Hello Everybody,

The Supremes have ruled that the homeless are free
to live anywhere they want - including the right to
sleep outside at night on public property outdoors.

You heard that right. The justices of the US Supreme
Court without comment on Monday let stand a ruling by
the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeal, thus turning away
an appeal in Boise, Idaho that would have made it a
criminal act for the homeless to be homeless, as the
right to sleep is an absolute right that can never be
taken away -

"The state may not criminalize conduct that is an unavoidable
consequence of being homeless -- namely sitting, lying, or
sleeping on the streets."
~ 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals

Got that? Homeless people have a constitutional
right to sleep on public property outdoors - including
if and when no other shelter is available to them.

https://tinyurl.com/wea2nmf


Woody Guthrie felt right at home not having a home.
Rode the rails, or used his thumb, to get wherever he
wanted to go, whenever he felt. Until he couldn't do
it anymore due to illness (Huntington's Disease), at
which time the state had to find a new home for him.

This land is your land. This land is my land.
This land. All of it. Was made for you and me.

God blessed America.

This land, the same land that belongs to you and me,
is not for sale. We do as others before us. We save
it, so as to pass it down to our posterity.

--Lee

--
We're Great In Bed

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland (2:221/360)

You heard that right. The justices of the US Supreme
Court without comment on Monday let stand a ruling by

I can dig it. The homeless shouldn't be disrespected.

I was homeless for about a week, sleeping in my car, until I was able to make other arrangements. It was a cold November in Pennsylvania. I dealt with the anxiety of people complaining about where I was parked for homeless-sleep, but luckily, nobody bothered me at all. I was also anxious about getting a DUI because I drank myself to sleep during those times. I also had a job, and shaving, hungover, without a shower, in the bathroom at work was quite embarrassing.

On the bright side, I had everything I owned close to me, mostly in the trunk. Taking a piss was the most difficult part of it, aside from the emotional
pain I was going through at the time.

But although I had a taste of the homeless life, I had a job & an income, and I'm sure that other people are way less fortunate than I was!

It shouldn't be a crime to sleep on public property. Homeless or not.
Sleeping is ok. I even tolerated homeless sleeping in the dumpster enclosure
at one of the apartment complexes I lived at. How can I complain about that? They were basically sleeping in the trash - Should we let them get brutalized by Officer Hardass for it? No way.

It sucks that they do gross things on public property though; and the trash they leave behind is repulsive. But, I say, catch them doing something worse than sleeping and/or loitering.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Alcoholiday / Est. 1995 / alco.bbs.io (1:123/525)

Lee Lofaso wrote to All <=-

The Supremes have ruled that the homeless are free
to live anywhere they want - including the right to
sleep outside at night on public property outdoors.

That's not quite true. They simply refused to hear the case, meaning they let the lower court decision stand. So it still can be appealed.

We've had laws on the books for a long time against vagrancy that have gone unchallenged. Also, as a property owner, I have a right to decide who I let on my property.

This case, though, looks like it's specifically about homeless people sleeping on easements and other publically accessible land.

But there are many other laws that they can get the homeless on, so I don't see much of a problem here.


--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
* Origin: Diamond Mine Online BBS bbs.dmine.net:24 1:275/89 (1:275/89)

Hello Ron,

The Supremes have ruled that the homeless are free
to live anywhere they want - including the right to
sleep outside at night on public property outdoors.

That's not quite true. They simply refused to hear the case, meaning they
let the lower court decision stand. So it still can be appealed.

There is no appeal beyond the US Supreme Court.
Those justices have the final say. And they have
spoken, by refusing to speak, in this case.

With a change in the makeup of the US Supreme Court,
some might want to bring the matter up again, hoping
the US Supreme Court will hear it. And even then,
there is no guarantee.

We've had laws on the books for a long time against vagrancy that have gone
unchallenged. Also, as a property owner, I have a right to decide who I
let on my property.

Public property is owned by everyone, including the homeless.

This case, though, looks like it's specifically about homeless people
sleeping on easements and other publically accessible land.

Public property is owned by everyone. No individual has the right
to tell anybody else who also owns that property to leave.

This land (country) is owned by everyone. As such, no individual
can be exiled, or forced to leave or kept from re-entering against
their will. Doing so would be a crime against humanity.

Private property, such as one's own house, can be open to everyone.
But only if those who own it make for such allowance. This kind of
activity was very popular back in the 60s, but not so much any more.

But there are many other laws that they can get the homeless on, so I don't
see much of a problem here.

I was having a chat with a local cop some years ago, when we
spotted two elderly homeless people exchanging food stamps for
sex. In broad daylight. It was a truly disgusting sight.

This was behind a restaurant, where people gathered to eat.
And there were windows letting all the sunshine in ...

--Lee

--
Erections, That's Our Game

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland (2:221/360.0)

Hello Ron,

The Supremes have ruled that the homeless are free
to live anywhere they want - including the right to
sleep outside at night on public property outdoors.

That's not quite true. They simply refused to hear the case, meaning they
let the lower court decision stand. So it still can be appealed.

There is no appeal beyond the US Supreme Court.
Those justices have the final say. And they have
spoken, by refusing to speak, in this case.

With a change in the makeup of the US Supreme Court,
some might want to bring the matter up again, hoping
the US Supreme Court will hear it. And even then,
there is no guarantee.

We've had laws on the books for a long time against vagrancy that have gone
unchallenged. Also, as a property owner, I have a right to decide who I
let on my property.

Public property is owned by everyone, including the homeless.

This case, though, looks like it's specifically about homeless people
sleeping on easements and other publically accessible land.

Public property is owned by everyone. No individual has the right
to tell anybody else who also owns that property to leave.

This land (country) is owned by everyone. As such, no individual
can be exiled, or forced to leave or kept from re-entering against
their will. Doing so would be a crime against humanity.

Private property, such as one's own house, can be open to everyone.
But only if those who own it make for such allowance. This kind of
activity was very popular back in the 60s, but not so much any more.

But there are many other laws that they can get the homeless on, so I don't
see much of a problem here.

I was having a chat with a local cop some years ago, when we
spotted two elderly homeless people exchanging food stamps for
sex. In broad daylight. It was a truly disgusting sight.

This was behind a restaurant, where people gathered to eat.
And there were windows letting all the sunshine in ...

--Lee

--
Our Nuts, Your Mouth

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland (2:221/360.0)

Hello Ron,

The Supremes have ruled that the homeless are free
to live anywhere they want - including the right to
sleep outside at night on public property outdoors.

That's not quite true. They simply refused to hear the case, meaning they
let the lower court decision stand. So it still can be appealed.

There is no appeal beyond the US Supreme Court.
Those justices have the final say. And they have
spoken, by refusing to speak, in this case.

With a change in the makeup of the US Supreme Court,
some might want to bring the matter up again, hoping
the US Supreme Court will hear it. And even then,
there is no guarantee.

We've had laws on the books for a long time against vagrancy that have gone
unchallenged. Also, as a property owner, I have a right to decide who I
let on my property.

Public property is owned by everyone, including the homeless.

This case, though, looks like it's specifically about homeless people
sleeping on easements and other publically accessible land.

Public property is owned by everyone. No individual has the right
to tell anybody else who also owns that property to leave.

This land (country) is owned by everyone. As such, no individual
can be exiled, or forced to leave or kept from re-entering against
their will. Doing so would be a crime against humanity.

Private property, such as one's own house, can be open to everyone.
But only if those who own it make for such allowance. This kind of
activity was very popular back in the 60s, but not so much any more.

But there are many other laws that they can get the homeless on, so I don't
see much of a problem here.

I was having a chat with a local cop some years ago, when we
spotted two elderly homeless people exchanging food stamps for
sex. In broad daylight. It was a truly disgusting sight.

This was behind a restaurant, where people gathered to eat.
And there were windows letting all the sunshine in ...

--Lee

--
We Put Big Loads In Tight Places

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland (2:221/360.0)

Hello Ron,

The Supremes have ruled that the homeless are free
to live anywhere they want - including the right to
sleep outside at night on public property outdoors.

That's not quite true. They simply refused to hear the case, meaning they
let the lower court decision stand. So it still can be appealed.

There is no appeal beyond the US Supreme Court.
Those justices have the final say. And they have
spoken, by refusing to speak, in this case.

With a change in the makeup of the US Supreme Court,
some might want to bring the matter up again, hoping
the US Supreme Court will hear it. And even then,
there is no guarantee.

We've had laws on the books for a long time against vagrancy that have gone
unchallenged. Also, as a property owner, I have a right to decide who I
let on my property.

Public property is owned by everyone, including the homeless.

This case, though, looks like it's specifically about homeless people
sleeping on easements and other publically accessible land.

Public property is owned by everyone. No individual has the right
to tell anybody else who also owns that property to leave.

This land (country) is owned by everyone. As such, no individual
can be exiled, or forced to leave or kept from re-entering against
their will. Doing so would be a crime against humanity.

Private property, such as one's own house, can be open to everyone.
But only if those who own it make for such allowance. This kind of
activity was very popular back in the 60s, but not so much any more.

But there are many other laws that they can get the homeless on, so I don't
see much of a problem here.

I was having a chat with a local cop some years ago, when we
spotted two elderly homeless people exchanging food stamps for
sex. In broad daylight. It was a truly disgusting sight.

This was behind a restaurant, where people gathered to eat.
And there were windows letting all the sunshine in ...

--Lee

--
As Good As It Looks

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland (2:221/360.0)

Lee Lofaso wrote to Ron Lauzon <=-

Public property is owned by everyone, including the homeless.

But that doesn't mean anyone can use public property for any reason.

Public property is owned by everyone. No individual has the right
to tell anybody else who also owns that property to leave.

But the local gov't has the right to decide (hopefully with the public's concent) how that public property may be used.

For places like easements, while it may be public property, you are, by law, responsible for its upkeep. If someone is disobeying public norms (like defecating), you do have the right to kick him off the property. And, the easement is the only area that's public. Doorways of shops, are NOT public property. Malls are NOT public property.

This land (country) is owned by everyone. As such, no individual
can be exiled, or forced to leave or kept from re-entering against
their will. Doing so would be a crime against humanity.

*LAUGH* You really need to understand the law a little better.

Private property, such as one's own house, can be open to everyone.
But only if those who own it make for such allowance. This kind of activity was very popular back in the 60s, but not so much any more.

Yes, I remember seeing that. It ended because some people didn't understand property rights.

Communism (and socialism) doesn't work. Never has.


--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
* Origin: Diamond Mine Online BBS bbs.dmine.net:24 1:275/89 (1:275/89)