either accidentally or on purpose, set a fire in the New York Subway System." It is not exclusive to homeless people.

Still waiting for you to prove that the Patriot Act is meant to remove homeless people from subways.

Have it your way. Pay him the five million. Continue to sift through pepper looking for fly turds.

 

[ShamMol]

What is this five million figure? I believe that came from a completely different case and thus has no aplicable value to this one. This isn't a civil suit, this is direct confrontation of the law challenging its legality, involving no money.

 

[JustineCredible]

What is this five million figure? I believe that came from a completely different case and thus has no aplicable value to this one. This isn't a civil suit, this is direct confrontation of the law challenging its legality, involving no money.

Wow, can we say confussion between "criminal" cases and "civil" cases, eh?

 

[ShamMol]

Wow, can we say confussion between "criminal" cases and "civil" cases, eh?

Well, there is a link between the two. A man can sue and then after that case is done, he can sue for damages. But somehow, I bet he won't be able to prove emotional distress or economic harm by being moved a few blocks away, so the civil case is basically nill if it ever goes.

 

[JustineCredible]

Well, there is a link between the two. A man can sue and then after that case is done, he can sue for damages. But somehow, I bet he won't be able to prove emotional distress or economic harm by being moved a few blocks away, so the civil case is basically nill if it ever goes.

Yes, I agree, it's a moot issue. It'll just be laughed out of court. So, I'm not all that concerned with it at all.
What does make this concerning is exactly what you have been pointing out all along.
The abuse of power and misuse of law.

 

[Fantasea]

What is this five million figure? I believe that came from a completely different case and thus has no aplicable value to this one. This isn't a civil suit, this is direct confrontation of the law challenging its legality, involving no money.

An all this time I thought you knew what you were arguing about. Go back and read post #1.

 

[Fantasea]

Wow, can we say confussion between "criminal" cases and "civil" cases, eh?

You, too, may want to get plugged into post #1.

 

[Fantasea]

Well, there is a link between the two. A man can sue and then after that case is done, he can sue for damages. But somehow, I bet he won't be able to prove emotional distress or economic harm by being moved a few blocks away, so the civil case is basically nill if it ever goes.

He succeeding in doing it once to the tune of a quarter million. It was so easy the first time that he's back for a second helping?

 

[ShamMol]

Ah, I beg forgiveness Fant, let me clarify then. This is what will happen, in the matter of the legality, it will be found he was illegaly removed and the money will be laughed out of court because he didn't suffer financially or emotionally. Happy?

The JD has also said that they will not prosecute the use of this law ever. So victory for the good guys Fant, eh?