The Right to Arm Public Housing (NYT)

[friendly_iconoclast]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/16/opinion/16thu3.html?_r=1

July 16, 2009
Editorial
The Right to Arm Public Housing
Congress continues to do the gun lobby’s lethal bidding, delivering a bipartisan boost in a House committee to a reckless proposal that would allow residents of public housing projects to keep guns in their homes. The measure would endanger projects in major cities that have adopted the common sense precaution of declaring public housing to be no-gun zones.

The gun amendment was perversely attached to a much-needed measure widening access to Section 8 subsidized housing for families hard pressed in the current recession. Why these families should be forced to face this latest duck-and-cover mischief from the gun lobby is incomprehensible. Nevertheless, the gun amendment was approved 38 to 31 in the House Financial Services Committee, with 13 Democrats once more opting for the gun lobby’s zealotry over the cause of public safety.

It’s urgent that the gun amendment be stripped from the final measure, but do not expect bold or principled action from this Congress on this issue. It burdened credit card reform with an irrelevant amendment allowing visitors to carry loaded guns in national parks. President Obama signed it into law, showing no appetite to take on the gun lobby. Similarly, lawmakers poisoned the historic measure to grant the District of Columbia a vote in the House — yielding to a vindictive amendment striking at the city’s home-rule power to control gun traffic....

....Far from authorizing the addition of guns to all the problems already rampant in public housing, Congress should be dealing with the national embarrassment that individuals barred from airlines on the terrorist watch list are free to shop for firearms. Senator Frank Lautenberg has a proposal to let the attorney general block this insanity. Security-minded Americans, however, better not count on action by this timorous Congress.

[Hoopla Phil]

1. So if a person is poor they loose their 2 A rights? I don't think so.

[damntexdem]

2. If a person lives in another's property, they need to abide by the rules.

I DO think so.

And this disgusting provision will slightly boost the profits of gun makers, paid for by the blood of public housing residents.

[Hoopla Phil]

3. This is not a person's property. Govt housing. Govt cannot suspend your rights

just cause you live in Govt housing. Nice try though.

[Hoopla Phil]

4. So, by that logic, the Govt can prohibit Gays from Govt housing?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. Substitute gun for minorites. Would you still say that those rules should be followed?

The racist and classist roots of gun control in the US are well documented. That they continue today is shameful. NYC in particular is guilty of it.

[iverglas]

10. "Substitute gun for minorites"

Er ... why?

Are people born with gun lust? Is there an historic pattern of oppression and exploitation of gun lusters? Are gun owners disadvantaged in terms of educational and economic opportunities by reason of their gun ownership?

How about: substitute cow for gun.

That gives us: substitute cow for minorities.

A landlord, including a public one, couldn't prohibit the keeping of cows in its residential units?

Huh.

[TheWraith]

13. Owning a cow isn't a constitutional right.

But a person does have constitutional rights to equal protection (including against racial discrimination) and to self-defense.

[eqfan592]

7. What's disgusting is what's been happening before this.

This law corrects a wrong. If you can't see that, then that's your damn problem.

[paulsby]

11. can a landlord tell me i can;'t rent an apartment from him if i own a gun

fuck no!

[iverglas]

20. I sure can!

And I do.

But then, I live in the civilized world.


Oh, I should clarify.

I don't tell people they may not rent from me if they own a gun.
(Your question was dumb, and I automatically interpreted it in a way that made sense.)

I tell people that they may not have a firearm in the unit they rent from me or anywhere on the property.

[Tim01]

33. Do you do that in America? You live in Canada right? nt

[iverglas]

37. no shit, shirley

Now, do you want to find me something that prohibits residential landlords from prohibiting firearms on their premises in some bit of the US?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

57. link

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.126
A landlord may not prohibit or restrict a tenant who is a licensee and who on or after the effective date of this amendment enters into a rental agreement with the landlord for the use of residential premises, and the tenant’s guest while the tenant is present, from lawfully carrying or possessing a handgun on those residential premise.

Translation: The landlord can't prohibit ownership or even carry on their rental property.
However, the landlord could choose to rent the unit to somebody else.

[Statistical]

59. Of course that is a state statute which means it is not a right.

It is a protection of a privilege.
The state could repeal that statute and firearm owners would have no such protection.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

60. Correct, but she stated:

"Now, do you want to find me something that prohibits residential landlords from prohibiting firearms on their premises in some bit of the US?"

That bit of ORC statute was simply showing there ARE areas of the US where RKBA is protected on rental properies.

[Statistical]

61. Agreed 100% (iverglas as usual was wrong by over reaching).

It is possible the state to prohibit having a limit on firearms in a contract just as they "could" limit having a pet exclusion in a contract.

The 2nd doesn't protect the right to keep and bear arms on another persons property as some people in this thread seem to think.
More broadly the constitution doesn't protect infringement of any right by a non state actor.

[iverglas]

64. really? I was wrong?

Funny. I thought a question was a question, and not an assertion.

[iverglas]

63. the actual relevant bit being,

to quote you,

"However, the landlord could choose to rent the unit to somebody else."

I believe that was the issue raised by my original post on the subject, unclear as it might have been to some.

I, of course, and I do thank my stars, don't live in Ohio. I recently got to know a cousin who does (we share grx2 grandparents and an interest in genealogy). She will blame Clinton for everything from a chipped fingernail to the price of tea in China at the drop of a hat, and I gather she's reasonably representative.

If I did, I would include a clause in the lease that no firearms would be kept or allowed to be present on the premises and inform the tenant that if s/he planned to do so, notwithstanding that provision, in reliance on the statute you cite, it would be contrary to my express conditions for agreeing to rent the unit to him/her. And if I discovered that the tenant was in fact doing so, I might just try a little action in damages for false representation, by which I was induced into renting the unit to that individual.

Some of us really just aren't prepared to kneel at the feet of the gun militant movement and allow them to occupy our own property in addition to every inch of the public agora.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

66. Do you suppose a LL could

have a contract that stipulated no guns allowed to a licensed tenant, despite the ORC provision prohibiting the landlord from barring the RKBA for CHL licensed individuals? If so, why?

I would think that the cited wording of the ORC legislation would take all teeth out of a no guns clause such as that assuming the tenants (or guests) were compliant with Ohio CHL regulations. ie: sure you could have the clause, but I think it would hold no water.

Also, how is a restricted tenant to know if a guest, delivery guy or repair man is carrying a concealed weapon? The tenant or his contract obviously should not be held accountable for information not known. Most people that carry don't make it common knowledge. Heck, I just found out my barber (of 5+ yrs) carries regularly.

Regarding legal action, what sort of damages could possibly have been caused by a tenant's lawful possession of a self defense firearm?
As an extension of that concern, what possible benefit does a landlord get from projecting his/her anti-gun rhetoric on the tenant? None that I can see.

[iverglas]

67. did you suppose I said that?

I said that I would inform a prospective tenant that I chose not to have firearms in the residential premises I was renting, and that I would not rent to someone who intended to have firearms, and the representation that no firearms would be possessed there would be a representation made in order to obtain the rental contract.

Residential leases are contracts. Landlord-tenant statute law is not the exhaustive source of the law governing them. The remedy of termination may not be available; that does not mean that other remedies are not still available.


Also, how is a restricted tenant to know if a guest, delivery guy or repair man is carrying a concealed weapon?

For the love of fuck, yes, inadvertent, unwitting breaches of the representation made would be exactly what I was talking about. Jeeeeezus.


Regarding legal action, what sort of damages could possibly have been caused by a tenant's lawful possession of a self defense firearm?

Well, off the top of my head, I'd say diminished ability to rent out other units in the property if prospective tenants were aware that firearms on the premises, or that firearms were permitted on the premises, or that the landlord had not made reasonable efforts to ensure there were no firearms on the premises. And of course, it would be unacceptable for the landlord to lie if a prospective tenant asked that question.

Yes, Virginia, and Ohio, there really are rational decent people in the world, people who do not want to live in buildings where firearms are welcome, and who have reasons for their preference that are every bit as good as those of anyone who wants to have firearms in their home. And those might be precisely the kind of tenants a landlord wished to attract.

But their interests are of no concern to the gun militant.

No one must be permitted to exercise a preference to live in a place where firearms are not permitted, because gun owners must get their own way in everything. Their own way actually having nothing to do with firearms, and everything to do with imposing and enforcing the terms on which other members of their society must live their lives.


As an extension of that concern, what possible benefit does a landlord get from projecting his/her anti-gun rhetoric on the tenant? None that I can see.

What possible meaning can be found in your verbiage? None that I can see.



typo fixed

[Statistical]

35. Well technically they can....

gunownership is not a protected class like race or religion.

Private property can prohibit firearms just as private property has no guns allowed signs/statutes.
Of course you don't need to rent from said person.


The second issue is enforcement. How will they know? Property owners have no blanket authority to search your property. However if they did find out (say you had a negligent discharge and police report) you could be evicted and sued for breach of contract.


You have a constitutional right to own a firearm. You don't have a right to bring it on someone else property without their permission. The constitution protects your rights from infringement by the government. Even if incorporated the 2nd only applies to the federal, state and local govts.

This issue is different in the OP because the property owner is the govt. The govt has restrictions on what it can do that don't apply to private citizens. If the mods wanted to delete this post they could. I have no freedom of speech right that protects me from private censorship. If the govt did it then it would be civil rights violation.

Lastly issue is local state law. Landowner has no constitutional right to ban guns either. Given that it is not protected either the local or state govt could pass a law making any no gun clause non-binding. Ironically VA statute has such a provision but ONLY for public housing (not sure if that was intentional or by omission).

[slackmaster]

44. Yes, a private rental contract can have such a provision

It would be stupid, but it would be legal.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

58. see post 57 (n/t)

[benEzra]

15. Your landlord can't suspend your rights; the apartment is legally YOUR domicile, not the landlord's.

In most of the United States, a landlord cannot tell you that you have to let him search your home any time he/she wants, or that you may not lawfully own firearms, or that you may not speak out on political issues or vote a certain way or endorse certain causes.

Yes, if you are staying in someone else's guest room, you have to live by their rules. But an apartment (subsidized or not) is NOT someone else's guest room; it is your home, and all protections of the Bill of Rights apply.

[iverglas]

21. interesting

How is it that your Constitution applies to individuals/corporations?

Strikes me as really kinda odd. I just can't quite think of how an individual/corporation would go about violating a provision of a constitution ... WHICH APPLIES TO GOVERNMENTS.

[E-Mag]

32. Do you post a sign like this in the window?

[iverglas]

38. boring as all hell

and nothing to do with anything in my post.

ADD strikes the gun dungeon again.

[E-Mag]

39. oops it should have been up a post or 2

The one where you were talking about not letting renters have a gun in your rental property.

[iverglas]

40. ya think?

I thought it was just random gun militant noise.

I mean, especially since it was no more relevant to the statement that I do not permit firearms in my rental units than it was to the post it was posted in reply to ...

[E-Mag]

41. I was just wondering if you advertise

the fact that you ban guns in the rentals to everyone.

[iverglas]

45. I'm just wondering why you would ask

such an utterly moronic question.

(In any event, that wasn't the question you asked. You just thought you were being terribly clever, and trust me: you were not.)

The terms of a lease are shown to, and discussed with, prospective tenants.

It's hardly an issue, since I live in urban Canada, and the likelihood of someone wishing to rent an apartment from me being in possession of a firearm would be about nil. Not many hunters in this neighbourhood, and I don't rent to Hell's Angels.

[E-Mag]

49. Just trying to figure who

you are keeping from bringing guns into your house/rentals? I have never understood the Idea of ban zones and now I have the opportunity to discuss it with the person that imposes one.

I do find it funny that you ban something that is hardly an issue in urban Canada though.

[iverglas]

51. you could have just asked, then, couldn't you?

I'll be gracious and tell you anyway, despite all your insulting drivel to this point.

When I bought my spare house, I retained the contractor who had done a big reno on my house to do the necessary work to duplex it legally. We were good friends by then, and in fact I was his confidante through his divorce. He fancies himself a bit of an eccentric; he was in the navy (and has the tattoos to show for it), after training as an undertaker in his youth, and before getting a degree in Soviet history. He owned a handgun, presumably from before the rules were tightened. He didn't have any permits to transport it anywhere, and he didn't use it for target shooting or anything, to my knowledge, he just owned it. He'd left it at the location where he had a permit to possess it, the former marital residence where his wife was still living.

Had there been a break-in at his unit, and had the handgun been there, it would virtually without a doubt have been stolen. The unit was a self-contained second-floor one-bedroom apartment with two closets, only one exit to the street, no basement, and an obvious hatch to the attic. Barring a vault bolted to the infrastructure, the firearm and whatever it was in would have been easy pickings in a break-in.

And there is no way in hell that I will be in any way a party to making a handgun, or any other firearm, available to the criminal population / black market in my community. Firearms in these units cannot be secured against theft (since I'm also not about to authorize the bolting of vaults to the hardwood floors or the walls, even if I trusted that as an anti-theft measure), so there will be no firearms in those units if I can do anything to prevent it.

[happyslug]

42. This is English Common Law, NOT constitutional in origin

Under English Common Law, still the law in almost all English Speaking Nations (including all of the US States and Canadian Provinces with the exception of Louisiana and Quebec, and then only in parts in those two Civil Law Jurisdictions) when a person "Rents" real property from another, the "Renter" is the OWNER of the property for a time period (Which can be month to month, year to year, or any other time period agreed by the parties, but if nothing is agreed then, in most areas, the law presumes month to month leases).

Thus a Leaseholder (The correct legal name for a "Tenant" or "Renter") has all of the right the landlord had to the property when the Leaseholder leased the property from the Landlord. Now the Landlord can retain property rights to the leased rental unit, but unless retained, all rights to use the property belongs to the Leaseholder NOT the Landlord. For example if the Leaseholder tells the landlord NOT to come on to the lease property and the landlord does enter, that is trespassing UNLESS the Landlord can show he retained the right to enter the Leasehold (i.e. the lease setting up the leasehold contains a clause the landlord can enter the leasehold for inspection/repairs etc).

Notice the law, it is up to the landlord to show he retain whatever rights he retained to the leasehold. The law presumes the Leaseholder holds ALL possessionary interest in the property. The only obligation the Common Law imposed on a Leaseholder was to require the Leaseholder to make every effort to preserve the leased property for the landlord whenever the lease expires (i.e. No damage to the leasehold caused by the Leaseholder or anyone under control of the leaseholder including third parties who do damage that the Leaseholder is in the best position to prevent).

Now Leaseholders are NOT responsible for "Wear and Tear" to the leasehold, but what is "Wear and Tear" and what is "Damages" are often up to a Judge and Jury to determine. A third party shoots the door out, is generally called "Damages" and the Leaseholder has to pay for the repair, but if the door falls apart do to age (or previous damages done before the Leaseholder moved into the unit) the landlord must pay for the repairs as the result of "Wear and Tear". This dispute should be resolved by insurance companies and I recommend Leaseholders to obtain Rental Insurance, more so that the Insurance Companies can argue who is to pay for the damages then anything else.

AS to weapons (and pets) the law in both the US and Canada are clear, unless there is a State or Federal Statute to the Contrary the landlord can impose a ban on both for any reason or no reason.

There have been a push to end bans on pets and such bans of pets are NOT permitted in Public Housing by Federal Law since the 1990s when studies were presented to Congress that having a pet helped the elderly live longer and the reason elderly people in public housing did not have pets was do to pet bans. Thus Congress made such bans illegal as to Handicap and Elderly Public Housing the then a few years later to all Public Housing. The expansion to ALL Public Housing was called for when many elderly were complaining of NOT being able to have a pet for they were in regular Public Housing not elderly public housing and could NOT get into Elderly Public Housing for the local Housing Authority determined they could do well in their existing apartments and there was no need for them to be moved into Elderly Public Housing (Regular Public housing and Public Housing for the Elderly and handicap are two aspects of the Public Housing laws in the US, in many ways the same laws apply to both, but if a housing project was intended for elderly and/or handicap a different set of law and regulations apply, thus two different changes in the law was required).

Now the main reason the act passed was, first the Elderly campaign for it but the larger the studies on pets and tenants were ridiculous. Second, 95% of all landlords banned pets, yet 1/3 of all Leaseholders reported in surveys on having pets. These two sets of data should not occur, but were (and still are). I once ran across a Pro-landlord web site that pointed this out and stated that Landlords were setting themselves up for losses by requiring a pet ban when it is almost impossible to enforce such a ban (Warner brothers had a Cartoon staring Tweety bird in such a situation, Tweety's owner had to hide her from the building's detective enforcing a "No Pets" ruled while Sylvester was trying to make Tweety a mid day snack, at the end of the Cartoon the Detective went onto the intercom and demanded that he new a tenant had a pet and that the tenant who had that pet had to get that pet out of the building right now, all you saw next was a huge number of pets running over the detective, if I remember right including an elephant and a monkey, but I mention that Cartoon to show that the banning of pets and that tenants having pets dispute that ban has a long history).

Twenty Bird and Sylvester in "Room and Bird":
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043979/
Actual Cartoon:
http://www.jogyjogy.com/watch.php?id=19db3

I bring up pets for the existence of pets is a lot easier to determine then if the leaseholder has a weapon. Unless the landlord sees the pet or a Weapon (and prove that such pet or weapon is in the control of the leaseholder) the landlord has no right to end the lease early. If the landlord does have the evidence the landlord can end the leasehold as a fundamental breach of the term of the lease (Unless such grounds are NOT permitted by law, racial discrimination is an example of illegal grounds, but pets and weapons bans, unless illegal by statue passed by the Federal Congress, a State Legislature or local Government are NOT illegal. The only example of such bans is the Federal Ban on Prohibitions of pets and then only to public housing).

As I mentioned earlier the pro-landlord web site commented that any landlord that banned pets was heading for trouble given the sheer number of tenants who have pets and will have pets and will LIE about having pets to get into a rental unit. The Web site advocated that pets be permitted subject to inspection and approval of the pet by the landlord AND an addition security deposit to cover possible damages done by the pet. In my home state the Statute governing Security deposits limits such deposits to the equivalent of one month's rent, but the Courts have permitted landlords to require additional security deposit if it is a pet deposit as opposed to normal security deposit for the leasehold. This is the better way for Landlords to protect themselves from damages to pets instead of a blanket ban on pets.

I bring up pets for it is a clear example of landlords setting terms they can NOT enforce AND that leaseholders know it and thus violate it on a frequent basis. The better solution is to permit pets with approval AND additional security NOT a simple ban on pets. This is even worse with a weapon's ban, how can you find out if a leaseholder has a weapon WITHOUT trespassing? The Courts will interpret any lease clause that permits you to enter the leasehold narrowly, i.e. you can only do so to do the acts you claim, and then only at times and dates that are reasonable. Remember when you leased out the property possessionary interest was transferred to the Leasehold/Tenant/Renter and any right the landlord retained can not interfere with that right to any excessive degree.

If the lease says you can inspect, your inspection must be limited either by your actions (how often your do it) or by the terms of the lease (Which can NOT be so liberal that you can enter the leasehold at any time, some restriction as to entrance has to exist). Furthermore your inspection must be limited to what your need to make sure the landlord is NOT suffering from any hidden loss NOT to look over every inch to see if the Leaseholder is following all parts of the lease (i.e. you can NOT search the dressers to see of the tenant had a weapon that you ban in your lease UNLESS you can show HOW the mere existence of such a weapon will lead to you having a financial harm AND that you needed to look in the dresser to make sure YOU, as the landlord, was NOT suffering nothing any harm. Notice the burden is on the LANDLORD to prove this NOT the Tenant/leaseholder). Furthermore if the court rules that your exercise of the clause to permit you to enter the leasehold was excessive the landlord is guilty of trespassing. To prove trespassing all the tenant has to show is the landlord entered the leasehold without permission of the tenant. It is up to the landlord to show he had permission to enter the Leasehold either by permission of the tenant or a lease provision that permitted landlord to enter. Furthermore the burden is on the landlord to show the entrance complied with any such provision, if the landlord can not show such compliance the landlord had committed trespassing. My advice is avoid the whole situation and kept any such inspections limited to make sure no damages is being done to the leasehold NOT to look for pets, drugs, weapons or any thing else banned in the lease.

Just a comment on bans in leases, any ban in a lease should be limited to what the landlord can prove by visual inspection of the rental unit from the outside or during any reason inspection. Any other ban is simply NOT enforceable, Landlord can ban weapons, pets, drugs, etc., but unless the landlord has EVIDENCE that such ban has been violated by the Tenant there is nothing the landlord can do. Such bans are a waste of time and ink and more often then not used as excuses to end a leasehold when the landlord wants it ended for other reasons. The Court know this and dislike kicking out any Tenant except if the term of the lease has ended, rent has not been paid, or it is clear actual damages have been done and the only way to prevent further damage is to kick out the Tenant. The first two are easy to prove what most landlord use, the last one is hard to prove and best avoided.

[iverglas]

46. oh, sigh

Landlord-tenant law is statute law in any jurisdiction I know of. And I do know; I studied it in law school and I practised it intensively. The common law just doesn't come into it much these days, although the statute law in question obviously derives from common law.

Tenants (renters, lessees) are not "OWNERS" of rented property; they have exclusive rights to the use of it, and they have certain rights to continued use of it as long as they are not in violation of the tenancy agreement or applicable legislation (i.e. they may not be evicted without grounds, at least where I'm at).


AS to weapons (and pets) the law in both the US and Canada are clear, unless there is a State or Federal Statute to the Contrary the landlord can impose a ban on both for any reason or no reason.

Actually, in my jurisdiction in Canada, a landlord's ability to ban pets - i.e. to evict tenants for violating a no-pet clause - is considerably limited:

http://www.ltb.gov.on.ca/en/Key_Information/STEL02_111483.html

How a Landlord can Evict a Tenant

A tenant can be evicted for having a pet in their unit only if:

* the pet is making too much noise, damaging the unit, or causing an allergic reaction, or
* the animal or species is considered to be inherently dangerous.

Even if the tenancy agreement has a ‘no pets’ rule in it, the tenant cannot be evicted just for having a pet unless the Board decides in an order that the pet is causing a problem, or that the pet is inherently dangerous.

Hmm ... inherently dangerous ...

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_06r17_e.htm

“No pet” provisions void

14. A provision in a tenancy agreement prohibiting the presence of animals in or about the residential complex is void.

Really, why don't you stick to talking about things you know about?

And just in case anybody wants to start, the fact that someone does not live in Ontario does not mean that s/he does not know about Ontario law, any more than the fact that someone does not live in the US does not mean that s/he does not know about US law. Anyone anywhere in the world could have found that Ontario info site on the same simple google I did: ontario tenancy pets.

Security deposits (e.g. to cover pet-related damage) are illegal in Ontario, btw.


I am not aware of any litigation in Ontario involving tenants with weapons on the property. (In Ontario there were years of litigation over pets, with cases seesawing back and forth, culminating in the above provision regarding no pet clauses in 2006.)

Such a clause in the lease puts the tenant on notice of the prohibition. There would still have to be statutory grounds for eviction if the landlord discovered that the tenant was in possession of a firearm on the premises.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_06r17_e.htm

66. (1) A landlord may give a tenant notice of termination of the tenancy if,

(a) an act or omission of the tenant, another occupant of the rental unit or a person permitted in the residential complex by the tenant seriously impairs or has seriously impaired the safety of any person; and

(b) the act or omission occurs in the residential complex.

I might quite well fail to prove an allegation under 66 if the firearm were stored in compliance with Canadian federal regulations, at a minimum. But I would have a tenant I didn't want, who had intentionally flouted an agreement that was imposed in the interests of the safety of myself, other tenants and the neighbourhood and community, and I would then have a rental unit that I needed for my home office. And I would forego the rent (and take the expense as a business deduction instead) to regain possession of the unit, believe me.



I do wish you would stop trying to show off by giving legal opinions and advice:

Just a comment on bans in leases, any ban in a lease should be limited to what the landlord can prove by visual inspection of the rental unit from the outside or during any reason inspection. Any other ban is simply NOT enforceable, Landlord can ban weapons, pets, drugs, etc., but unless the landlord has EVIDENCE that such ban has been violated by the Tenant there is nothing the landlord can do.

"Unless the landlord has EVIDENCE" blah blah. Sigh. And the earth is round.

Credible testimony IS evidence, you may want to recall.


Landlord-tenant law varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and your opinion about what should and should not be in a lease is really worth about as much as the pixels it is expressed in.

[happyslug]

47. In my home state WHAT is a leasehold is a product of the Common Law.,

While Pennsylvania does have a Landlord and Tenant Act, it covers HOW a landlord can evict a tenant it does NOT address what are the property rights of Landlord or Tenants, those rights are determined by the Common Law to this day in Pennsylvania and most other states.

Pennsylvania has long recognize that when a landlord enters the property he has rented to another he is trespassing.

My point as to Evidence was simple a landlord can NOT say "I Suspect the Tenant has violated the lease", the Landlord MUST show how the Tenant has violated the lease NOT put the burden on the Tenant to prove the Tenant did not. That evidence may be verbal, but it has to be something specific NOT a statement that the landlord suspects the tenant has violated the lease.

Thus if a tenant has a weapon in his rental unit, subject to a clause banning such weapons, how can the landlord find out if that weapon is in the unit? That was the thrust of my point, I can have a weapon in my leasehold and keep it concealed, how can the landlord find out about it UNLESS the landlord commits a trespass? The landlord can not and this the point I was trying to make, such a clause, like bans on pets, are almost impossible to enforce. Verbal testimony is valid evidence, but the verbal testimony MUST state that the person making the statement saw something CLEARLY and what was seen violated the lease.

Now Pennsylvania has never banned "No Pets" clauses and as such can be used to evict a tenant IF THE LANDLORD CAN SHOW THAT THE TENANT HAS A PET. The landlord can not make a claim that the tenant violated the lease, the landlord must state not only how the tenant has violated the lease BUT state evidence that supports that claim of violation (i.e. the landlord say he saw the pet, or brings into court someone who saw the pet in the Leasehold). The same with any other violation, the burden is on the landlord, the landlord has to come up with SOME evidence and the Judge get to weigh it with whatever evidence the Tenant provides (Including the tenant's claim that no violation occurred).

As to Landlord and Tenant law, I have been practicing it for almost 20 years. Most of my cases the landlord does have the evidence and thus no defense is possible, but even in those cases most landlords evict for non-payment of rent or at the end of a term instead. Evictions for Non-payment of rent or at the end of a term are simple cases, the landlord only has to show no payments were made in non-payment cases OR that the term as ended (In many cases my clients have only month to month leases and thus the landlord can evict them at the end of any month for any reason or no reason and thus most landlord tenant disputes quickly become moot).

My point was simple why would a landlord engage in an eviction for any violation of the lease when he can evict a tenant for any reason or no reason at the end of a term of the lease? By the time the landlord has the evidence to start evictions for violation of a term, it is so close to the end of the term that an eviction at the end of the term makes more sense (i.e. if the eviction for cause fails for any reason, the tenant stays in the unit, but if the eviction is for the ending of a term, the tenant can not prevail all lease must be agreed by both landlord and tenant including the renewal of such leases, no agreement no renewal and the Tenant must vacate the rental unit).

One of my favorite cases involved a Public Housing resident who was bring evicted after someone else ran into her apartment away from the Police and was arrested in that apartment and the police recovered a pistol in that apartment. We went to hearing on that eviction and after the Housing author ty had testified and the Police had Testified I asked for a judgment without presenting my client testimony. The Judge Agreed with me, that the Housing Authority did NOT present any evidence that my client violated a no weapons clause in her lease for the simple reason no one ever testified that she knew the gun was in her apartment before the criminal ran into it. The eviction was dismissed for that legal technically (i.e. No evidence that the tenant violated the lease, even through a weapon was found in her apartment, it could have come from the criminal running from the Police and the mere fact he ran into her apartment did NOT show any relationship between the criminal and my client).

Anyway my point was simple, you need evidence to support a claim of violation of a term of the lease, that can be verbal testimony but it has to be PERSONALLY know to you. In my opinion it is hard to provide such testimony in most cases and if you want to get rid of a tenant who is paying rent, the best way to do so, even of you suspect them if any other violation of the terms of the lease, is to evict them at the end of a term of the lease rather then trying to gather evidence that the tenant is violating the lease.

[iverglas]

48. c'mon now

My point as to Evidence was simple a landlord can NOT say "I Suspect the Tenant has violated the lease", the Landlord MUST show how the Tenant has violated the lease NOT put the burden on the Tenant to prove the Tenant did not. That evidence may be verbal, but it has to be something specific NOT a statement that the landlord suspects the tenant has violated the lease.

You imagined that this was a point?


Thus if a tenant has a weapon in his rental unit, subject to a clause banning such weapons, how can the landlord find out if that weapon is in the unit? That was the thrust of my point, I can have a weapon in my leasehold and keep it concealed, how can the landlord find out about it UNLESS the landlord commits a trespass? The landlord can not and this the point I was trying to make, such a clause, like bans on pets, are almost impossible to enforce. Verbal testimony is valid evidence, but the verbal testimony MUST state that the person making the statement saw something CLEARLY and what was seen violated the lease.

For pity's sake. If I steal a chocolate bar from the 7-11 on the corner and nobody sees me do it ...


My point was simple why would a landlord engage in an eviction for any violation of the lease when he can evict a tenant for any reason or no reason at the end of a term of the lease?

I don't know; why would someone walk to work when they can simply sprout wings and fly?

I thought it might have been clear; in the jurisdiction where I practised landlord-tenant law (and founded and chaired the tenant lawyers' group, etc.) the premise of your question is false.

Things just work differently in the great world outside the borders of the Land of the Free. Landlords in Ontario, and certainly in most other Canadian provinces (I never speak for Alberta), must have statutory grounds to terminate a tenancy, which does not automatically terminate when the initial tenancy agreement expires. Tenants have rights in their homes. What a concept.

[Statistical]

36. It is rare for me to agree with iverglas but the BofR applies to governments.

There are many examples of this:

Private school can require adherence to specific religion despite the 1st.
Employers can require a drug screen without a warrant despite the 5th.
Broadcaster can censor or take a controversial figure off the air despite the 1st.

Lets not turn the Constitution into some kind of gun "auto win" button.

The BofR prohibits actions by the Federal (and when incorporated local) governments.

[jody]

6. Occupants of public housing have the same right to arm themselves as any law-abiding citizen.

Government is not obligated to protect occupants of public housing against criminals and it's common knowledge that when attacked by a criminal and seconds count, police are only minutes or hours away.

[east texas lib]

8. Well we can't have the poor defending their lives, families and property, can we?

That just wouldn't do at all, would it? Of course, the one thing an armed criminal hates above all
else is a good stiff dose of their own medicine, preferably in 9mm or bigger. It is also worth
noting that the Section 8 policy wonks who created these neighborhoods chock full of unarmed
potential crime victims do not live in one of them. They reside elsewhere, safe in their gated
communities with paid security.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[paulsby]

12. this article is hilarious

"The measure would endanger projects in major cities that have adopted the common sense precaution of declaring public housing to be no-gun zones."

note: :"DECLARING public housing to be no-gun zones". exactly. you can declare them "no crime zones" too. doesn't mean crime will dissapear. you declare them no-gun zones, and only the law abiding will be gun free. utterly ridiculous

[benEzra]

14. Yeah, *THOSE* people shouldn't be allowed to own guns, or to be free from warrantless search.

Because the Bill of Rights only applies to people with the proper skin color, right?

:sarcasm:

I wonder if the NYT would consider it proper to waterboard residents of public housing projects, too? Since they apparently consider it OK to treat them as substandard citizens.

Or it may be that the NYT just assumes that anyone who lives in "the projects" is a latent criminal and should be treated accordingly...

[JonQ]

16. Whoever wrote this article seems to be very anti-basic liberties

He also thinks that the no-fly list (not based on facts or court decisions) should be used to strip people of their basic rights.

I also like how he says the residents will forced to "face this latest duck and cover mischief". Right, because the bill says they are being forced to own a gun. Just like Roe v. Wade made abortions mandatory.

[spin]

17. Gun control is often racist...

the rich and powerful try to make sure the poor and the minorities are denied firearms.

[JonQ]

18. They will also lament the uselessness of firearms

in self-defense, while employing armed body-guards.

[spin]

19. Mayor Daley' s bodyguard did some good recently...

A convicted killer who escaped from the Indiana State Prison was caught Monday near the Michigan vacation home of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley by an officer on the mayor's security detail, authorities said.

Police warned nearby residents to stay inside because two other escapees were still on the loose. The three men were discovered missing Sunday morning from the maximum-security prison in Michigan City, Ind., apparently escaping through underground tunnels and pipes, the Indiana Department of Correction said.

Daley said he was at his southwestern Michigan vacation home early Monday with his wife and three grandchildren when one of his guards saw two men fitting the descriptions of the escapees near the house in Grand Beach, Mich.

The officer caught 48-year-old Charles Smith at gunpoint in a driveway near Daley's home, and police later arrived and took him into custody, said Grand Beach Police Chief Dan Schroeder. The other man ran off into the woods, Daley said.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=118&topic_id=238779&mesg_id=238905

Damn good thing Daley had bodyguards.

[DonP]

23. The irony is it was in a "shall issue" state

Nobody ever points out that the Daley vacation home is in Grand Beach Michigan.

Based on his "principles" you'd think he would have sold the place as soon as they passed shall issue CCW there. I mean after all, he and his family are exposed to all that random gun violence he always says would happen if you allowed "anybody" to carry a gun. Or maybe he just thinks Chicago and Illinois citizens are too stupid to be allowed to carry and Michigan residents are safer to be around??

But, as last week proved, he has nothing to worry about, as long as he has multiple Chicago cops as bodyguards making overtime with a city that's flat broke and still pursuing an Olympic bid. In his shoes I'd probably work a little harder to get the cops guarding me that contract they have been asking for for three years. Or the next time they might be taking a coffee break when he needs them.

What a hypocrite.

[spin]

27. If I were Daley...I would vacation in a "shall issue" state....

but that's just me.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

69. I give body guards with the same respect I give rent-a-cops

Does Michigan honor Illinois permits? If not, they should all be arrested.

[iverglas]

22. it really is a crying shame

that concepts like, oh, elections haven't arrived on your shores yet ...

Bowed low under the yoke of tyrants you are still, it seems. Let us know if we can help in any way, eh?

[spin]

24. Elections often favor the people in power...

but we work on creating equality.

Obama's successful campaign represents a high point of a five-decade climb for black Americans since the civil rights movement started dismantling segregation and suppression of minority voting.

"A few short years ago, people of color in the American South could not register to vote, were beaten, some were jailed or killed,'' said U.S. Representative John Lewis of Atlanta, 68, who spoke at the 1963 March on Washington led by Martin Luther King Jr. "I know Dr. King's spirit is still around, and he is looking down from heaven and saying, 'Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah!'''

In Atlanta, the center of the U.S. civil rights movement, veterans of the desegregation struggle gathered at Ebenezer, where King was co-pastor with his father. Obama's election is both a historical milestone, fulfilling years of expectations, and an inspiration for academic and economic achievement among a younger generation.
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/americas/us-elections/obama-victory-caps-fivedecade-civil-rights-struggle-for-blacks-1521836.html

The very old house I grew up in Ohio, a mile from Lake Erie, was a station on the underground railroad which transported escaped slaves to Canada. (It was also a speakeasy during prohibition. Much of the alcohol served probably came from Canada.)

You Canadians also have a history of slavery.

In 1628 the first recorded slave in Canada was brought by a British Convoy to New France. Olivier le Juene was the name given to the boy originally from Madagascar. His given name resonates with the Code Noir, although loosely established, the Code Noir forced baptisms and decreed the conversion of all slaves to Catholicism. <5> His name is reflective of a tradition in New France that would give slaves a name from prominent Catholic figures. By 1688 the favourability of domestic servitude and its integral part of New France society was evidenced by a group of French aristocrats who petitioned King Louis XIV to import more slaves from West Africa. <6> By the early 1700s, Africans began arriving in greater numbers in New France, mainly as slaves of French aristocracy. Slavery was further fortified by the Raudot Bill of 1709. The bill was an ordinance that recognized slavery in New France in law,"Panis and Negroes who have been purchased and who will be purchased, shall be property of those who have purchased them and will be their slaves."<7> Although slavery continued after the British conquest, the slave trade was not formally established as there was no need for a large labour force given the localized (fur and fisheries based) economies of the northern colonies. Despite the seemingly less physical work (as compared to slave labour on plantations) and as a result of their position within the domestic realms of their slave owners, Canadian slaves were always under the watchful gaze of their owners. By the time of the Conquest there were approximately 3,604 slaves in New France. Most of these were located around Montreal, where the economy was most dependent on labour. Historian Marcel Trudel has recorded 4,092 slaves throughout Canadian history, of which 2,692 were aboriginal people, owned mostly by the French, and 1,400 blacks owned mostly by the British, together owned by approximately 1,400 masters. The region of Montreal dominated with 2,077 slaves, compared to 1,059 for Quebec City overall and 114 for Trois-Rivières. Several marriages took place between French colonists and slaves: 31 unions with aboriginal slaves and 8 with black slaves.

****snip****

By 1797, courts began to rule in favour of slaves who complained of poor treatment from their owners.<9> These developments were resisted in Lower Canada until 1803, when Chief Justice William Osgoode ruled that slavery was not compatible with British law.

This historic judgment, while it did not abolish slavery, set free 300 slaves and resulted in the rapid decline of the practice of slavery. However, slavery remained in Upper and Lower Canada until 1834 when the British Parliament's Slavery Abolition Act finally abolished slavery in all parts of the British Empire.

Most of the emancipated slaves of African descent in Canada were in the 1830s sent to settle Freetown in Sierra Leone and those that remained primarily ended up in segregated communities such as Africville outside Halifax, Nova Scotia.

****snip****

Around the time of the Emancipation, the Underground Railroad network was established in the United States, particularly Ohio, where slaves would cross into the Northern States over the Ohio River en route to various settlements and towns in Upper Canada (known as Canada West from 1841 to 1867, now Ontario).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Canada

I would consider Canadians as historically more enlightened about the issue of slavery. We ended up fighting a civil war that killed at least 620,000 Americans and to some degree involved the basic issue of slavery. More casualties occurred in our Civil War than our nation's loss in all its other wars, from the Revolution through Vietnam.

But on a different note, I might agree with your statement:

Bowed low under the yoke of tyrants you are still, it seems. Let us know if we can help in any way, eh?

I look at the heath care debate and what I see shows me that our elections are meaningless as the corporations own the people we elect.

[iverglas]

25. yeah, but

You Canadians also have a history of slavery.

Those were the French Canadians.

Many, many factors involved. Canada was settled entirely differently from the US, for different purposes, at a different time, by different kinds of people, and under different conditions. Slave labour was particularly advantageous for the southern US economy - not for the northern US, any more than Canada. Who knows how things might have been different had it been possible to cultivate cotton north of the Mason-Dixon line, or the Great Lakes?

Social progress often comes because it can, or because it's needed. Compulsory education for children / prohibitions on child labour became necessary and possible, at a certain point, because a skilled, literate workforce was needed by business and industry and because the society could afford to function without child labour, and afford to fund schools. I do tend to attribute progress as much to factors like those as to any moral superiority on the part of whoever made it first.

Btw, it's the Underground RailWAY. At least on this side of the border. ;)

Here. You'll enjoy this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqgOvzUeiAA

Tommy Douglas, Father of Canadian Medicare, The Greatest Canadian, etc. etc.


And now I have to go bury my cat.

[spin]

26. Absolutely great video...thanks...

Unfortunately, it sums up our situation in the states. We are merely feudal slaves to the big corporation Lords of the Realm or mice in Mouseland ruled by cats. Makes little difference.

In the states we know it as the Underground Railroad. Interesting.

The Underground Railroad was an informal network of secret routes and safe houses used by 19th century Black slaves in the United States to escape to free states and Canada with the aid of abolitionists who were sympathetic to their cause.<1> The term is also applied to the abolitionists who aided the fugitives.<2> Other various routes led to Mexico or overseas.<3> The Underground Railroad was at its height between 1810 and 1850,<4> with over 30,000 people escaping enslavement (mainly to Canada) via the network,<5> though US Census figures only account for 6000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_Railroad

Sorry about your cat. I'm fond of both dogs and cats. Three years ago I lost my best friend, a cat named Turbo. There is a possibility that he died because of poisoned food from China. I had always fed him Science Diet but he was off his food. I was in the process of moving to the house I now live in and was living in a camper trailer. I assumed that he was upset because of the move and bought him some cheap cat food to temp him. (I call it MacDonalds for cats.) he ate fine for a couple of days but then stopped eating and seemed listless.

So I took him to the vet. His liver functions were totally off the scale. The vet told me that they could try heroic measures but chances were very slim. I had him put down. I walked out with tears in my eyes. As I type this, I am tearing up. (So much for the image of a tough gun lover.) Did the Chinese food cause is problem? Who knows. The fact that some cat food from China was contaminated didn't come to light for several months. I'm not even sure of the brand I fed him.

But he was well cared for and had no previous problems and regularity visited the vet. The suspicious part is the vet was absolutely amazed at the test results. The liver functions were not simply high, they were WAY off scale.

Well a year ago, I got another cat. A feral cat found as a kitten by the father of a neighbor's kid hiding in the engine compartment of a car. The father, who once was a preacher wanted to kill the little kitten. The daughter brought it to us.

We found the little fellow very brave. At first he would fit in the palm of your hand. He would play with my daughter's Boston terriers in the back yard and one time I remember that the Rottweiler that belonged to the police officer who was rooming with us was carrying him around in his mouth.

So we decided to give him a chance. We had named him Grim because we considered his chances of survival so slim. We live on a major highway so we decided he would be better off as an indoor cat. He was neutered and his front claws removed to protect the eyes of my daughter's Boston terriers. (I hated doing that, but it was a family agreement.)

Well it worked out well. Grim is a happy fellow who absolutely loves playing with our Boston Terriers. They chase him, he chases them.

Will he ever replace my other cat friend? No, but he may be equal in my mind.

A picture of Turbo, the cat that died, is my screen saver.

[Tim01]

28. If you are serious about your cat I am very sorry. nt

[spin]

30. Yes, I am serious...

Like I said I like both cats and dogs.

I've owned both and I'll never forget a male Norwegian Elkhound named Happy and a female Black Lab named Duchess.

[Tim01]

31. I also like both.

And I never get over loosing them.

I've chosen not to have anymore. At least for now. It is just too hard loosing them.

[spin]

34. I really never thought I would have another cat...

my daughter talked me into it. It has worked out well.

[iverglas]

53. hey, butt out

Tim01 was talking to me. ;)

[Scout]

50. i'm sorry to hear about your cat

had he lived a nice long kitty life?

[iverglas]

52. katzen yammering

Sorry I didn't reply earlier. The cat's death was expected; Pig had been ailing for about 4 weeks, but his rebound in the last week had sent me deep into denial. Big anorexia, just like his two stepbrothers in the previous 3 years. His tummy would be tempted by chicken, then no. Then ham, then no. Finally we were down to turkey gravy being the only thing that would pass his lips. Then suddenly a week ago he started demanding canned cat food, guzzling it down in great quantities, and gaining a bit of weight back.

But shortly after I got home Thursday night, about 11:30, came a knock on the door. Passersby had found him lying on the sidewalk diagonally across the street, immobilized. I brought him home and prepared to ready the quantity of cat morphine I had left from when the last one was sick. Then came the knock on the door from the Humane Society -- apparently the passersby had called before learning the cat's address, from the neighbour near where he was lying, to report a sick stray. Graciously, I invited the officer into our home to confirm that it was my cat and I was dealing with it. I made the mistake of mentioning the morphine. (The $200 for official euthanizing was an expense we hadn't planned for just at the moment.)

The officer took exception, so I assured her we would go to the vet instead, and in fact intended to; I hadn't thought the whole thing through when I first spoke, although I'm really very sure I had enough morphine to do the trick. She then thought she could refuse to leave my home until she had observed me calling the all-night vet clinic and the cab, and that she could demand my name. I disabused her on both points: she would leave my home when I asked, and I would not give her my name because I had no obligation to. I don't know whether she actually left or stayed parked somewhere around, but we went off to the vet. Anyhow, this wasn't the circumstances in which I would have chosen to deal with a cat's death.

The second recent cat to go, Carl, last summer, had been diagnosed with FIV a couple of years before. At that time, the neighbour whose house Pig collapsed in front of had a cat already diagnosed -- all the cats around here are street cats. One of my others, Tab, mixed it up regularly with hers and my other one, so I had him tested and he was negative. However, he died first, 5 years ago, of the same wasting. We left it late to take him for euthanasia, so with Carl we picked a time when we knew any longer would just be denial.

This leaves us with two. Yes, when Pig arrived on the porch he became the fifth, not something I had actually planned. Pig and Carl made their own way here. Tab was abandoned by tenants across the street and it took me a while to bring him around. They also abandoned two pregnant females and one not yet pregnant; I had that one spayed and found here a home, and found homes for a litter of kittens and then their mother and her pregnant sister. I've also paid to have a low-income neighbour's cats spayed.

Bouchée, one of my remaining two, was a donation from a strange person around the corner; she had had 3 litters in 2 years. Eddie, the other, had moved into a box on the porch of the neighbour with the FIV cat; she couldn't take him, so I found him a home, and three days later the new owners called to report they'd taken him to the Humane Society because he was sick. Oh yes, said the Humane Society, he's sick and must be euthanized. I paid $85 to get him back and he's happy and healthy 8 years later.

Anyhow. I'm the one the officious Humane Society officer decides to treat like an outlaw. A letter will be going to her director. And that's why I was late acknowledging the condolences and nice words. Just too pissed off.

Now it's time to start work on Raúl, the granddaddy of the feral colony here, a beautiful long-haired dark grey guy who pisses on everything in sight, but waits at the door for his dinner, and was a proper papa to the kitten his erstwhile mate had a few years ago, while she was the worst mother you can imagine. He's at least a decade old and shouldn't spend another winter outdoors, even in our garage. I may have to choose between him and the co-vivant. The co-vivant might not want to press the point.

Here, all who have lost cats. Have a casserole. ;)

[spin]

55. Interesting story. Thanks for the update....

That casserole looks tempting.

[JonQ]

62. Having elections is no substitute for having defined and protected rights

that's why most democracies don't have constiutions that simply say whatever 50%+1 decide on any given day will be the policy. That is mob rule, and while technically democratic, is a potential nightmare.

Most countries, Canada included, place limits on the power of the electorate to pass laws that would infringe on whatever it deems to be a right.

So saying you have elections, no need to worry about anything is a bit of a cop out.

[iverglas]

65. any chance you read the post I was replying to?

That post read as follows:

the rich and powerful try to make sure the poor and the minorities are denied firearms.

What the "rich and powerful" would be doing, in the case of any law or policy or action made or imposed or taken to that end, would presumably be a violation of a right or two, doncha think?

You say:

Having elections is no substitute for having defined and protected rights

And I didn't say or suggest or imply or think it was.

The point remains that a right can be as defined as you like, it isn't going to be protected if you elect people who attempt to deny the poor or minorities the exercise of the right.

So saying you have elections, no need to worry about anything is a bit of a cop out.

Yeah, if only I'd said that.

Anyone reading what I said for meaning would be perfectly aware that I was saying that if you don't like having the rich and powerful attempt to interfere in the exercise of rights by the poor and minorities, elect somebody else, for fuck's sake.

[Tim01]

29. I think the idea is that people in public housing don't have the same rights as the rest of us. nt

[slackmaster]

43. They shouldn't be able to vote, either

Unless they volunteer for military service.

[Xela]

54. RIghts shouldn't be violated simply for living in public housing

It is disturbing that one should suggest we don't have civil rights in a public housing environment.

Xela

[paulsby]

56. it's paternalistic, racist, classist, etc.

to ban guns from public housing. it is the perfect example of the nannystate treating adults like children. it disempowers the law abiding poor.

[JonQ]

70. Let them have guns and next thing you know they'll want the vote too!

[SteveM]

68. The NYT encapsulates the problem with modern "liberalism"...

They act like public housing is some rigid institution where all who enter must give up their Bill of Rights (no matter, they're usually minority and all poor). They throw in some whine about "families hard pressed in the current recession," but fail to relate this to anything at all. And, here again we have the "gun lobby," like it is some huge corporation that gives the Congress its marching orders. If they are so desirous of creating enemies, then at least call this "incomprehensible" force by a more credible name, like the NRA. "Public safety"? In the projects? No one's safe when a thug comes into the unarmed chicken coop to get some street cred, but the NYT doesn't see it that way and probably never will.

And of course, these "liberals" once again go after as well the 5th Amendment by bending over provocatively to whatever AG is in power. Want someone on a "list?" Get behind the NYT and you too can plug in anyone you want.

Now you know why the NYT needed a quarter billion bail-out from south of the border.