If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AlterNet)   WTF Vermont? We thought you were cool   (alternet.org) divider line 52
    More: Asinine, try, attorney-client privilege, due process, Bernie Sanders, John Franco  
•       •       •

7397 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Jun 2013 at 4:37 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



52 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-22 11:35:41 AM  
This is what we have to look forward to with socialism.
 
2013-06-22 11:59:34 AM  
I have seen the law in question and believe me, you don't need to see it. You're better off not seeing it.
 
2013-06-22 12:03:15 PM  
The story from Vermont, of all places, is breathtakingly simple: the elected city council, in a bi-partisan vote, has decided to keep its law-making process secret, rather than openly address the question of whether a draconian no-trespass law it passed last winter is patently unconstitutional.

make me some tea: This is what we have to look forward to with socialism.


That's not socialism, it's authoritarianism. And both parties absolutely love it.
 
2013-06-22 12:06:46 PM  
Who do they think they are? The Obama administration?
 
2013-06-22 12:17:33 PM  
the five Progressive Party members introduced a resolution at the June 10 council meeting seeking to make the secret city attorney's office memo public.

Hooray for those five.

Giant middle finger to the rest of you assholes.
 
2013-06-22 12:22:26 PM  
How can a city council hide behind client-attorney privileges on a legal opinion justifying a public ordinance?  Even the Bush Administration felt obligated to release its legal reasonings about its policies. I can't see how this stands up in court.

/never mind going to court to settle the constitutionality of the ordinance itself
//politicians really seem to hate the first amendment
 
2013-06-22 01:32:39 PM  
From the description of the bill it sounds like it only applies to certain, specific, streets. Anyone confirm this? Or can they use this to just clear every street in the city?
 
2013-06-22 01:37:20 PM  
It could be worse. Northampton had a regular policy to sweep up transients and then drop them off in neighboring Holyoke, because no one wanted the dirty hobos and junkies on the streets, nor did they want to use up their shelter space or to waste perfectly good rehab slots for homeless folks, as opposed to the folks with jobs. That was decided without a city council vote, and simply enacted by the local police as simple policy. It worked out great for statistics, because the folks that they dumped over the town line never showed up on their rolls, save as transport costs, and the police made it sound like they were helping people to their homes, despite great inconvenience to the force.

Yeah, the Northampton cops are a just sweethearts like that...

/in fairness, when I bounced there were some good cops I worked with, but there is still a lot of weird politics for such a "progressive" town...
 
2013-06-22 01:44:07 PM  
I've noticed that retained attorneys like to tell people what they want to hear.
 
2013-06-22 01:58:28 PM  
Not Vermont but Burlington.

In support of this look at the riff-raff that they are cleaning up:

farm7.staticflickr.com

I mean, who wants that on your streets.
 
2013-06-22 02:24:01 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Not Vermont but Burlington.

In support of this look at the riff-raff that they are cleaning up:

[farm7.staticflickr.com image 640x428]

I mean, who wants that on your streets.


Mmmm, seems like Key West to me with strange people like that wandering about.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-06-22 03:24:42 PM  
It sounds like a vagrancy law, which should be easy to challenge in court.
 
2013-06-22 04:40:28 PM  

vpb: It sounds like a vagrancy law, which should be easy to challenge in court.


Not if you bus them out far enough....
 
2013-06-22 04:41:32 PM  
make me some tea:  I don't know what words mean..
 
2013-06-22 04:44:19 PM  
i.imgur.com
"Vermont?!"
 
2013-06-22 04:45:58 PM  
So it's cool to kowtow to bums now?
 
2013-06-22 04:46:25 PM  
Is there something specific they're trying to combat with this, or just the ol' get the bums off the street?
 
2013-06-22 04:47:47 PM  
Don't challenge the hobo lobby.  They are masters at getting small donations - just like Obama!
 
2013-06-22 04:51:24 PM  

balloot: Don't challenge the hobo lobby.  They are masters at getting small donations - just like Obama!


You'd love this webcomic.
 
2013-06-22 04:51:49 PM  
Burlington city attorney Eileen Blackwood argues, according to Seven Days, that her office's legal analysis is protected by attorney-client privilege, in a construct where both the attorney and the "client" work for the City of Burlington. Protected by privilege, she has asserted, the legal analysis "must thus be treated as confidential."

Dafuq?

Shenanigans! I calls 'em!!
 
2013-06-22 04:56:16 PM  

Shakin_Haitian: balloot: Don't challenge the hobo lobby.  They are masters at getting small donations - just like Obama!

You'd love this webcomic.


Holy shiat, those are so awful they make my soul hurt.  Right wingers are so bad at humor...jesus...
 
2013-06-22 04:59:03 PM  
That's right, rather than explain why the law it passed is constitutional, the Burlington City Council is hiding behind lawyer-client privilege

Uhhh, wouldn't the city council be the 'client' here?  Can't clients breach confidentiality any time they want?
 
2013-06-22 05:02:12 PM  

GreenAdder: [i.imgur.com image 445x335]
"Vermont?!"


In a row?!
 
2013-06-22 05:06:23 PM  

Shakin_Haitian: balloot: Don't challenge the hobo lobby.  They are masters at getting small donations - just like Obama!

You'd love this webcomic.


Guy from my political team gets bashed? I MUST DEFEND HIM BY INSINUATING THE OTHER GUY IS ONE OF THE DUMBEST MEMBERS OF THE OTHER TEAM!
 
2013-06-22 05:07:23 PM  
I have one thing to say about this  law...

img.fark.net
 
2013-06-22 05:18:11 PM  
Yanno I bemoan NYT for taking three pages to get to the farking point but by god, provide SOME background.
 
2013-06-22 05:42:30 PM  

Shakin_Haitian: balloot: Don't challenge the hobo lobby.  They are masters at getting small donations - just like Obama!

You'd love this webcomic.


That...that....I don't even have the words to discribe the amount of vitriol it must take on a daily basis to produce such a "web comic"

It like Farva yelling "CHICKEN FARKER" and being oblivious as to why its neither clever nor funny.

The comments section made a part of my hope for humanity shrivel up and die.
 
2013-06-22 05:59:24 PM  
Can't imagine where that idea came from.
 
2013-06-22 06:05:01 PM  
IamTomJoad: Shakin_Haitian: balloot: Don't challenge the hobo lobby.  They are masters at getting small donations - just like Obama!

You'd love this webcomic.

That...that....I don't even have the words to discribe the amount of vitriol it must take on a daily basis to produce such a "web comic"

It like Farva yelling "CHICKEN FARKER" and being oblivious as to why its neither clever nor funny.


The comments section made a part of my hope for humanity shrivel up and die.

Oh c'mon. For crying out loud, how bad could the comments at Hope n' Change comic's shiattyblogsite be?

*click*

1 - 17 of 17

George in Houtx said...

Stilt, drinking or not, ye done good! pretty much everyone who is not a raving lib or environut will agree that ANY governmental plan to control the weather is really about CONTROL. as for the difference in crowd sizes ..... 1)Obama has had over 4 years to show people what he is REALLY about. 2)last time there was free beer and a local band for entertainment 3)by now, Obama is acting too much like another politician from Germany's past.


Wow, Godwinned in the boobies.

*weeps for humanity*
 
2013-06-22 06:06:36 PM  
Portland used to have an "exclusion zone" in Old Town. People caught dealing drugs or hooking would be issued a notice that they'd be arrested if they so much as set foot in the area. Of course they had to be arrested first. Even then the constitutionality was questioned. Looks like this one doesn't even require an arrest. Good luck with that, Vermont.
 
2013-06-22 06:08:00 PM  

Flint Ironstag: From the description of the bill it sounds like it only applies to certain, specific, streets. Anyone confirm this? Or can they use this to just clear every street in the city?


First they banned them on main street and I didn't say anything...
 
2013-06-22 06:39:31 PM  
Freedom from panhandlers.  That's awesomely cool.   Nobody is forbidden to be their, but if someone becomes a nuisance to everyone else, c'ya.
 
2013-06-22 06:46:23 PM  
yeah this one won't survive a court challenge,
 
2013-06-22 06:48:37 PM  

machoprogrammer: Shakin_Haitian: balloot: Don't challenge the hobo lobby.  They are masters at getting small donations - just like Obama!

You'd love this webcomic.

Guy from my political team gets bashed? I MUST DEFEND HIM BY INSINUATING THE OTHER GUY IS ONE OF THE DUMBEST MEMBERS OF THE OTHER TEAM!


Woosh.

Think about the type of humor, not that 0bama is being criticized.
 
2013-06-22 07:21:12 PM  

hubiestubert: It could be worse. Northampton had a regular policy to sweep up transients and then drop them off in neighboring Holyoke, because no one wanted the dirty hobos and junkies on the streets, nor did they want to use up their shelter space or to waste perfectly good rehab slots for homeless folks, as opposed to the folks with jobs. That was decided without a city council vote, and simply enacted by the local police as simple policy. It worked out great for statistics, because the folks that they dumped over the town line never showed up on their rolls, save as transport costs, and the police made it sound like they were helping people to their homes, despite great inconvenience to the force.


^THIS

Many rural police departments "assist" the homeless/poor/transient to the nearest homeless shelter... which is normally in the larger city and out of their jurisdiction.
 
2013-06-22 07:51:40 PM  
fta The ordinance allows the immediate and arbitrary banishment of people from public streets with no due process of law and no effective appeal process

Apparently you have enough money to waste. Enjoy your lawsuits.
 
2013-06-22 10:26:18 PM  
I'm not seeing what is bad about this law.

The actual law wasn't really explained.

Basically they want to trespass people (potentially homeless people) from a certain area of town.

You of course realize that there are vagrancy laws in many many many municipalities across the nation.
 
2013-06-22 10:41:44 PM  

thrgd456: I'm not seeing what is bad about this law.


thrgd456: Basically they want to trespass people (potentially homeless people) from a certain area of town.


That's what's bad about this law.

thrgd456: You of course realize that there are vagrancy laws in many many many municipalities across the nation.


And vagrancy laws are largely bad laws, and often unenforceable and unconstitutional. They've been a tool for cities to abuse those least able to use the process of government. After the Civil War, they were one of the many  manylaws built to enshrine racism. Cities are free to make certain behaviors illegal- loitering, panhandling, prostitution, etc. They cannot make  people illegal, or deny citizens access to public places.

But that's not the worst part about this law- the worst part is that the city is claiming they don't need to explain the law or the reasoning used to create it.
 
2013-06-22 11:19:19 PM  
This sounds like some Koch Bros. shenanigans. Please Vermont, don't turn into another Wisconsin or New Hampshire.
 
2013-06-23 01:40:56 AM  
2 quick questions

If the city council works for the citizens, and the lawyer works for the city council, than doesn't that mean that the lawyer works for the citizens, who would have just as much privilege to see the documents?

Second, if the lawyer works for the city council, why can't the 5 city council members waive their individual privilege and release their copies of the analysis?
 
2013-06-23 02:21:43 AM  

JPINFV: 2 quick questions

If the city council works for the citizens, and the lawyer works for the city council, than doesn't that mean that the lawyer works for the citizens, who would have just as much privilege to see the documents?


No.  Sue the company you work for and see if that reasoning works for you.  The City Council as a body has the ability to receive legal advice.  Governing bodies often go into executive sessions to discuss actions with the advice of legal counsel..

Second, if the lawyer works for the city council, why can't the 5 city council members waive their individual privilege and release their copies of the analysis?

They don't have any individual privilege.  Once they are in executive session, they would be breaching the rights of the council and all other members to unilaterally disclose it.  Highly unethical and possibly illegal depending on the topic.

Most likely this law will just give police discretion.  "Either I arrest you for prostitution/panhandling/public intoxication or you just agree not to come over here."  This is done on private property all the time.  As long as the area the council has created is defined, it will be fine.  Cities have public places (e.g. libraries, museums, zoos, etc)  that they will create hours and trespass nuisance offenders.  Yes, you can be banned from the public library on penalty of arrest if you create a nuisance or disturbance.  This is no different as long as the area is defined.
 
2013-06-23 02:50:33 AM  
First of all, Vermont IS cool! Damn cool. Ben and friggin' Jerry's cool. Anyways, I think Burlington city(?) government has mistaken themselves for an HOA.
 
2013-06-23 03:23:37 AM  

tbeatty: Cities have public places (e.g. libraries, museums, zoos, etc) that they will create hours and trespass nuisance offenders. Yes, you can be banned from the public library on penalty of arrest if you create a nuisance or disturbance. This is no different as long as the area is defined.


I think there's a significant difference between a library and a street. I can completely understand why someone would be banned from a library/stadium/city hall/etc even though it's "public." Banning someone from walking down a specific street, on the other hand, requires a rather hard sell for me.
 
2013-06-23 03:51:29 AM  

JPINFV: tbeatty: Cities have public places (e.g. libraries, museums, zoos, etc) that they will create hours and trespass nuisance offenders. Yes, you can be banned from the public library on penalty of arrest if you create a nuisance or disturbance. This is no different as long as the area is defined.

I think there's a significant difference between a library and a street. I can completely understand why someone would be banned from a library/stadium/city hall/etc even though it's "public." Banning someone from walking down a specific street, on the other hand, requires a rather hard sell for me.


It's the same reasons.  Disorderly conduct.  It's the behavior that is not permitted and if a person continues that behavior in a venue that the lawmakers representing the people deem disruptive to whatever activity they are protecting, they can create trespassing ordinances.  Why do you make a distinction between a street and any other public venue if it's the behavior that causes the trespass?
 
2013-06-23 04:36:48 AM  
remember always, that the law treats all men equally

whether you be rich or be poor
you are not allowed to sleep under bridges or beg on the street corners
 
2013-06-23 04:43:39 AM  

bindlestiff2600: remember always, that the law treats all men equally

whether you be rich or be poor
you are not allowed to sleep under bridges or beg on the street corners


Yep.  Can't actually arrest people for the crime of being penniless.. just for acting like someone with no money.
 
2013-06-23 06:48:52 AM  

Alphax: bindlestiff2600: remember always, that the law treats all men equally

whether you be rich or be poor
you are not allowed to sleep under bridges or beg on the street corners

Yep.  Can't actually arrest people for the crime of being penniless.. just for acting like someone with no money.


If you think bums are penniless, you're not paying attention.
 
2013-06-23 06:54:52 AM  

moothemagiccow: Alphax: bindlestiff2600: remember always, that the law treats all men equally

whether you be rich or be poor
you are not allowed to sleep under bridges or beg on the street corners

Yep.  Can't actually arrest people for the crime of being penniless.. just for acting like someone with no money.

If you think bums are penniless, you're not paying attention.


Uh huh.  Those dirty guys with signs that say 'army vet, will work for food' are all fakers?
 
2013-06-23 07:09:48 AM  

t3knomanser: thrgd456: I'm not seeing what is bad about this law.

thrgd456: Basically they want to trespass people (potentially homeless people) from a certain area of town.

That's what's bad about this law.

thrgd456: You of course realize that there are vagrancy laws in many many many municipalities across the nation.

And vagrancy laws are largely bad laws, and often unenforceable and unconstitutional. They've been a tool for cities to abuse those least able to use the process of government. After the Civil War, they were one of the many  manylaws built to enshrine racism. Cities are free to make certain behaviors illegal- loitering, panhandling, prostitution, etc. They cannot make  people illegal, or deny citizens access to public places.

But that's not the worst part about this law- the worst part is that the city is claiming they don't need to explain the law or the reasoning used to create it.


Actually, generally panhandling is considered protected speech under the first amendment. So a further reason this law may be unconstitutional.
 
2013-06-23 07:23:37 AM  

moothemagiccow: Alphax: bindlestiff2600: remember always, that the law treats all men equally

whether you be rich or be poor
you are not allowed to sleep under bridges or beg on the street corners

Yep.  Can't actually arrest people for the crime of being penniless.. just for acting like someone with no money.

If you think bums are penniless, you're not paying attention.


Yeah, they can afford 40s and a bowl of soup!
 
Displayed 50 of 52 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report