In an unexpected move, two members of the Los Angeles City Council rightfully stood up against the new City Attorney, Carmen Trutanich, and his attempt to eliminates medicinal marijuana sales in L.A. despite the citizens' desire for them to stay legal.
The City Council members voted after a hearing about the proposal, which "neighborhood activists" supported and medicinal marijuana providers and patients opposed.
The ban would have probably put Los Angeles' estimated thousand of dispensaries out of business with the threat of criminal prosecution. Thankfully, two City Council members were willing to thwart the City Attorney's attempt to make medicinal marijuana sales illegal in L.A..
The ban also would have created even more unemployed citizens in the place of medicinal marijuana providers, and patients would have been forced to venture outside the city's limits to obtain the medicine that they need..
Los Angeles citizens should be proud that their elected representatives are willing to stand up to the City Attorney's attempt to vanquish medicinal marijuana in spite of the citizens' obvious desire for dispensaries to continue to operate legally.
Source
Monday, December 28, 2009
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
In rebuff to city attorney, council committees support pot dispensaries
Two Los Angeles City Council committees rejected the advice of the city attorney and voted Monday to approve an ordinance that allows marijuana dispensaries to continue to sell the drug to people with a doctor's recommendation.
The city attorney's office has maintained for a year and a half that Los Angeles has no choice but to ban sales because state law and court decisions are clear that collectives can only cultivate marijuana. That opinion had stalled the council's deliberations because dispensary operators insisted it would force them to close.
Four hours into a raucous hearing, frustrated council members decided to replace the provision with one that authorizes cash contributions as long as they comply with state law, which prohibits collectives from making a profit.
"When can we finally stop the merry-go-round?" said Councilman Dennis Zine, who urged his colleagues to discard the city attorney's version. "We're going to come back with another version and another version, and it's going to be 2010, and then 2011 and 2015, and we'll be dead by then and we won't accomplish anything."
The decision broke the major deadlock on the contentious issue. The planning and Public Safety committees sent the draft ordinance to the full council, which is likely to consider it Wednesday.
"We need something on the books now. There is no reason why we should delay," said Councilman Ed Reyes, who has overseen the council's effort to write an ordinance.
Don Duncan, a Los Angeles resident who is the California director of Americans for Safe Access, said he believed the decision would resolve one of the last obstacles. "It sounded like they were going to let a patient walk in and reimburse a collective for their medicine. We can live with that," he said.
The council's action came after a judge ruled last month that the city's 2007 moratorium on new dispensaries was illegally extended, which essentially left the city with no rules that it could rely on to shut down the hundreds of stores that have opened in the last two years.
Some council members responded favorably to the city attorney's suggestion to consider capping the number of dispensaries. Councilman Jose Huizar proposed a cap of 70, allowing two in each of the 35 community plan areas.
"Hopefully, that will allow us to control for the over-concentration," he said.
Almost 400 people crowded into the main council chamber and about 70 spoke, most testifying passionately about the medical value of marijuana and the role dispensaries play. If the council members decide to ban sales, said Degé Coutee, who runs the Patient Advocacy Network, "You will create a black market overnight. You will turn good citizens into criminals overnight. And you will get the city involved in costly litigation for years to come."
The city attorney's office has maintained for a year and a half that Los Angeles has no choice but to ban sales because state law and court decisions are clear that collectives can only cultivate marijuana. That opinion had stalled the council's deliberations because dispensary operators insisted it would force them to close.
Four hours into a raucous hearing, frustrated council members decided to replace the provision with one that authorizes cash contributions as long as they comply with state law, which prohibits collectives from making a profit.
"When can we finally stop the merry-go-round?" said Councilman Dennis Zine, who urged his colleagues to discard the city attorney's version. "We're going to come back with another version and another version, and it's going to be 2010, and then 2011 and 2015, and we'll be dead by then and we won't accomplish anything."
The decision broke the major deadlock on the contentious issue. The planning and Public Safety committees sent the draft ordinance to the full council, which is likely to consider it Wednesday.
"We need something on the books now. There is no reason why we should delay," said Councilman Ed Reyes, who has overseen the council's effort to write an ordinance.
Don Duncan, a Los Angeles resident who is the California director of Americans for Safe Access, said he believed the decision would resolve one of the last obstacles. "It sounded like they were going to let a patient walk in and reimburse a collective for their medicine. We can live with that," he said.
The council's action came after a judge ruled last month that the city's 2007 moratorium on new dispensaries was illegally extended, which essentially left the city with no rules that it could rely on to shut down the hundreds of stores that have opened in the last two years.
Some council members responded favorably to the city attorney's suggestion to consider capping the number of dispensaries. Councilman Jose Huizar proposed a cap of 70, allowing two in each of the 35 community plan areas.
"Hopefully, that will allow us to control for the over-concentration," he said.
Almost 400 people crowded into the main council chamber and about 70 spoke, most testifying passionately about the medical value of marijuana and the role dispensaries play. If the council members decide to ban sales, said Degé Coutee, who runs the Patient Advocacy Network, "You will create a black market overnight. You will turn good citizens into criminals overnight. And you will get the city involved in costly litigation for years to come."
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Kestenbaum, Eisner & Gorin, LLP Announce Major Los Angeles DUI Law Changes
Kestenbaum, Eisner & Gorin, LLP, a premier Los Angeles DUI defense law firm, is working to make the public aware of new state legislation involving new DUI laws impacting Los Angeles, Southern California and the rest of the state.
Governor Schwarzenegger recently signed into law major changes to Los Angeles DUI legislation which require certain drivers with prior DUI convictions to pass sobriety tests before driving. The first bill, proposed by Democratic Assemblyman Mike Feuer, established a pilot program requiring a breathalyzer to be installed in vehicles owned/operated by “first-time DUI offenders.” The breathalyzer will not allow the car to start until the driver measures a blood-alcohol concentration under the legal limit of .08% in California.
A second Los Angeles DUI law allows repeat DUI offenders to apply for a restricted driver’s license if they allow breathalyzers to be installed in their vehicles.
The Los Angeles DUI defense attorney team at Kestenbaum, Eisner & Gorin, is determined to provide top-notch legal representation for anyone charged with or arrested for DUI in Southern California. Drunk driving is a serious offense, and only a qualified Los Angeles DUI defense attorney can assist those who are facing serious consequences.
Los Angeles DUI Consequences
For anyone convicted of a DUI crime in Los Angeles, he or she can expect the following punishments:
· Hefty fines
· Potential jail time
· Restricted driving privileges
· Loss of driver’s license
· And long probationary periods
To properly defend against these consequences, contact the Los Angeles DUI defense attorney team at Kestenbaum, Eisner & Gorin. Their Los Angeles DUI Law Firm has a long track record of successfully defending people facing life-changing DUI consequences.
About Kestenbaum, Eisner & Gorin
The Los Angeles DUI attorneys at Kestenbaum Eisner & Gorin LLP specialize in the aggressive defense of DUI (driving under the influence of either drugs or alcohol) charges resulting from drunken driving arrests throughout Southern California. The attorneys at Kestenbaum, Eisner & Gorin are Former Senior Los Angeles Prosecutors with more than 50 years experience litigating DUI charges in court and at DMV hearings. This Los Angeles DUI defense firm has been recognized as a Top 5% U.S Law Firm year after year, receiving a “Preeminent” rating from Martindale-Hubbell, a nationally-recognized lawyers’ review company. The firm specializes in defending DUI cases in Los Angeles Superior Courts including in the San Fernando Valley, the Santa Clarita Valley, Pasadena, Metro Court on 1945 S. Hill Street and throughout Southern California.
Source
Governor Schwarzenegger recently signed into law major changes to Los Angeles DUI legislation which require certain drivers with prior DUI convictions to pass sobriety tests before driving. The first bill, proposed by Democratic Assemblyman Mike Feuer, established a pilot program requiring a breathalyzer to be installed in vehicles owned/operated by “first-time DUI offenders.” The breathalyzer will not allow the car to start until the driver measures a blood-alcohol concentration under the legal limit of .08% in California.
A second Los Angeles DUI law allows repeat DUI offenders to apply for a restricted driver’s license if they allow breathalyzers to be installed in their vehicles.
The Los Angeles DUI defense attorney team at Kestenbaum, Eisner & Gorin, is determined to provide top-notch legal representation for anyone charged with or arrested for DUI in Southern California. Drunk driving is a serious offense, and only a qualified Los Angeles DUI defense attorney can assist those who are facing serious consequences.
Los Angeles DUI Consequences
For anyone convicted of a DUI crime in Los Angeles, he or she can expect the following punishments:
· Hefty fines
· Potential jail time
· Restricted driving privileges
· Loss of driver’s license
· And long probationary periods
To properly defend against these consequences, contact the Los Angeles DUI defense attorney team at Kestenbaum, Eisner & Gorin. Their Los Angeles DUI Law Firm has a long track record of successfully defending people facing life-changing DUI consequences.
About Kestenbaum, Eisner & Gorin
The Los Angeles DUI attorneys at Kestenbaum Eisner & Gorin LLP specialize in the aggressive defense of DUI (driving under the influence of either drugs or alcohol) charges resulting from drunken driving arrests throughout Southern California. The attorneys at Kestenbaum, Eisner & Gorin are Former Senior Los Angeles Prosecutors with more than 50 years experience litigating DUI charges in court and at DMV hearings. This Los Angeles DUI defense firm has been recognized as a Top 5% U.S Law Firm year after year, receiving a “Preeminent” rating from Martindale-Hubbell, a nationally-recognized lawyers’ review company. The firm specializes in defending DUI cases in Los Angeles Superior Courts including in the San Fernando Valley, the Santa Clarita Valley, Pasadena, Metro Court on 1945 S. Hill Street and throughout Southern California.
Source
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Los Angeles residents overhwelmingly oppose prosecuting medicinal marijuana despite prosecutors
Los Angeles residents overwhelmingly oppose prosecuting medicinal marijuana as prosecutors prepare for crack down, but this does not matter to District Attorney Steve Cooley or City Attorney Carmen Trutanich. In fact, that is no logical explanation for L.A.'s prioritizing of marijuana dispensary prosecution now.
Los Angelinos County residents clearly don’t mind medicinal marijuana and aren’t in favor of the plan developed by recently elected City Attorney Carmen Trutanich or three-term District Attorney Steve Cooley to crack down on medicinal marijuana dispensaries, which continues to be reported to be any minute away.
Although any new ordinance passed or policy enforced is unlikely to be the definitive aspect missing in someone's attempt to fully understand the Los Angeles Criminal Policy on Medicinal Marijuana Dispensaries, hopefully they will be able to provide a somewhat coherent reason why the City Attorney and District Attorney have determined that all medicinal marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles are operating illegally and contrary to the thee).
Their reasoning, all dispensaries in Los Angeles are operated illegally, since they are operated for profit. Since they are illegal they are therefore not immune from prosecution for violation provisions of Senate Bill 420 or Health and Safety Code 11265, otherwise termed "the compassionate use act" of the California codes that make medicinal marijuana de-criminalized for patients and caregivers.
Regardless of this information, the new policy about to be put in effect by the LAPD, is still likely to be met with a huge amount of resident opposition. For instance, 74 % of Angelinos are in favor of medicinal marijuana policy, while 54% of Angelinos are in favor of complete legalization.
As an outside legal observer of the "legal justice system" in Southern California, I know now see D.A. Cooley use of Los Angeles County’s incredibly small economic resources toward the pursuit of “justice,” it must seem to absurd, that just as the Federal Drug Enforcement Agenicies to depoliticize the use of medicinal marijuana, so long as medicinal marijuana collective or dispensaries were legal under state law, that the top two prosecutors for the County and City of Los Angeles, have now decided to prosecute medicinal marijuana.
I cannot help but feel that is a further demonstration that the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office is far more interested in catching headlines than actually pursuing a justice, and thus, Steve Cooley only recently seems to have decided that these unchecked dispensaries are a “menace” requiring resources expenditures.
Just as Steve Cooley’s decision to extradite Mr. Roman Polanski, 33 years after he allegedly committed a crime, and in direct defiance to the victim’s victims should strike others as a further demonstration that the District Attorney’s Office should receive additional oversight if it is so spend its resources in such an arbitrary manner.
Los Angelinos County residents clearly don’t mind medicinal marijuana and aren’t in favor of the plan developed by recently elected City Attorney Carmen Trutanich or three-term District Attorney Steve Cooley to crack down on medicinal marijuana dispensaries, which continues to be reported to be any minute away.
Although any new ordinance passed or policy enforced is unlikely to be the definitive aspect missing in someone's attempt to fully understand the Los Angeles Criminal Policy on Medicinal Marijuana Dispensaries, hopefully they will be able to provide a somewhat coherent reason why the City Attorney and District Attorney have determined that all medicinal marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles are operating illegally and contrary to the thee).
Their reasoning, all dispensaries in Los Angeles are operated illegally, since they are operated for profit. Since they are illegal they are therefore not immune from prosecution for violation provisions of Senate Bill 420 or Health and Safety Code 11265, otherwise termed "the compassionate use act" of the California codes that make medicinal marijuana de-criminalized for patients and caregivers.
Regardless of this information, the new policy about to be put in effect by the LAPD, is still likely to be met with a huge amount of resident opposition. For instance, 74 % of Angelinos are in favor of medicinal marijuana policy, while 54% of Angelinos are in favor of complete legalization.
As an outside legal observer of the "legal justice system" in Southern California, I know now see D.A. Cooley use of Los Angeles County’s incredibly small economic resources toward the pursuit of “justice,” it must seem to absurd, that just as the Federal Drug Enforcement Agenicies to depoliticize the use of medicinal marijuana, so long as medicinal marijuana collective or dispensaries were legal under state law, that the top two prosecutors for the County and City of Los Angeles, have now decided to prosecute medicinal marijuana.
I cannot help but feel that is a further demonstration that the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office is far more interested in catching headlines than actually pursuing a justice, and thus, Steve Cooley only recently seems to have decided that these unchecked dispensaries are a “menace” requiring resources expenditures.
Just as Steve Cooley’s decision to extradite Mr. Roman Polanski, 33 years after he allegedly committed a crime, and in direct defiance to the victim’s victims should strike others as a further demonstration that the District Attorney’s Office should receive additional oversight if it is so spend its resources in such an arbitrary manner.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Los Angeles judge holds entire trial in secret
A federal judge in California conducted an entire trial this week behind closed doors, the Los Angeles Times reports.
The civil suit stems from the prison killing of a Jewish Defense League activist by a white supremacist. U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson “banished media and spectators from the courtroom Tuesday and Wednesday, from the swearing in of the first witness through closing arguments,” The Times reports. Though the order closing the trial was filed under seal, a court employee told the paper that the trial was closed to protect “testimony that concerned confidential ways prison officials identify gang members, especially the Aryan Brotherhood, which is a very dangerous gang.”
The Supreme Court has ruled that no judge may close proceedings in a criminal case without making specific, on-the-record findings that “closure is essential to preserve higher values” than the public’s right of access and is “narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Thus, the court must find that there is a compelling need for secrecy in order to close a courtroom, and also that there is no other way of dealing with the problem. While the U.S. Supreme Court has only addressed the right of access to criminal cases, the California Supreme Court has noted that lower courts universally have extended the constitutional right of access to civil as well as to criminal trials.
Source
The civil suit stems from the prison killing of a Jewish Defense League activist by a white supremacist. U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson “banished media and spectators from the courtroom Tuesday and Wednesday, from the swearing in of the first witness through closing arguments,” The Times reports. Though the order closing the trial was filed under seal, a court employee told the paper that the trial was closed to protect “testimony that concerned confidential ways prison officials identify gang members, especially the Aryan Brotherhood, which is a very dangerous gang.”
The Supreme Court has ruled that no judge may close proceedings in a criminal case without making specific, on-the-record findings that “closure is essential to preserve higher values” than the public’s right of access and is “narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Thus, the court must find that there is a compelling need for secrecy in order to close a courtroom, and also that there is no other way of dealing with the problem. While the U.S. Supreme Court has only addressed the right of access to criminal cases, the California Supreme Court has noted that lower courts universally have extended the constitutional right of access to civil as well as to criminal trials.
Source
Monday, September 28, 2009
Supreme Court ruling shakes up criminal trials
Reporting from Washington - Until last month, the strongest evidence in drug and drunk driving cases in courtrooms across the nation often was a piece of paper. A crime lab or Breathalyzer report would confirm that the defendant indeed had illegal drugs or a high level of alcohol in his or her system.
But a Supreme Court decision has sent a jolt through that procedure.
Now the prosecution must make a lab technician available to testify in person if the defendant demands it. As a result, some cases already have been dismissed. One state, Virginia, has called a special legislative session to change its laws. And some lawyers think the ruling will continue to have a major effect.
In a 5-4 decision, the high court said that lab reports served as “witnesses” for the prosecution. And because the 6th Amendment gives defendants a right to "be confronted with the witnesses against him," Justice Antonin Scalia said that drug defendants and others were "entitled to be confronted with the [lab] analysts at trial."
While Scalia said the decision upheld the basic right to question the prosecution's witnesses, the four dissenters said the ruling had "vast potential to disrupt" the criminal courts. They also said it gave "a great windfall" to defendants, some of whom could have their cases dismissed because a lab technician was not available to testify.
Some prosecutors have said they fear the uncertainty -- and the potential cost -- of being required to have lab technicians ready to testify.
"This is a train wreck in the making," said Scott Burns, executive director of the National District Attorneys Assn. "The court is saying you can't submit an affidavit saying that the cocaine is cocaine. The criminalist must be there to testify the cocaine is cocaine. Particularly in rural states and in smaller communities, this is going to be a major problem."
But a Supreme Court decision has sent a jolt through that procedure.
Now the prosecution must make a lab technician available to testify in person if the defendant demands it. As a result, some cases already have been dismissed. One state, Virginia, has called a special legislative session to change its laws. And some lawyers think the ruling will continue to have a major effect.
In a 5-4 decision, the high court said that lab reports served as “witnesses” for the prosecution. And because the 6th Amendment gives defendants a right to "be confronted with the witnesses against him," Justice Antonin Scalia said that drug defendants and others were "entitled to be confronted with the [lab] analysts at trial."
While Scalia said the decision upheld the basic right to question the prosecution's witnesses, the four dissenters said the ruling had "vast potential to disrupt" the criminal courts. They also said it gave "a great windfall" to defendants, some of whom could have their cases dismissed because a lab technician was not available to testify.
Some prosecutors have said they fear the uncertainty -- and the potential cost -- of being required to have lab technicians ready to testify.
"This is a train wreck in the making," said Scott Burns, executive director of the National District Attorneys Assn. "The court is saying you can't submit an affidavit saying that the cocaine is cocaine. The criminalist must be there to testify the cocaine is cocaine. Particularly in rural states and in smaller communities, this is going to be a major problem."
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Attorneys reflect on representing celebrity clients
A decade ago, Robert G. Bernhoft’s wife, Vicki, was cleaning houses for a living while he attended law school and worked part-time. The couple had perfected the art of coordinating their schedules so one of them could be home at the same time as their three elementary-school-aged daughters.
Fast-forward to the present, and the Bernhofts now own two homes, in Wisconsin and California. Bernhoft has twice represented actor Wesley Snipes, and former presidential candidate and consumer advocate Ralph Nader, in addition to successfully trying several other high-profile cases across the nation. He’s been interviewed by Greta Van Susteren on Fox News’ On the Record, as well as spotlighted by The Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal.
Representing the celebrity client can be “career-making or career-breaking,” says Bernhoft. Fortunately for him, it’s been the former, but it could’ve just as easily gone the other way. In Snipes’ 2008 felony tax fraud and conspiracy trial, for example, he and his team opted not to call any witnesses — a move that generated much criticism from the national media legal pundits. It was a “penthouse or an outhouse” situation, recalls Bernhoft, but the strategy proved successful when Snipes was acquitted of all the felony charges pending against him in a Florida federal court.
When you’re representing a celebrity, your job performance is indeed subject to heightened media and public scrutiny, agrees Milwaukee’s Jonathan C. Smith. “But the spotlight fades pretty quickly,” Smith says, “and in the end you just do the job for the client that you were hired to do.”
Smith was part of the team representing former Green Bay Packers tight end Mark Chmura. Chmura faced, and ultimately was acquitted of, child enticement and third-degree sexual assault charges. Smith also represented former professional basketball player Latrell Sprewell when he was the subject of a widely-publicized assault allegation, for which charges were never issued.
Fast-forward to the present, and the Bernhofts now own two homes, in Wisconsin and California. Bernhoft has twice represented actor Wesley Snipes, and former presidential candidate and consumer advocate Ralph Nader, in addition to successfully trying several other high-profile cases across the nation. He’s been interviewed by Greta Van Susteren on Fox News’ On the Record, as well as spotlighted by The Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal.
Representing the celebrity client can be “career-making or career-breaking,” says Bernhoft. Fortunately for him, it’s been the former, but it could’ve just as easily gone the other way. In Snipes’ 2008 felony tax fraud and conspiracy trial, for example, he and his team opted not to call any witnesses — a move that generated much criticism from the national media legal pundits. It was a “penthouse or an outhouse” situation, recalls Bernhoft, but the strategy proved successful when Snipes was acquitted of all the felony charges pending against him in a Florida federal court.
When you’re representing a celebrity, your job performance is indeed subject to heightened media and public scrutiny, agrees Milwaukee’s Jonathan C. Smith. “But the spotlight fades pretty quickly,” Smith says, “and in the end you just do the job for the client that you were hired to do.”
Smith was part of the team representing former Green Bay Packers tight end Mark Chmura. Chmura faced, and ultimately was acquitted of, child enticement and third-degree sexual assault charges. Smith also represented former professional basketball player Latrell Sprewell when he was the subject of a widely-publicized assault allegation, for which charges were never issued.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Is It Now a Crime to Be Poor?
It's too bad so many people are falling into poverty at a time when it’s almost illegal to be poor. You won’t be arrested for shopping in a Dollar Store, but if you are truly, deeply, in-the-streets poor, you’re well advised not to engage in any of the biological necessities of life — like sitting, sleeping, lying down or loitering. City officials boast that there is nothing discriminatory about the ordinances that afflict the destitute, most of which go back to the dawn of gentrification in the ’80s and ’90s. “If you’re lying on a sidewalk, whether you’re homeless or a millionaire, you’re in violation of the ordinance,” a city attorney in St. Petersburg, Fla., said in June, echoing Anatole France’s immortal observation that “the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges.”
In defiance of all reason and compassion, the criminalization of poverty has actually been intensifying as the recession generates ever more poverty. So concludes a new study from the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, which found that the number of ordinances against the publicly poor has been rising since 2006, along with ticketing and arrests for more “neutral” infractions like jaywalking, littering or carrying an open container of alcohol.
The report lists America’s 10 “meanest” cities — the largest of which are Honolulu, Los Angeles and San Francisco — but new contestants are springing up every day. The City Council in Grand Junction, Colo., has been considering a ban on begging, and at the end of June, Tempe, Ariz., carried out a four-day crackdown on the indigent. How do you know when someone is indigent? As a Las Vegas statute puts it, “An indigent person is a person whom a reasonable ordinary person would believe to be entitled to apply for or receive” public assistance.
That could be me before the blow-drying and eyeliner, and it’s definitely Al Szekely at any time of day. A grizzled 62-year-old, he inhabits a wheelchair and is often found on G Street in Washington — the city that is ultimately responsible for the bullet he took in the spine in Fu Bai, Vietnam, in 1972. He had been enjoying the luxury of an indoor bed until last December, when the police swept through the shelter in the middle of the night looking for men with outstanding warrants.
It turned out that Mr. Szekely, who is an ordained minister and does not drink, do drugs or curse in front of ladies, did indeed have a warrant — for not appearing in court to face a charge of “criminal trespassing” (for sleeping on a sidewalk in a Washington suburb). So he was dragged out of the shelter and put in jail. “Can you imagine?” asked Eric Sheptock, the homeless advocate (himself a shelter resident) who introduced me to Mr. Szekely. “They arrested a homeless man in a shelter for being homeless.”
Source
In defiance of all reason and compassion, the criminalization of poverty has actually been intensifying as the recession generates ever more poverty. So concludes a new study from the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, which found that the number of ordinances against the publicly poor has been rising since 2006, along with ticketing and arrests for more “neutral” infractions like jaywalking, littering or carrying an open container of alcohol.
The report lists America’s 10 “meanest” cities — the largest of which are Honolulu, Los Angeles and San Francisco — but new contestants are springing up every day. The City Council in Grand Junction, Colo., has been considering a ban on begging, and at the end of June, Tempe, Ariz., carried out a four-day crackdown on the indigent. How do you know when someone is indigent? As a Las Vegas statute puts it, “An indigent person is a person whom a reasonable ordinary person would believe to be entitled to apply for or receive” public assistance.
That could be me before the blow-drying and eyeliner, and it’s definitely Al Szekely at any time of day. A grizzled 62-year-old, he inhabits a wheelchair and is often found on G Street in Washington — the city that is ultimately responsible for the bullet he took in the spine in Fu Bai, Vietnam, in 1972. He had been enjoying the luxury of an indoor bed until last December, when the police swept through the shelter in the middle of the night looking for men with outstanding warrants.
It turned out that Mr. Szekely, who is an ordained minister and does not drink, do drugs or curse in front of ladies, did indeed have a warrant — for not appearing in court to face a charge of “criminal trespassing” (for sleeping on a sidewalk in a Washington suburb). So he was dragged out of the shelter and put in jail. “Can you imagine?” asked Eric Sheptock, the homeless advocate (himself a shelter resident) who introduced me to Mr. Szekely. “They arrested a homeless man in a shelter for being homeless.”
Source
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)