The
Ruckus over Rucker
Précis:
In
a recent Supreme Court (“SC”) decision, the Rehnquisling Quorum voted
8-0 (with Breyer recused), to allow the Oakland Housing Authority to evict
four senior citizens due to the drug activities of people the seniors
knew, even though some of the drug activity did not take place on the
subsidized housing grounds. Chief Justice ’Wilhelm Rehnquisling’ ruled
that the tenants cannot use ‘no knowledge’ of such activity as a
defense, and that due process is not a factor in such cases. The eviction
of these four seniors, who lived in different units, is based on the
“plain language” set forth in leasing agreements by those who live in
subsidized housing, Thus, if subsidized housing makes the government
(“the people”) the landlord, then do these same rules apply to those
elected officials whose housing costs are offset by the taxpayer?
According to Chief Justice William Rehnquist and the Supreme Court, the
answer appears to be, by default, yes.
Note: All Italics are added by RadioRote.
Report:
The Supreme Court
ruled on 3/26/02 on the “one strike and you’re out” case involving
four senior citizens who were to be evicted from their subsidized housing
units because they knew others who were caught with illegal drugs on, or
outside of, public housing property. The Rehnquisling Quorum thus
overturned a lower courts argument that prior knowledge of such activity
was necessary by the tenants before the eviction process could occur.
Their decision also invalidated an injunction against their eviction made
by District Court Judge Charles Breyer. [i]
The case in front of
the SC involved four elderly residents of the Oakland (Ca.) Housing
Authority:
·
Herman Walker, a 78 year old disabled man whose health care worker
was caught with a crack pipe. Although he fired her as soon as he found a
new health care attendant, the authority promptly pushed the papers for
Walkers eviction.
·
Pearlie Rucker, a 67-year-old woman whose mentally retarded
daughter was caught with drug paraphernalia five blocks from Ms.
Rucker’s home.
·
Willie Lee, 73, and Barbara Hill, 67, whose grandsons were caught
smoking pot in the parking lot of their grandmother’s units.
Barbara Hill’s grandson was not caught smoking the joint, but
admitted to having done so. ii
J
James Feldman, Esq., one of the lawyers
who acted on behalf of the Federal
petitioners
in the SC hearing,, stated:
The
Statute
provides that housing leases must provide that any drug-related activity
engaged in a public housing tenant, any of the tenants household,
or any guest or other under the tenants control shall be a cause for
tenancy,
It sets government.
HUD has construed
that statute,
in with its terms, to authorize termination of the tenancy when the drug
related criminal activity by one of the named persons occurs without
regard to the tenants knowledge or control.
On
that point, Rehnquist
has a field day--albeit one out in left field:
Eviction
of tenants who were not personally at fault is a normal part of of the landlord-tenant
law....regardless of knowledge, a tenant who cannot control drug crime,
or other criminal activities by a household member which threatens health
or safety
of residents (sic) is a threat to other residents....regardless of
whether the tenant knew, or should have known, about the
activity.
Theodore
Olson, the attorney who flimflammed
the Constitution, voters rights and Floridian self-determination
during Bush v Gore, was rewarded by becoming the Solicitor General
of the US -- a mark of Dubbya's cynical posture towards American
Justice. Olson argued to the Court that the eviction statute in this
case was a "critical tool for fighting the scourge of drug use" in
subsidized
housing areas. He contended that "any criminal activity on
or off the premises by ...any guest or other person under the tenants
control shall be cause for termination
of tenancy". He scoffed at the earlier ruling that
any resident who:
...has
taken reasonable
steps to prevent criminal drug activity from occurring, but
for lack of knowledge or other reason, could
not realistically exercise
control over the conduct of a household member or guest (and therefore
is protected from eviction) is,
in Olson's opinion, (a) seriously flawed
(idea).
Olson
continues that the tenants should be evicted and their
innocence or inability
to prevent
such occurrence:
Conflicts
with State Supreme Court precedent
and undermines ...(the safety of the
community) as it poses a threat to innocent neighbors...As Judge Sneed
explained thus 'doing so facilitates the eviction of ... tenants (providing
) a credible deterrent against criminal activity.'
Olson
then speaks for the mind readers when he adds in a Romanticist fashion:
Regardless
of who has the burden
of proof, the tenant and
household member (or guest) are likely to deny that the tenant had
knowledge of the criminal activity.
Going
beyond his intellectually weak "I feel like, you know..." statements,
Olson then cites precedents of where tenants were evicted by breach of contract.
In
short, if a person is invited onto the grounds -- even temporarily -- and
that person is or was engaged in some type of criminal activity, the tenant
is to be evicted...because everyone knows for a fact the poor dumb son of
a bitch is guilty by association. Or, if a related individual who frequents
there as a guest or resident is found with drugs elsewhere, regardless of
whether or not they are retarded, then everyone is evicted from the house....even
73 year old grandmothers
and 78 year old invalids...because
Wilhelm Rehnquisling asserted that the
"plain language" of the law
is "unambiguous"
and has nothing to do with being unconstitutional , and therefore
not subject to due process.
Even
if one disagrees with the Rehnquisling
Quorum's
finding, one must admit that any Federal Supreme Court that 'recognizes
the authority a State Supreme
Court', as well as fully understands how the "irreparable
harm" of one person is not as important as the "equal
protection" of the many --
certainly reflects the
maturity,
and deep intellectual backbone, of our Justices.
(SEE: Bush v Gore).
Next
Installment:
Given how "unambiguous" the laws are concerning those who live
in public subsidized houses and the
"one strike and you are out" ruling...one must ask:
WWJD? Not "What Would
Jesus Do"?...or, "What Would
Jenna Drink?" But, "When Will Jeb Depart?"
Not just Jeb, but Dan Burton of Indiana, to name but a few.
Click
Here
[i]
He is the brother of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer who
was the only justice in recent time who had enough moral fiber to
recuse himself from a case due to a conflict of interest. This was not
the case during Bush v. Gore when two of Scalia’s sons and
Thomas’s wife would greatly profit from a Bush win in the courts.
ii
Before one snickers at how “stupid” Hill’s grandson was to
admitting he was smoking with his friend, let us compare him to the
likes of Clinton and Dubbya who, far older than Hill’s grandson, do
not have the courage or valor to admit the obvious about their own
use, to put it lightly.
Note: All transcripts regarding the SC case may be found
on the Supreme Court website, or on sites such as
FindLaw.com
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT v. RUCKER etal. No.
001770 Argued February 19, 2002Decided March 26, 2002
RadioRote® allows distribution of
information from its site, as long as RadioRote® is cited or given
credit. You may not use the RadioRote®
logo, or alter it, unless citing it as a source. Please give credit
to other sources. ©2001
For problems or questions regarding this website contact radiorote.
PLEASE
DISTRIBUTE
RadioRote
copyright
2000 (RadioRote)
Updated 4/1/02