The City Wants to Evict This Family Because a House Guest Committed a Crime They Didn’t Know About Somewhere Else

Last fall and winter, Jessica Barron and Kenny Wylie let one of their teenaged son’s friends, who described himself as homeless, stay at their house in Granite City, Illinois. At first the teenager, Jason Lynch, slept at the house intermittently; later, as the weather got colder, he often was there several nights a week. Barron and Wylie’s reward for that act of kindness, if the city has its way, will be government-ordered eviction from their home.

After Lynch broke into a local restaurant last May, the city invoked its “crime-free housing” ordinance, which demands eviction when “any member of lessee’s household” commits a crime. In this case, the crime did not happen at the rental property, and Barron and Wylie did not participate in it, know about it ahead of time, or help Lynch evade the police afterward. In fact, Barron turned Lynch in after she found him hiding in her basement. But none of that matters under Granite City’s ordinance, which holds tenants strictly liable for the crimes of household members, including temporary residents like Lynch.

“This effort to make an innocent family homeless violates the federal Constitution at a bedrock level,” the Institute for Justice argues in a federal lawsuit it filed yesterday on behalf of Barron, Wylie, and their landlord, Bill Campbell, who does not want to evict them. The complaint says the crime-free housing ordinance violates their due process rights, the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection, the Fifth Amendment’s ban on taking property for “public use” without “just compensation,” and freedom of association, which is protected by the First Amendment.

Barron and Wylie, who have three teenaged children, have been living in the house at 1632 Maple Street in Granite City for two years. They had planned to buy it eventually under a rent-to-own contract with Campbell. But the city is demanding that he abrogate that contract and threatening to revoke his rental license if he fails to do so. One officer even threatened to arrest Campbell, although it’s not clear what the charge would be.

If Barron and Wylie are evicted, they will lose their property interest in the home and will have to find somewhere else where they and their children can live, which may be difficult in light of the eviction. “They do not own or rent any other property,” the complaint says. “If they are kicked out of their home, they are not sure where they would go. They do not have the resources to immediately rent another property. They would likely need to rely on charity from family to avoid rendering themselves and their children homeless.”

Campbell, meanwhile, considers Barron and Wylie good tenants, is happy with their arrangement, and would like it to continue. If the city forces him to evict them, that process will cost money, as will the effort to find new tenants, and he will lose rental income in the meantime.

Given these costs, the Institute for Justice argues,  Granite City is depriving Barron, Wylie, and Campbell of their property without due process or just compensation. The lawsuit also describes three equal protection violations: The city is arbitrarily treating residents who have rent-to-own contracts differently from residents who have mortgages or own their homes outright; arbitrarily treating Campbell differently from all the other landlords in Granite City, who unlike him are free to accept Barron and Wylie as tenants; and arbitrarily treating Barron and Wylie differently from “everyone else in the world (except for Jason Lynch),” who, like the couple, “have no responsibility for Jason Lynch’s crime.” These distinctions cannot survive “any level of scrutiny,” the complaint says.

The attempted eviction also implicates freedom of association, I.J. argues. “The only reason that Granite City is trying to force Jessica and Kenny out of their home is that they allowed Jason Lynch to stay there,” the complaint says. “Allowing a teenager to stay in your home to shelter him from the cold is a form of association. Punishing Jessica and Kenny for crimes committed by Jason Lynch is punishing them for their decision to associate with Jason Lynch.”

In 2002 the Supreme Court upheld a “one strike” public housing policy under which  tenants were evicted based on drug-related activity involving a household member, even if the lessees were not involved in it and did not know about it. But that was a situation where the government was acting as landlord. Here the government is trying to force eviction over the objections of a private landlord.

“No one should be punished for a crime someone else committed,” says I.J. senior attorney Robert McNamara. “That simple notion is at the heart of our criminal justice system—that we are all innocent until proven guilty. And yet Granite City is punishing an innocent family for a crime committed by someone they barely knew.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2yuuemy
via IFTTT

Judge Recommends Firing Cop Who Choked Eric Garner

A judge has recommended that New York Police Department (NYPD) officer Daniel Pantaleo be fired for his role in the death of Eric Garner in 2014, a killing that was captured on cellphone video and provoked nationwide outrage.

Pantaleo was recorded confronting Garner, apparently suspecting that he was selling loose, untaxed black market cigarettes. Garner resisted when Pantaleo attempted to arrest him. Pantaleo put the man in a chokehold, and Garner ultimately died; an autopsy blamed the chokehold for his death. Garner’s final words, a repetition of “I can’t breathe,” became a rallying cry for the Black Lives Matter movement.

A grand jury declined to indict Pantaleo for any crimes, and in July, five years later, the Justice Department announced it would not file civil rights charges against him. The city has been dragging its feet in determining what sort of discipline, if any, Pantaleo should face for his role in Garner’s death. Protesters showed up at the Democratic primary debates earlier this week to heckle Mayor Bill de Blasio for failing to force Pantaleo out of the NYPD. (Pantaleo, meanwhile, has been on desk duty.)

Today, following an administrative hearing, NYPD Deputy Commissioner of Trials Rosemarie Maldonadoa—the judge presiding over Pantaleo’s disciplinary trial—recommended that the officer be terminated. But this does not actually end Pantaleo’s employment with the NYPD. The recommendation now goes to NYPD Commissioner James O’Neill, who will ultimately decide whether to fire Pantaleo.

While it’s not impossible, it seems unlikely that O’Neill would decide to buck the judge and keep Pantaleo on the force. CNN reports from inside sources that O’Neill is expected to follow the recommendation. But New York state has laws that mandate official secrecy about police discipline and shield misconduct records from the eyes of the press and the public. If Pantaleo is fired, he could quietly be hired by another police department in New York or another state.

After the the announcement, Pantaleo was suspended for 30 days without pay, which is standard procedure when firing is recommended.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2KjFcRb
via IFTTT

Stocks Re-Accelerate Losses As China UN Envoy Warns “We Will Fight”

Well you didn’t think they would just roll over?

China’s UN Envoy Zhang Jun tells reporters in New York that “if US wants to fight on trade, we will fight.”

Stocks accelerated lower on the headline…

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/31a3vrz Tyler Durden

The City Wants to Evict This Family Because a House Guest Committed a Crime They Didn’t Know About Somewhere Else

Last fall and winter, Jessica Barron and Kenny Wylie let one of their teenaged son’s friends, who described himself as homeless, stay at their house in Granite City, Illinois. At first the teenager, Jason Lynch, slept at the house intermittently; later, as the weather got colder, he often was there several nights a week. Barron and Wylie’s reward for that act of kindness, if the city has its way, will be government-ordered eviction from their home.

After Lynch broke into a local restaurant last May, the city invoked its “crime-free housing” ordinance, which demands eviction when “any member of lessee’s household” commits a crime. In this case, the crime did not happen at the rental property, and Barron and Wylie did not participate in it, know about it ahead of time, or help Lynch evade the police afterward. In fact, Barron turned Lynch in after she found him hiding in her basement. But none of that matters under Granite City’s ordinance, which holds tenants strictly liable for the crimes of household members, including temporary residents like Lynch.

“This effort to make an innocent family homeless violates the federal Constitution at a bedrock level,” the Institute for Justice argues in a federal lawsuit it filed yesterday on behalf of Barron, Wylie, and their landlord, Bill Campbell, who does not want to evict them. The complaint says the crime-free housing ordinance violates their due process rights, the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection, the Fifth Amendment’s ban on taking property for “public use” without “just compensation,” and freedom of association, which is protected by the First Amendment.

Barron and Wylie, who have three teenaged children, have been living in the house at 1632 Maple Street in Granite City for two years. They had planned to buy it eventually under a rent-to-own contract with Campbell. But the city is demanding that he abrogate that contract and threatening to revoke his rental license if he fails to do so. One officer even threatened to arrest Campbell, although it’s not clear what the charge would be.

If Barron and Wylie are evicted, they will lose their property interest in the home and will have to find somewhere else where they and their children can live, which may be difficult in light of the eviction. “They do not own or rent any other property,” the complaint says. “If they are kicked out of their home, they are not sure where they would go. They do not have the resources to immediately rent another property. They would likely need to rely on charity from family to avoid rendering themselves and their children homeless.”

Campbell, meanwhile, considers Barron and Wylie good tenants, is happy with their arrangement, and would like it to continue. If the city forces him to evict them, that process will cost money, as will the effort to find new tenants, and he will lose rental income in the meantime.

Given these costs, the Institute for Justice argues,  Granite City is depriving Barron, Wylie, and Campbell of their property without due process or just compensation. The lawsuit also describes three equal protection violations: The city is arbitrarily treating residents who have rent-to-own contracts differently from residents who have mortgages or own their homes outright; arbitrarily treating Campbell differently from all the other landlords in Granite City, who unlike him are free to accept Barron and Wylie as tenants; and arbitrarily treating Barron and Wylie differently from “everyone else in the world (except for Jason Lynch),” who, like the couple, “have no responsibility for Jason Lynch’s crime.” These distinctions cannot survive “any level of scrutiny,” the complaint says.

The attempted eviction also implicates freedom of association, I.J. argues. “The only reason that Granite City is trying to force Jessica and Kenny out of their home is that they allowed Jason Lynch to stay there,” the complaint says. “Allowing a teenager to stay in your home to shelter him from the cold is a form of association. Punishing Jessica and Kenny for crimes committed by Jason Lynch is punishing them for their decision to associate with Jason Lynch.”

In 2002 the Supreme Court upheld a “one strike” public housing policy under which  tenants were evicted based on drug-related activity involving a household member, even if the lessees were not involved in it and did not know about it. But that was a situation where the government was acting as landlord. Here the government is trying to force eviction over the objections of a private landlord.

“No one should be punished for a crime someone else committed,” says I.J. senior attorney Robert McNamara. “That simple notion is at the heart of our criminal justice system—that we are all innocent until proven guilty. And yet Granite City is punishing an innocent family for a crime committed by someone they barely knew.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2yuuemy
via IFTTT

Key Witness In A$AP Rocky Trial Changes Her Story, Says She Didn’t See Rapper Hit Victim With Bottle

One of the prosecution’s key witnesses in the assault trial of American Grammy-nominated rapper A$AP Rocky has revised her testimony, and is now claiming that she didn’t see the rapper hit his alleged victim, an Afghan migrant who was caught on video harassing the rapper and his entourage, with a glass bottle, the AP reports.

The revelation, coming on the third day of Rocky’s trial, could help the rapper avoid an assault conviction. A guilty verdict could see the rapper sent to prison for up to two years, although prosecutors have said they would push for a lighter sentence.

Rocky has been sitting in prison for a month now since he turned himself in to police in Stockholm after he and his entourage were caught on video beating 19-year-old Mustafa Jafari. Jafari is widely believed to have instigated the fight, as video footage taken before the brawl broke out showed him following the rapper and taunting him and his entourage, even after Rocky asked repeatedly asked them to leave him alone.

The case has become one of the most high-profile criminal cases in Sweden in recent memory, as American celebrities including Justin Bieber and rap impresario Sean Combs have called for Rocky’s release. The rapper’s family members have accused the Swedish court system of racism for deciding to charge the rapper.

The women, whose identities haven’t been revealed by the court, were reportedly eating nearby, and witnessed the brawl when they spotted Rocky, and rushed outside to try and get an autograph, the AP reports.

The woman on Friday told the court she had been eating with her friend at a fast-food restaurant in central Stockholm on the evening of June 30 when they saw Mayers’ entourage and Jafari encountering each other outside the venue. The two women rushed outside to have a photo taken with the American rapper but the situation had already escalated into a brawl.

The woman testified that she heard a bottle being crushed but could not say whether Mayers’ entourage threw the bottle to the ground or hit Jafari with it. She said she didn’t see Mayers holding a bottle during the scuffle.

Her friend testified that she didn’t see anyone hitting Jafari with a bottle.

However, both women testified that they saw Mayers and his partners beating and kicking Jafari.

“Everything happened very quickly. We were scared for our lives,” the first woman told the court. “He (Jafari) was bleeding. He showed his injuries on his hand. He also said he had a sore back.”

Even President Trump has gotten involved. In a series of tweets, Trump said he offered to personally guarantee the rapper’s bail. But prosecutors have refused to release Rocky, claiming that he would be a “flight risk”, given his ample resources.

Trump later lashed out at Swedish PM Stefan Lofven after the PM refused to interfere with the country’s Justice Department. Rocky and two members of his entourage are on trial in the case, but Swedish prosecutors decided not to charge Jafari over his role in the confrontation.

Rocky testified during his trial this week, where he made an emotional plea for his freedom and admitted that he and his crew jumped the man, but only after he had attacked Rocky’s bodyguard. Rocky has pleaded not guilty.

If Rocky is found not guilty, the Swedish government could be forced to compensate him for the millions of dollars he’s lost from being forced to cancel tour dates – though Rocky has said he’s not interested in the money.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2T3jvca Tyler Durden

A Multicultural Mugging Of Uncle Joe

Authored by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

In his opening statement at Wednesday’s Democratic debate in Detroit, Joe Biden addressed Donald Trump while pointing proudly to the racial and ethnic diversity of the nine Democrats standing beside him.

“Mr. President, this is America and we are strong and great because of this diversity, not in spite of it. … We love it. We are here to stay. And we certainly are not going to leave it to you.”

Whereupon the other nine — three women, two African Americans, one Asian American and one Hispanic — began a multicultural mugging of Biden that at times took on the aspect of a flash mob.

Said The Washington Post, Biden “faced relentless attacks on his decades-long Senate record on race and criminal justice, immigration and health care, and his commitment to women’s rights.”

The 1994 crime bill, of which Sen. Biden was once proud and which cut U.S. crime rates for decades, was trashed as a reactionary and racist measure that led to the imprisonment of countless thousands of black Americans who were guilty only of minor drug offenses.

Cory Booker called Joe the “architect of mass incarceration.”

Biden’s Senate friendships with segregationists and opposition to busing to integrate the public schools came in for yet another hiding by Sen. Kamala Harris.

His support of President Barack Obama’s border policies that led to the deportation of hundreds of thousands seeking asylum and entry into the country was denounced as heartless.

Did he never object in the Obama Cabinet meetings to what was happening to these unfortunates being turned back, Biden was asked?

For two hours, when the Democratic candidates were not attacking each other, they were piling on Joe.

Kirsten Gillibrand, a self-described “white woman of privilege,” attacked him for a long-ago op-ed that warned that women who enter the workforce imperil the family.

He was attacked anew by Harris for having supported the Hyde Amendment that denies federal funding for abortions.

On and on it went.

Biden’s support of NAFTA was attacked as was his vote for the war in Iraq. He was made to recant his support of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal he helped to forge. The TPP was once seen by U.S. elites as uniting the democracies of Asia and the Americas to counter the Chinese drive for trade hegemony.

“Everybody’s talking about how terrible I am on these issues,” wailed Biden. He fought back gamely. But he also stammered, mumbled, misspoke and some of his answers seemed to be canned rebuttals.

Biden eased some fears that he has lost more than a step as a presidential candidate. Yet this is not the same Joe who bested Mitt Romney’s vice presidential nominee, Paul Ryan, in 2012.

In closing Biden misidentified his website, “If you agree with me, go to Joe 3 0 3 3 0 and help me in this fight.”

In a city that was stunned by the halting public testimony of Robert Mueller, Biden’s debate performances raise a valid question: Can the Joe Biden we saw in the two debates be an articulate and energetic leader and president until January 2025, five and a half years from now?

While every candidate scored points Wednesday night, much of the scoring was done at the expense of other Democrats on stage. The GOP has a new library of videos of Democratic fratricide, and sororicide.

Bottom line of the July Democratic debates: It seems astonishing how far the Democratic Party’s center of gravity has moved to the left.

Today, much of the career record of Joe Biden – his opposition to busing, his credentials as tough-on-crime, his support for NAFTA, his backing of the Iraq War, his career-long support of the Hyde Amendment – is seen not as a record to be proud of, but a record to be ashamed of, and a record to apologize for.

How do progressives, many of whom regard Biden’s career as an embarrassment, embrace him as their leader and agent of progressive change if he wins the nomination?

Biden today seems to be the kind of candidate, like Congressman Joe Crowley of Queens whom Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ousted in a primary in 2018, that progressives want desperately to be done with.

After the July debates, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren sit in the second and third positions, with one of the two the almost certain beneficiary of a Biden fade.

Yet, if the Democratic Party nominates either – both are committed to a sweeping restructure of society and the economy — are the American people ready to buy into a radical or outright socialist agenda?

Are Americans looking for an alternative to Trump who will abolish private health insurance, embrace open borders and reparations for slavery, extend the ballot to felons in prison, add half a dozen justices to the Supreme Court and vote for free college tuition and forgiveness of student loans?

Where is the evidence of that?

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2GJahgf Tyler Durden

Judge Recommends Firing Cop Who Choked Eric Garner

A judge has recommended that New York Police Department (NYPD) officer Daniel Pantaleo be fired for his role in the death of Eric Garner in 2014, a killing that was captured on cellphone video and provoked nationwide outrage.

Pantaleo was recorded confronting Garner, apparently suspecting that he was selling loose, untaxed black market cigarettes. Garner resisted when Pantaleo attempted to arrest him. Pantaleo put the man in a chokehold, and Garner ultimately died; an autopsy blamed the chokehold for his death. Garner’s final words, a repetition of “I can’t breathe,” became a rallying cry for the Black Lives Matter movement.

A grand jury declined to indict Pantaleo for any crimes, and in July, five years later, the Justice Department announced it would not file civil rights charges against him. The city has been dragging its feet in determining what sort of discipline, if any, Pantaleo should face for his role in Garner’s death. Protesters showed up at the Democratic primary debates earlier this week to heckle Mayor Bill de Blasio for failing to force Pantaleo out of the NYPD. (Pantaleo, meanwhile, has been on desk duty.)

Today, following an administrative hearing, NYPD Deputy Commissioner of Trials Rosemarie Maldonadoa—the judge presiding over Pantaleo’s disciplinary trial—recommended that the officer be terminated. But this does not actually end Pantaleo’s employment with the NYPD. The recommendation now goes to NYPD Commissioner James O’Neill, who will ultimately decide whether to fire Pantaleo.

While it’s not impossible, it seems unlikely that O’Neill would decide to buck the judge and keep Pantaleo on the force. CNN reports from inside sources that O’Neill is expected to follow the recommendation. But New York state has laws that mandate official secrecy about police discipline and shield misconduct records from the eyes of the press and the public. If Pantaleo is fired, he could quietly be hired by another police department in New York or another state.

After the the announcement, Pantaleo was suspended for 30 days without pay, which is standard procedure when firing is recommended.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2KjFcRb
via IFTTT

Police Officer Shoots at Dog During Welfare Check, Kills Woman Instead

A police officer responding to a welfare checkin Arlington, Texas, attempted to shoot a dog on the property. He killed the 30-year-old woman he was dispatched to check on instead.

When police arrived at the scene, they were initially unable to find the woman in question, but they later located her lying in a grassy area next to an unrestrained dog. According to a statement from the Arlington Police Department, the animal allegedly “began to run towards the officer while barking,” prompting the man to fire multiple shots. He missed the dog and hit the woman. She was transported to a local hospital, where she was pronounced dead.

A body camera captured the incident, and the video will be included in the investigation.

American police officers have an unfortunate track record when it comes to shooting nonthreatening dogs on the job. The Department of Justice calls puppycide an “epidemic,” estimating that 25 to 30 dogs are killed by cops every day. That’s almost 11,000 dog deaths per year.

In Detroit, Michigan, 54 dogs were killed in 2017 alone. “The rise occurred at the same time Detroit is trying to fend off lawsuits from residents who say police wantonly killed their dogs during drug raids,” wrote Reason‘s C.J. Ciaramella in September. In St. Louis County, a woman received a $750,000 settlement after a SWAT team killed her dog during a raid on her home over an unpaid gas bill.

And it isn’t unprecedented for a cop to inflict a human casualty while fending off a nonthreatening animal. In 2014, Deputy Sheriff Matthew Vickers of Coffee County, Georgia, shot and seriously wounded a 10-year-old child after opening fire on the family’s dog. The officer was in pursuit of a fugitive who had no connection to the family and had wandered onto their property. A court recently ruled that the officer is protected by qualified immunity, so the family will receive no compensation for medical bills.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2GFxEas
via IFTTT

Franklin Templeton Readies “King Of ETFs” Fund That Invests Across All Asset Classes

Seemingly not happy enough with the gargantuan inflows to exchange traded funds over the last decade, Franklin Templeton is now trying to create a hybrid “king of ETFs”, according to Bloomberg. The asset manager is trying to start an exchange traded fund that will not only invest in equities, but will also invest in debt, commodities and currencies.

This will set it apart from most exchange traded funds, which limit themselves to only one asset class.

The fund is going to be called the Franklin Liberty Systematic Style Premia ETF and it is going to actively evaluate an asset’s characteristics, including value or momentum, when considering what it should purchase.

Half of the fund’s capital is going to be used to seek out attractive opportunities regardless of asset class and the other half will be used for a traditional long/short equity strategy that looks at a stock’s quality, value and momentum. There are some ETFs that have a similar approach, but it’s a style mostly used by hedge funds.

According to a filing, “the fund will be seeking to profit by utilizing quantitative models to identify investment opportunities across different asset classes and markets. By employing these two approaches, the investment manager seeks to provide positive absolute return over time while maintaining a relatively low correlation with traditional markets.”

Total net assets of Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) in the United States

from 2002 to 2018 (in billion U.S. dollars)

The fees for the fund were not disclosed and it will be run by Chandra Seethamraju, the head of smart beta and overlay strategies for the quantitative part of the money manager’s multi-asset solutions group.

We reported  back in May about how ETFs could “amplify systemic risk” during the next market downturn. In that article we noted that less liquid asset classes are at risk for bearing the most pain in a volatile environment and the “systemic risk” theory about ETFs could wind up being tested during the next recession.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2SZYvDb Tyler Durden

Police Officer Shoots at Dog During Welfare Check, Kills Woman Instead

A police officer responding to a welfare check in Arlington, Texas, attempted to shoot a dog on the property. He killed the 30-year-old woman he was dispatched to check on instead.

When police arrived at the scene, they were initially unable to find the woman in question, but they later located her lying in a grassy area next to an unrestrained dog. According to a statement from the Arlington Police Department, the animal allegedly “began to run towards the officer while barking,” prompting the man to fire multiple shots. He missed the dog and hit the woman. She was transported to a local hospital, where she was pronounced dead.

A body camera captured the incident, and the video will be included in the investigation.

American police officers have an unfortunate track record when it comes to shooting nonthreatening dogs on the job. The Department of Justice calls puppycide an “epidemic,” estimating that 25 to 30 dogs are killed by cops every day. That’s almost 11,000 dog deaths per year.

In Detroit, Michigan, 54 dogs were killed in 2017 alone. “The rise occurred at the same time Detroit is trying to fend off lawsuits from residents who say police wantonly killed their dogs during drug raids,” wrote Reason‘s C.J. Ciaramella in September. In St. Louis County, a woman received a $750,000 settlement after a SWAT team killed her dog during a raid on her home over an unpaid gas bill.

And it isn’t unprecedented for a cop to inflict a human casualty while fending off a nonthreatening animal. In 2014, Deputy Sheriff Matthew Vickers of Coffee County, Georgia, shot and seriously wounded a 10-year-old child after opening fire on the family’s dog. The officer was in pursuit of a fugitive who had no connection to the family and had wandered onto their property. A court recently ruled that the officer is protected by qualified immunity, so the family will receive no compensation for medical bills.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2GFxEas
via IFTTT