e dot dot dot
a mostly about the Internet blog by

January 2020
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
     
 


City Of Dallas Shuts Down Business Of Man Who Called Cops 414 Times In 20 Months To Deal With Criminals Near His Car Wash

Furnished content.


Let's talk about nuisance abatement laws. These are laws cities can use to shut down businesses that appear to draw more than their fair share of the criminal element.If you're a fan of asset forfeiture, you'll love nuisance laws. By abdicating their law enforcement responsibilities, cities can have their lower cost cake and eat your property too. It's win-win for cities, who love to use laws like this to effectively seize property from citizens who have the misfortune to operate legitimate businesses in high crime areas.Here's how it works in Dallas, Texas. The city says business owners must pay for their own security devices and personnel to keep their businesses free of criminals. No business will be compensated for these additional costs. All cops need to do is throw a couple of placards at the business and the city takes it from there. Criminal activity in the area is now the responsibility of businesses in the area. Can't get criminals to get off your property? Too bad. It's the city's property now.

The Dallas police chief has a new tool in her arsenal to force home and business owners to address crime on or near their properties: shame.On Wednesday, the Dallas City Council passed a "nuisance abatement" ordinance allowing Police Chief U. Renee Hall to identify properties that tolerate criminal activity and try to get the owners to address it.The new ordinance allows city officials to slap a sign on properties identified as sites of "habitual criminal activity."
The first efforts involve shaming the business owners for things they likely cannot control. This isn't the only step taken, though. The placards are the beginning. If the city feels the business owner isn't doing enough to control crime in the area (surely that's a law enforcement job?), it can shut the business down and keep fining it for anything and everything it can think of until the business owner is insolvent and has to sell the property.A South Dallas car wash owner has been fighting the city on and off for most of three decades over its application of nuisance laws. The city has already shut down Dale Davenport's car wash. City council members claim Davenport is to blame for the crime that surrounds his business. It also claims he's done next to nothing to solve a problem he didn't create.Davenport fought back. He demanded the city turn over 911 call records linked to his business in order to show the problem isn't his, but the Dallas Police Department's. After several months of being stonewalled, he has finally obtained the documents he needs to show the city it's not doing all it can to combat crime. Jim Schutze of the Dallas Observer has been following this fight for years and has the details.
After a two-year tooth-and-nail battle with the city, Davenport’s lawyer, Warren Norred, recently forced City Hall to cough up the official record of 911 calls Davenport has been making all along, begging police to come to his place of business.
It's not just a few calls scattered over several months. Davenport called the cops constantly, asking them to come deal with the criminal element that seemed to feel it could just hang out at his place of business. The city says crime is Davenport's fault. The record(s) [PDF] show this is a failure of city agencies, most notably the Dallas PD.
On and on the 911 reports go for 414 single-spaced pages... And that covers only 20 months from 1/5/18 to 9/25/19. Dale Davenport and his father, Freddy Davenport, have been calling the cops to their property for 27 years.
Davenport is suing the city and the hundreds of pages of 911 calls are vital to his litigation. The city wants to take his property, claiming he hasn't fulfilled his obligations as a citizen and business owner. 414 pages of 911 calls says otherwise. Davenport (and his father before him) have been pleading for the city to clean up a crime-infested area filled with drug houses and the criminal element drawn to this area by the (apparently) unchecked drug trade.The PD's newly-formed Nuisance Abatement Team doesn't appear to have made any impact here, other than posting placards on businesses it believes aren't doing enough to fight the crime the Dallas PD should be fighting. Paying taxes should entitle you to city services, but only thing Dallas wants to give Davenport in exchange for his involuntary contributions is all the blame for the crime that surrounds him.Fourteen years ago, a state committee investigation [PDF] found Dallas' nuisance laws had been abused severely and regularly.
Sworn testimony before the house committee described specific cases of misuse of the statute by city officials such as: • Targeting of a few, select businesses in high-crime areas, while ignoring more serious crimes occurring on surrounding properties;
• Directing businesses to hire certain security personnel with the clear suggestion that hiring these select individuals would diminish the city's threatened enforcement of nuisance abatement;
• Parking a large number of police cars in the parking lot of a business owner as a retaliatory act toward that owner, who had challenged the city's nuisance action against him and had testified in court on behalf of an individual who was acquitted of charges for resisting arrest while on the business' property;
• Using calls to police requesting assistance by the business as marks against that business in the city's criteria for evidence of nuisance abatement violations;
• Directing a hotel property owner to run criminal history checks on all guests, which is a possible violation of the guests' civil rights and could potentially subject the business to legal liability; and
• Sanctioning a local car wash owner because marihuana was found in the pants pocket of a person working on the property. It was suggested by the city legal department that the owner needed to conduct random pat-down searches of persons working on the property on a regular basis -- an act prohibited by law even for law enforcement officers.
To sum up:
[T]he committees are gravely concerned that the problems stemming from Dallas' use of the nuisance laws are the result of a unique and incorrect interpretation of those laws by city officials -- wrongly taking the laws to mean that fighting crime is no longer the city's responsibility but has instead now become primarily the responsibility of private citizens and businesses; and that private citizens can be held strictly liable for crimes that take place on or near their property even when they are not involved in that crime, have taken affirmative steps to prevent the crime, are themselves victims of that crime, and have reported the crime, requesting the assistance of law enforcement agencies. Furthermore, the body of evidence available to the committees also strongly suggests that the city uses the nuisance laws to intimidate, promote cronyism, and inappropriately use law enforcement personnel, specifically uniformed police and code enforcement officers, to deliver not-too-subtle messages of coercion and retaliation to legitimate businesses and property owners who refuse to submit to such tactics.
It's 2020. Nothing has changed. The city continues to shrug off its responsibilities and put private business owners in the impossible position of clearing out nearby crime without relying on the law enforcement services the city is supposed to provide to taxpayers. I guess the city believes it's only obligation to business owners like Davenport is to staff 911 call centers. Other than that, they're on their own until the city shuts them down.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story


Read more here

posted at: 12:00am on 18-Jan-2020
path: /Policy | permalink | edit (requires password)

0 comments, click here to add the first



Airbus Asks Court To Dismiss Chuck Yeager's Lawsuit, Pointing Out It Doesn't Allege Anything Actionable

Furnished content.


You may recall that last summer we wrote about how American aviation legend Chuck Yeager decided to sue Airbus when the company mentioned the fact that Yeager broke the sound barrier in marketing material. Yeager's lawyer is Lincoln Bandlow, who has spent much of the past few years as a copyright troll after a formerly respectable career in which he once touted himself a free-speech fighter. His complaint, however, served mostly as comedic material. There were claims of trademark infringement and violation of Yeager's publicity rights. Neither made much sense, as repeating a historical fact, even in marketing material, does not constitute either violation and is clearly protected speech. It was only a matter of time before Airbus responded and now we have that response.Airbus is apparently seeking dismissal by the court on two grounds. The first, and least interesting, is on jurisdictional grounds, as you can read in the filing (which other news sites seem not to have included for reasons beyond me).

Plaintiffs allege that AIRBUS U.S. has offices throughout the United States,including an office in Huntington Beach, California..., and that AHI isbased in Grand Prairie, Texas..... But neither company is incorporated inCalifornia or has its principal place of business in California, nor are they anyallegations in the Complaint that could even remotely warrant deeming this anexceptional case. Accordingly, under Daimler, general jurisdiction in California isprecluded. See, e.g., Martinez, 764 F. 3d at 1070 (noting that Daimler rejected theargument that general jurisdiction is present when a defendant engages in asubstantial, continuous, and systematic course of business in a state; denyingassertion of general jurisdiction when forum is not state of incorporation or principalplace of business of defendant); Perry v. Brown, 2019 WL 1452911, at *5 (C.D. Cal.Mar. 13, 2019), aff'd and remanded, 2019 WL 5787987 (9th Cir. Nov. 6, 2019) (nogeneral jurisdiction over defendant incorporated in Tennessee; recognizing that thereis nothing about this case that would suggest it is an exceptional case that wouldjustify finding general jurisdiction outside of Defendant's state of residency.).
So, yeah. Nothing about this case makes it exceptional to escape the normal jurisdictional restrictions. Given its overall flimsy nature, I wouldn't be shocked to see the court comply with the dismissal on this alone.But the response goes on to point out that Yeager and his lawyer seem to have gotten very, very confused about which company he's supposed to be suing, believing that a European company is connected to an American company, when they're actually not.
Plaintiffs do not allege that either AHI or AIRBUS U.S. committed anyintentional act, let alone any intentional act that is relevant to the claims in theComplaint. The only intentional acts alleged in the Complaint relate to the use ofYeager's name in the 2017 statement from the Paris Air Show, the publication of thestatement on the Airbus.com website, and the alleged video of Yeager visiting Munichand Toulouse. Yet, there are no allegations in the Complaint even suggesting that anyof this--all of which allegedly took place in Europe--had anything to do with Texas-basedAHI or Virginia-based AIRBUS U.S.In fact, the only mention of either of these Defendants in connection with thesubstantive allegations of the Complaint is the statement in Paragraph 21 that Lutz Bertling was the CEO of Eurocopter which, Plaintiffs' allege, is the predecessorof Defendant AHI.... But that assertion is demonstrably false. Thecompany of which Bertling was the CEO is Eurocopter S.A.S., the prior name ofAirbus Helicopters S.A.S., the French company that has not been named in this action.
The response goes on to point that even if you could say that suing American companies for actions of a different (even if connected) European company, none of the actions that are being sued over involved conduct aimed at California, where the suite has been filed:
The actions relating to the 2017 statement and the alleged undated video werenot expressly aimed at the state of California. The challenged statement was made inFrance about a European-focused project and then published on a passive websiteregistered by a European company that is not directed to any particular location.... Beyond the fact that the 2017 statement is in English,there is nothing to indicate that it was directed specifically at the United States, muchless that it was expressly aimed at California or any other specific place within theUnited States. In fact, the repeated use of British spelling in the statement (not tomention the substance of the statement) confirms that, if anything, the statement wasdirected to a European audience, not to the United States more generally or toCalifornia specifically. The allegations about the supposed misuse of a video made in2008 in Europe are sparse, to say the least. There certainly are none connecting thealleged misuse of the alleged video to California.
There's also a statute of limitations problem to toss on top of everything else, which they note Yeager should certainly know about since some of his previous similar lawsuits have been tossed out for this reason:
The Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs learned of the alleged misuse of thispurported video sometime in 2012--more than six years before the Complaint wasfiled in September 2019. Because all of Plaintiffs' claims are subject to statutes oflimitations well short of six years, they are all time-barred. Indeed, the Ninth Circuithas affirmed dismissal of several of Yeager's prior lawsuits based on similar types ofclaims because he filed them beyond the applicable limitations periods.
And then after all that, finally, the complaint highlights that even if jurisdiction is proper, and even if they get lumped in with the other companies, the whole thing is still a joke because Yeager admits in his complaint that Airbus has the right to do what it did:
These allegations do not state a violation of any intellectual property or contractrights. Plaintiffs expressly allege that Airbus had the right to show the purportedvideo to employees. That is, the Complaint does not allege any facts showing thatAirbus used Yeager's name or likeness beyond what Plaintiffs allege Yeagerexpressly authorized.
As we said in our original post, there doesn't appear to be anything at all wrong with what Airbus did in referencing a fact about Chuck Yeager. On a more personal note, it's quite sad to see an American hero reduced to trying to profiteer off of the mere mention of his achievements.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story


Read more here

posted at: 12:00am on 18-Jan-2020
path: /Policy | permalink | edit (requires password)

0 comments, click here to add the first



January 2020
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
     
 







RSS (site)  RSS (path)

ATOM (site)  ATOM (path)

Categories
 - blog home

 - Announcements  (0)
 - Annoyances  (0)
 - Career_Advice  (0)
 - Domains  (0)
 - Downloads  (3)
 - Ecommerce  (0)
 - Fitness  (0)
 - Home_and_Garden  (0)
     - Cooking  (0)
     - Tools  (0)
 - Humor  (0)
 - Notices  (0)
 - Observations  (1)
 - Oddities  (2)
 - Online_Marketing  (0)
     - Affiliates  (1)
     - Merchants  (1)
 - Policy  (3743)
 - Programming  (0)
     - Bookmarklets  (1)
     - Browsers  (1)
     - DHTML  (0)
     - Javascript  (3)
     - PHP  (0)
     - PayPal  (1)
     - Perl  (37)
          - blosxom  (0)
     - Unidata_Universe  (22)
 - Random_Advice  (1)
 - Reading  (0)
     - Books  (0)
     - Ebooks  (0)
     - Magazines  (0)
     - Online_Articles  (5)
 - Resume_or_CV  (1)
 - Reviews  (2)
 - Rhode_Island_USA  (0)
     - Providence  (1)
 - Shop  (0)
 - Sports  (0)
     - Football  (0)
          - Cowboys  (0)
          - Patriots  (0)
     - Futbol  (0)
          - The_Rest  (0)
          - USA  (0)
 - Technology  (1055)
 - Windows  (1)
 - Woodworking  (0)


Archives
 -2024  March  (170)
 -2024  February  (168)
 -2024  January  (146)
 -2023  December  (140)
 -2023  November  (174)
 -2023  October  (156)
 -2023  September  (161)
 -2023  August  (49)
 -2023  July  (40)
 -2023  June  (44)
 -2023  May  (45)
 -2023  April  (45)
 -2023  March  (53)
 -2023  February  (40)


My Sites

 - Millennium3Publishing.com

 - SponsorWorks.net

 - ListBug.com

 - TextEx.net

 - FindAdsHere.com

 - VisitLater.com