Any judge who sees a blatant violation of the constitution (due process at a minimum) in their court and says “Nah. Seems fine.” needs to be removed from the bench and brought before the bar to defend why they should ever be allowed to practice law again.
When did the bar become above the court? Clearly this judge appears to be participating in the violation of the constitution and should be removed. One more thing, guilty by association is not a thing int the Constitution.
Imagine a Domestic Violence case: The victim is related to the perpetrator, so the victims (including children) must leave the home, and all the friends, etc. who can help them and keep them safe.
@@GiantMushrooms Let's get us a good old fashioned posse to run them filthy criminal adjacent politicians out of our town. We don't like their type here! I'd love to see the townspeople do that and the court attempt to evict the entire town for being criminal adjacent to the posse, I mean rioters.
My cousin is a notorious law breaker. I haven't seen him in over 20 years. The idea that he could come to my town and do some stupid shit, and I might lose my house over it, is terrifying. This man once followed us all the way from California to Minnesota, so it's not out of the realm of possibility that he might turn up in Arizona.
@@David-bf6bz Suppose that OP does live in section 8 housing. Does that make it reasonable for him to lose his home because Cousin Crook comes into town and steals a car?
Another big problem with these laws is it means in domestic abuse cases where the perp & victim live together (most of them), the victim gets evicted if the cops get involved.
My first wife is bi polar. She'd would start these knockdown drag out screaming fits. If she left the house I'd call the cops. I didn't want her to hurt herself or others. Once I woke to 5 cops standing around my bed. One was her own nephew. They wanted to know why my ex was crying. I was working 14 hr days 5 days a week and I lived an hr from work. Bad laws are bad laws.
Exactly what I was thinking. This puts a huge damper on domestic violence calls. If you don’t report it, then you keep getting beat. If you do report it, you get evicted.
@@dongrant5827 another way you can persecute domestic violence victims is through nuisance lawsuits. In some cities (like Milwaukee) anytime a household gets a certain number of calls to the police (regardless of whether or not they actually take any legal action) the police can order the household be evicted because all of them are conspiring to create a nuisance for the surrounding community.
Please tell me that some law firm is suing the pants off this city, it's Mayor, the police and anybody else possible. Edit: Love the Institute for Justice, glad that they are on the case.
I am a Board Certified Physician. Another Physician with the same name in another State who was 20 years younger than me and certified in another Specialty, got in trouble with a State Board of Medicine (not my State). I got a notice from my Medical Board that MY certification was being withdrawn. No check of DOB, what State I was licensed in, no letter of inquiry to me, no hearing, NADA. I ripped them a new ar**hole in a letter, of course. I never heard back from them; no apology, no "sorry, not you", nothing.
@@JohnDoe-qz1ql I guess. I went online to check on my status and I was still listed as Board Certified. As I said, they never acknowledged that they had f**ked up.
This is blatantly unconstitutional. This is a poster child for violation of due process. It's not a question of cruel or unusual punishment because these people were never convicted of a crime. Public executions for the people who passed this law and forced eviction for the officers who enforced it.
You actually dont have to be convicted of anything to be a victim of cruel and unusual punishment. Its not a complex legal issue, its something the state can do to anyone at anytime for any or no reason: Punish them cruelly or unusually. It could be any state action that would qualify for that. Thats why its unconstitutional. Punishment only assumes its a corrective measure, when it could simply be a pre-conviction measure, such as denying food or water to people who want to vote. Thats clearly deprivation of liberty and a cruel punishment for attempting to vote.
@@cardenfoy The point is that there should be no punishment at all without a conviction. It's literally in the Constitution. Punishment without due process of law is flat-out illegal in the United States. That doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, it means that some public officials need to be either tarred and feathered or publicly executed for passing such laws with full knowledge of their violation of the rights of everyone.
You are right about it being unconstitutional but it's not lack of due process or bill of attainder. As bad as the process is its there, as for Bill of attainder, that's when they make it illegal to be YOU (i.e. it's illegal to be John Smit DOB XX/XX/XXXX). This law violates the first amendment freedom of association. It's why you can't be arrested just for being in a gang without more.
The city of Hesperia, CA has stuff like this too. It also requires landlords to submit a "Background check" of the renters to the local PD. You don't do this if you buy a house, just if you rent. Easy way to target low-income families. Also, if the police have to respond to an incident, they will mail you a letter saying if they have to come out again in the next 2-3 years they will fine you. Imagine you are a woman whose husband beats you. You have previously called the police on him a year ago but now he is doing it again. You now must decide can you afford to call the police or should you just take the beating.
Here in California, my brother had committed a crime against myself (a serious crime, but it's all good now) and they ended up slapping a restraining order on him on my behalf without my permission. Effectively, they required me to move away until the issue would be settled. He's become a much better person and everything is fine now, and we still live together. Still shocking to think they could forcibly apply a restraining order, and effectively force me (the victim) out of the house.
I was constructively evicted from my own house by a tennent , I've seen married couples where the homeowner couldn't go home over an order of protection.. so it's not far fetched..
This is true. I live in a town that burns down drug houses. The law takes too long and fire spreads fast. Sometimes 'they' make sure the house is unoccupied first.
More people in jail, the more slave labor they have and get to suck funds from the state. If you you can’t find a place to live or work or function, the odds are you will commit a crime to survive out of desperation.
Back in the '90's my oldest sister's life was a train wreck, always in some kind of trouble. I can't imagine me and the rest of my family being evicted from our homes because of her lack of self-control as a thirty year old adult...
If you check many cities, towns, and states have laws like this still on the books but they are usually not enforced. At one time back in Oklahoma in the 70 or 80s the state passed a law that in a Divorce the women got everything and the court could do nothing about it all because the law that got signed had a typo. Also in Tulsa Oklahoma if you robbed a convenience store you could serve more time then if you robbed the same convenience store and killed everyone inside, just because of how the law was worded. Oklahoma in the 70s also had a law on the books that said if you came upon a road junction you had to get out of your car walk up to the road junction swing a lantern, then return to your car before you could proceed. This was so you didn’t scare the horses leading buggies. You would be surprised at the number of strange laws still on the books. That’s why some states require a review of the laws currently on the books.
This isn't some ancient law that's been overlooked -- it appears to have been passed in 2006. Ain't a typo either since, as Mr. Lehto mentioned, it's been revised fairly recently.
@@M167A1 I guess you didn't get the part where the landlord, the person they're actually renting from, also did not want to evict them. The rental agreement is with the landlord, not the city. You clearly don't know what you're talking about. The city can't force an unconstitutional situation.
@@M167A1 constitutional violations must be submitted in writing beforehand, then we can do them all day submit or no housing is the actual attack, not what you signed away you tried to pigeon hole it as an agreement
Police punishing someone without trial or due process: unconstitutional. Police telling a private business they're no longer allowed to do business with someone any more: probably unconstitutional.
I had an Aunt who was a drug and alcohol abuser. She tried several times to kill me. I could not fathom being evicted from a property because of her behavior.... smh.
This would only apply to you if your aunt lived or was allowed to stay in your rented house and she was arrested in the same city. Further all the residents that rent houses in cities with these ordinances have to sign a waiver stating they will be forced to vacate if they or anyone living or allowed to stay in their rented house is arrested in the city. In this case it sounds like the mother allowed the daughter to use her address as a residence when she checked her into rehab. The City subsequently changed the law that eviction would require a conviction rather than just an arrest. These ordinances originated out of subsidized housing, where families allowed criminal relieves to operate out of their residences and where very successful at reducing crime.
Steve, you are exactly right on about this town, cause I live here, and I committed crimes, felony crimes , and I do it fairly regularly, and they have never kicked me out, because they have never caught me. I don't need the stuff I steal, I just set up people I don't like and report them, then the cops find the stuff I took in there house. If fact, that's how I got this house I'm in now. I liked it, so I set up the previous tenant and the house became available. I guess god was shining on me on that day.
Theres a town in NY that has a law that says if the cops get called there 3 times they can forcefully buy your home and evict you, when I left residents were trying to use this law to have an apartment complex acquired by the city
Same thing happened to me 20 years ago in Virginia only it was my brother in law that stole a car and crashed it near the gated townhomes where I lived and I was given a 30 day notice
The city of Alton (just north of Granite City) started to do something like this. They had every landlord attend a mandatory meeting where they laid out the plan to evict anyone committing a crime from the city. I knew right away that this would be unconstitutional, and they would be sued every time. I do not remember the city evicting the whole family. But all of a sudden, I did not hear any more about this. There is already a constitutional problem with the city having to know where everyone lives within the city and you may not have more than 1 residence. If you are registered at one address and you rent another house, the city can legally violate all of your civil and property rights. Uh, no they can't. I believe the city will lose big time in federal court. In order to gain compliance from the landlords, the city is now requiring permits for each house you own, and can revoke that permit at any time. To get around the constitution, the offense is renting without a permit. Do you think that will hold water in federal court?
@Heroes and Zeros Yes, I think it will "hold water" in federal court--all you have to do is read what the Supreme Court has been saying about civil forfeiture and other constitutional rights that we only think we have. Not anymore!
Has anyone challenged this yet. This sounds like some kind of scheme. Also, 'guilt by association' has been ruled on several times and cannot be used in criminal court. I wonder if anyone else has refused the order from the police? Edit: Just did some reading. Would this not fall under the "guilt by association" laws? Which makes it illegal to punish someone simply for being associated with a criminal?
@@banderson716 go paint a wooden ladder, oh yeah you can't because of a stupid law in Alberta. Stupid laws exist everywhere but nice job taking a stab at a country that sees you at best as frozen Florida.
If the mother was on the new Move to work section 8 (Not mentioned), and any evidence (Tag registration, receipts, videos, testimony) Hud regulations allow for eviction by association due to fraud. This person has no chance
Used to do martial arts classes as a kid. One day, someone in the building (not necessarily someone from the classes, could have been any other tenant or guest of or someone off the street) decided to make a mess in the bathroom. The sensei took it upon himself to demand whoever did it confess and assumed it was someone from this specific class. When no one would after a few minutes of silence, he decided to tell us all we have to do 500 of one specific exercise "until the guilty person confessed" "it isnt fair to punish everyone for one person's actions, this is america, we dont do collective punishment here" "im in charge, you do as i tell you" i walked out on the spot. You cannot expect people to step up and be responsible by admitting guilt if you cant respect us each as individuals.
Like that football team that got punished because 3 players banged a classmate at a party. I figured that's gonna be neat the next time a teacher and a student get caught screwing.
In September, after a sixth grade class made a mess in the cafeteria, the vice-principal made all the students eat lunch outside on the soccer field. The temperature was 111 degrees. Tried looking up the news story to find the exact town and was surprised to find dozens of similar accounts going back several years.
@@conscientiousobserver8772 that reminds me of a story of when I was in middle school. My friends and I were not very popular and we all sat in a back corner. There was a food fight that none of us participated in, but we still got hit by stray food being thrown. Btw, getting hit in the face by pizza looks a lot like the death animation from the N64 007 games. We were blamed for the fight because we had a lot of food on the floor around our table, even though we argued that was only because we were not throwing anything back at other people. Sometimes the people in charge just want someone convenient and easy to blame.
I owned a house in Danville, Ill, the police sent me a letter in Indiana (where I live, 15 miles away) said the renter's son, who didn't live with mom, was selling drugs. I wrote back telling them, I had no control over that, and the police should arrest the lawbreaker. About a year after the lady moved on her own, the city sent me a couple code violations which didn't apply since I had left the house empty. About 3 months went by and I visited the empty house, so to make it rentable. The house was gone. Without notice, the city had the house removed, and unattached garage removed, the basement hole filled with gravel. I contacted several attorneys, none would take the case, One just flat told me he wouldn't be able to be an attorney in that county if he took on this case. End of story..
Next question.... After being evicted from your home and forced to move out of town, can they also prevent you from coming into town to go to your job?
Of course not, you just might find that your job will evaporate the moment they lean on your employer. Failing that you might just be pulled over allot. "Sorry citizen, everything is in order, be seeing you real soon!"
When I was very young, my great-uncle robbed a bank in Colorado. When he was released from prison and on probation, the police harassed him so much, he asked the last officer he talked to what he could do to stop the harassment. The police officer mentioned that he should leave the state of Colorado. My great-uncle moved his probation to Arizona.
@jim Oneill In America, prisons must be a very profitable business and prisoners are your main resource. Making sure people who get out go back in is important to the business model.
@@tatsumakijim also the music industry puts out mostly music glorifying crime to influence people to do these crimes therefore making money in the executives stock in the prisons for profit.
@@UncleKennysPlace Zero evidence?? ... only a nieve fool could say that. You haven't known of this channel for long have you? Steve talks of money making schemes by police and city entities all the time. Never heard of CCA? Corrections Corporation of America. It isn't the first,only or last for profit incarceration scheme.
Heard this story more time than I can count while I was growing up. Aunt, Mother, Uncle (in birth order). Probably mid 1940's Aunt is given an assignment by the Nuns (Catholic school) to ask their oldest relative why they came to TX. Aunt asks her (paternal) grandfather this question and he tells her: "We got caught stealing horses and they were going to hang us in the morning. That night we loaded our wagons and hightailed it to TX." Needless to say my Aunt repeated this to the nuns. Story goes my great grandmother is having fits about this at church and my great grandfather is laughing his butt off.
There are also equal protection problems. This is essentially a punishment that only applies to renters, not owners. My grandma lived in Granite City & would have ended up homeless if she were a renter thanks to my uncle who kept mooching off her.
It also affects the rights of the landlord, to rent to the tenants of his choice. The landlord will now have a vacant unit, and is deprived of income. Both tenant and landlord are being abused by these laws.
Not only does it disproportionately affect low-income people, but they are the people least able to defend themselves from its abusive nature. Without a group like the Institute For Justice, there is no way this could be brought before a federal court.
This kind of reminded me of an old TV show episode where some people the protagonist(s) encountered were locked up in a prison for generations because their ancestor's had been imprisoned and any other family were included along with any children born, so they never served out the sentence, ever. They had been in the prison for so long the locks were all rusted away. 🙂
@@RottenRogerDM I remember the show, well. Starbuck and Apollo -(son of Admiral Adama), Viper pilots of a "rag-tag fugitive fleet" running from the Cylons, and looking for Earth. I used to draw little ships swooping in blasting each other in school. 😁
The thing that makes the least sense to me in this context is why is the local government a party to the eviction which the parties are the private property owner and the renter. Obviously the family being evicted is directly harmed. But I think the property owner would also have a fifth amendment takings clause claim against the government. The government is taking away their source of income. Obviously the evicted people suffer far worse than the property owner, but the property owner is also adversely affected by these actions. If the current case doesn't result in this law being ruled unconstitutional, they could maybe challenge it from a different perspective if they got a property owner to sign on as a plaintiff.
@@GilmerJohn Dont rent to people whose extended family might get into trouble? Does this law come with a working crystal ball? Just wondering what the expectation for "judgment" is.
@@raygunsforronnie847 -- Well, I have likely as many problems with this as anyone. Were every town, city, & county to enact such laws in theory every family with a black sheep would be homeless. OTOH: it's just a way of making the owner of a place have responsibility for the actions of those he permits to rent and occupy (and those the permitted then permit). Cities often close bars, and even restaurants and pool halls where they have "excessive" call outs.
@@robertpayne6960 Why is it tortuous interference? The tenant still owes the landlord, no? The contract says pay, so they must pay. It's not interference if the tenant goes to jail. Why is it interference if the cops kick the tenant out?
This reminds me of a town in Florida where they have some statistic that a crime might be committed at a home so the police -ticket, jail and harrass the family until they move. The tickets could several times each day. If not they bang on the door and the side of the house to get you to come out so they can bug them or come up with an excuse to arrest them. Not sure if the IFJ is handling this or another law firm.
@@constanttraveler and the courts have already blasted the county for this i think steve covered the case and i know lackluster did and they have federal suits on going a bunch of families do
But, as a landlord, when I hear that the police are often at a rental of mine, I call the police to find out why, I am told that they are not allowed to tell me what crimes are being committed in a house that I own due to privacy laws..
This is something I didn't believe could happen. The fact a federal court upheld suggests to me that our constitution is no longer honored by those entrusted to defend it. 😮
Even if it is the criminals themselves being ejected, that is surely unconstitutional. There's no way it can be moral OR legal to add "forced homelessness" to the penalties for a crime, and extending that imposition to innocent people, who probably aren't even aware a crime ever occurred, is infinitely more ridiculous. The court that allows this is a court of madness.
Then they need to evict the family of the judge for his next parking ticket. Enforce it on the city fathers for any ticket their families do, and let the IFJ take them to court to prosecute them on these rules.
The really sad part of this is how certain sections of IL announce they won't enforce laws. Living there I know they don't and they are proud of it. Then other parts are very overzealous in enforcing them. They are often next to each other. You really have to watch it in certain areas because you will get pulled over for made up reasons and I have been a couple of times. I guess they are trying to make sure the people from the other areas don't migrate.
Time to go after the bond of the Judge for such a blatant disregard for their oath to uphold their State and the Federal Constitutions and the rights of the citizens protected therein and failing to strike this ordinance as unconstitutional
It had better be applied uniformly. Dig up the dirt on all the cops and the city management. If their relatives have ever committed crimes, evict them all!
The very first thing that came to my mind when you described this was: Gentrification. If you wanted to get rid of all the 'ne'er-do-wells' in an area so that you could later build nice gated communities there, what better way? Not only do you get rid of all of the, "trash," you get to buy up the rental properties owned by the landlords in the area at a big discount when they can't find anyone to rent to or their tenants get evicted every few months and they can't pay the mortgage on their properties. There is a great deal of money to be made on gentrification when the neighborhood is nice but poor. Maybe that city is in a great location but is historically low-income? I don't know.
There's no gentrification happening in Granite. It's a blue collar steel town. Many towns around here have this ordinance. It was originally made to target relatives/people who let drug dealers etc, hang around conducting "business" near their dwelling. The law's usage has run amok though, as laws tend to do.
I don't know, @@jasonwomack4064. Is it pretty close to a large city? Is it close to a place that the upper middle class (who can afford to pay a million for their home) work? Is it, "scenic?" You have to try to think about the things that those kinds of people want when you think about places that could be subject to gentrification. Just because it's always been a blue collar neighborhood doesn't mean the local royalty aren't thinking about how they could kick all of those people out so they can make a huge pile of money when they sell the properties to a pack of what we used to call, "yuppies." That's what that kind of person does: They look for things they can exploit for a massive profit by legally stealing what someone else has.
Associating is not required. You could have NEVER associated with this person, say a sibling who was adopted by a different family, but still be evicted because they are your blood relative and committed a crime.
I don't think this is about money. This seems more like "Wouldn't it be nice if we could just make any 'problematic' people leave the city?" It's a "You aren't welcome here anymore." except made into law.
@@chadwells7562 Nonsense. Money is certainly a powerful motivator for many. Power is often a more powerful motivator. Many people in government offices, elected or not, are there because they have an urge to have power over others.
Could you imagine getting home and finding a letter or note or even a cop asking you to leave? The plot is off of a bad 80s script like the A-team. In fact I'm sure it was a script.
Our "Public Housing" is kind of similar ... the residents sign a contract when they get public housing. Household members commits certain crimes and they are referred to Housing Authority for eviction hearing ... it pretty much takes a lot but it does occasionally happens... The interesting thing is that a large majority of the housing residents are all in favor of it ... just the trouble maker families are against it ...
Yeah, cause it’s so brilliant to cut the support system of people who already lack support structures, because that’s not going to lead to increased crime. Fucking insane.
I'd bet money that the author of this city ordinance was a retired frustrated (and probably ineffective) schoolteacher who would use the same tactic to find out who was talking when the teacher's back was turned. "If you don't stand up and admit it, I'll put the entire class in detention!" I hated it then. I hate this city's idea even more.
Would be interesting to do a search on that person's relatives and try to use the law against them. File a suit demanding they be removed from their house because some second cousin twice removed stole a pack of bubble gum, see how they like it
My father's side of the family has a lot of criminal issues, which is one reason why I avoid them. I've never committed a crime. Now I know I need to check bylaws for this when moving.
Many years ago, here in NYC, I was called to serve as a juror on a drug dealing case where with witnesses and police, the defendant was found guilty of dealing drugs in a NYC Housing Authority building. His family was innocent but had to vacate the apartment where they lived. Some of the female jurors were sad that the family was also penalized. Be well! Ed
Working as an Ohio case-manager with disabled seniors in 2009, I frequently assisted my clients in accessing housing through the Metropolitan Housing Authority. The federal housing authority at that time had a rule that if a senior had a younger family member staying with them that was okay. But if the younger family member committed a crime they would evict "grandma" or "grandpa".. Don't know if the rule still stands. Same thing except it's institutional rather than community based. Their reasoning was "to cut down on crime" within the low income housing sites. Didn't know about the institute for Justice back then. Sure glad someone has brought them to my attention recently!! Thanks Steve.
This has been happening especially with Sec 8 or other government funded housing. In order to try and cut down on crime, if an individual resides in a Sec 8 apartment or home and another family member who happens to live there commits a crime, the lessee can be evicted. I remember a case around 2002 where a grandmother was evicted because her grandson, who happened to be living with her, committed a drug related felony. The Sec 8 lease allowed for the grandmother to be evicted.
In that case, the government is your landlord and you have your hand in the taxpayers' pockets every month. You sign an agreement to not allow non family members or criminals reside with you, in exchange for the government agreeing to provide housing for you. I really don't have much of an issue with that. But these towns are forcing private property owners to comply with their programs and evict people who had nothing to do with the crime. I have a huge issue with that.
My grandfather was a smuggler into Canada. 1967 he got caught. I was 3. Canada took the names of all the male members of my family. Every third time I go to Canada they strip search my vehicle and ask me over and over do I have cigarettes. It's like dealing with insane people.
Would like to hear backstory/history of how this ordinance came to be. And if there’s a common thread tying together other similar ordinances elsewhere. And just how interested the instigators truly are in matters of crime.
Not sure but I know some of them are already primarily white towns ie Hesperia which is nearly 80% white and about 2/3 homes owned rather than rented and a less than 0.5% growth rate. That speaks to a very insular community that's out to become even more so.
@@David-bf6bz Ordinances are issued by governmental (city/county and equivalent) entities...which maps to Steve's narrative about "get out of town" rather than "get out/off of [subsidized properties]" which might pertain to a housing authority.
@@jaybingham3711 and that is all leftist Misframing. The ordinance dosen't require them to leave town just subsidized housing. I am really disappointed how little research he did and instead relying on the daily beast which is a step below TMZ on journalistic integrity
@@David-bf6bz Yeah that's a big problem. A lawyer (one who surely knows a law from an ordinance from a regulation) who now appears incapable of accurately parsing his words...and is even (apparently) stooping to duplicity in a reframing of the situation...I suddenly feel like I'm facing a loss. Not so much a loss...as a...a theft. A steal. It needs to stop. Stop the steal.
I live 10 minutes from Granite City, and have worked in housing around the area. This ordinance isn't limited to them. What's even more insane, is if an owner doesn't comply with evicting a renter, the city will move to seize the property (even if it's multiple units). If the same landlord has repeated issues, a city can (and have, in Alton's case) file to seize all properties owned within it's jurisdiction.
@@sjuas690 the way these laws and simular bad stuff get passed is what politicians have been doing for years hiding undesirable stuff amongst a bunch of desirable stuff and sometimes vice versa it is the problem with the house being divided between republicans and democrats it makes stuff are to control as both sides have different ideas of how things should be
2:15 Steve included details that neither toddler nor baby were involved in theft because he knew someone was already typing furiously in the comments section “but what if….?”
It presumably as I understand it does NOT apply to people who OWN their homes. Only tenants. Though arguably the Landlord is also being deprived of income... And that is precisely one of the problems with these laws, it makes it even MORE difficult on DV victims, as calling 911 can get you evicted.
@@jphogannet I guess if the Landlords refuse to do the wrong thing to the poor and innocent, they'd be up the creek with the city and would then be targets. At least, it's on the IFJ's radar.
American citizens seem to have forgotten that laws are created by their representatives and therefore can be changed by their representatives. The focus should be on getting any of these barbaric laws removed from the books and make it a condition that that happen in order for any politicians to be elected. Judges can't rule on unjust laws if those laws are not on the books!!!
If I'm a landlord and I get one of these evictions, I would immediately re-rent the house to the family for more than half off, no matter what the law tries to pull.
@@niyablake yeah and courts can be wrong. IT has to be challenged. Dont cuck out. Court says its legal to kill people for farting on a Tuesday. Court said so so its def legal.
If every city and town were to have an ordinance like this, where would all these families go. That would force homelessness on a lot of innocent people.
This is the whole "check the box" argument to a new extreme. You do a crime, do the time, and are punished for the rest of your life, no job, no home, no vehicle, when does it end? Now that can be extended to, someone you know, does a crime, does the time, and now you can't have a car, home, job, etc... this is insanity.
@@robertpayne6960 SO? Significant Other? You shouldn't use abbreviations if their meanings aren't clear! As for CAF, any regular viewer of this channel should know that means Civil Asset Forfeiture, but I don't have a clue what you meant by SO! proverbial* 🙄
@@pablohammerly448 S"a"X Offender Registry i.e. extra judicial punishment (not part of original punishment handed down by the original criminal court) in the guise as civil measures vice criminal.
@@robertpayne6960 thanks for the explanation of the acronyms. I'd love to see how losing a lease due to a family members crime you weren't involved in could be tied to SOR, or even be considered a CAF since the lessee still owns the property after you've been kicked out. Not to mention the fact that a third unrelated party is punished by compelling the landlord to evict their tenant. So they're punished by doing business with a person who is related to someone who did a crime. Straight bs imho.
Dam, the last time that happened to me I was 8yrs old ; when Mom used to say if one of you kids get it , you’ll all get it . But that quickly ended as we all got older and that philosophy was not continued because of the obvious, unfairness.. you see why ppl cry out DEFUND & REFORM POLICE
