| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 11B |
THE FORM 990 WAS REVIEWED BY THE INSTITUTE'S AUDIT COMMITTEE IN CONSULTATION WITH THE INSTITUTE'S INDEPENDENT AUDITORS, AS NECESSARY. AFTER REVIEW BY THE AUDIT COMMITTEE, THE FORM 990 WAS DISTRIBUTED TO THE FULL BOARD OF DIRECTORS. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 12C |
ON AN ANNUAL BASIS BOTH THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND EVERY EMPLOYEE REVIEW THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY AND MUST DISCLOSE ANY CONFLICTS WITH THE INSTITUTE. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS REVIEWS THE POLICY AT OR AROUND ITS FINAL MEETING OF THE FISCAL YEAR AND EACH MEMBER PROVIDES WRITTEN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. EVERY EMPLOYEE RECEIVES AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF THE POLICY. ANY CONFLICTS OR POTENTIAL CONFLICTS ARE RESOLVED BY THE PRESIDENT OR OTHERWISE REPORTED BY THE PRESIDENT AND REVIEWED AND RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, LESS ANY MEMBER THAT MAY HAVE A CONFLICT OR POTENTIAL CONFLICT. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 15 |
AT THE FALL BOARD MEETING, THE BOARD DETERMINES THE COMPENSATION OF SIX EMPLOYEES: THE PRESIDENT/CHIEF COUNSEL, THE SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR LITIGATION, THE CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, THE MANAGING VICE PRESIDENT AND SENIOR ATTORNEY, THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR STRATEGIC RELATIONS, AND THE CFO AND GENERAL COUNSEL/SECRETARY AND TREASURER. IJ PROVIDES THE BOARD'S COMPENSATION COMMITTEE WITH PRESENT AND PAST COMPENSATION AMOUNTS FOR THESE POSITIONS, AS WELL AS COMPARABLE DATA FROM THE MOST RECENTLY AVAILABLE FORM 990 FOR SIMILARLY SITUATED NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS. IJ ALSO ANNUALLY ENGAGES AN OUTSIDE VENDOR TO PROVIDE AN INDEPENDENT COMPENSATION SURVEY. THE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE MAKES A RECOMMENDATION ON COMPENSATION TO THE FULL BOARD (EXCEPT FOR THE PRESIDENT/CHIEF COUNSEL, WHO IS RECUSED), AND THE FULL BOARD THEN VOTES TO DETERMINE COMPENSATION, WHICH DECISION IS CONTEMPORANEOUSLY RECORDED AND COMMUNICATED TO THE CFO BY THE CHAIRMAN AND PLACED IN THE APPLICABLE CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYMENT FILES. DURING THE SUMMER BOARD MEETING, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AUTHORIZES FORECASTED COMPENSATION INCREASES FOR OTHER OFFICERS AND KEY EMPLOYEES THROUGH ITS APPROVAL OF THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR'S BUDGET. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION C, LINE 19 |
IJ'S 990 AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ARE AVAILABLE ON ITS AND OTHER WEBSITES. IJ'S 990, FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, AND OTHER IRS DOCUMENTATION, GOVERNING DOCUMENTS AND CERTAIN OTHER POLICIES ARE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC UPON REQUEST. |
| CASES IN LITIGATION: |
LADD, ET AL. V. REAL ESTATE COMMISSION OF PENNSYLVANIA SALLY LADD IS AN ENTREPRENEUR WHO MANAGES VARIOUS VACATION PROPERTIES IN PENNSYLVANIA'S POCONO MOUNTAINS. THOUGH NOT A REAL ESTATE BROKER, SALLY RECEIVED A CALL FROM THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF STATE INFORMING HER THAT SHE WAS UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR THE UNLICENSED PRACTICE OF REAL ESTATE. TO CONTINUE, SHE WOULD HAVE TO SPEND THREE YEARS WORKING FOR AN ESTABLISHED BROKER, PASS TWO EXAMS, AND SET UP HER OWN BRICK-AND-MORTAR OFFICE IN PENNSYLVANIA. SALLY TEAMED UP WITH IJ IN JULY 2017 TO CHALLENGE THIS HEAVY-HANDED LICENSING SCHEME. IN OCTOBER 2022, IJ SECURED TOTAL VICTORY WHEN THE PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH COURT RULED THAT THE STATE'S LICENSING REQUIREMENTS, AS APPLIED TO SHORT-TERM PROPERTY MANAGERS LIKE SALLY, ARE UNREASONABLE AND UNDULY OPPRESSIVE. THE RULING PROTECTS ENTREPRENEURS LIKE SALLY FROM THE STATE'S OVERBURDENING LICENSING REQUIREMENTS. JACKSON, ET AL. V. RAFFENSPERGER MARY JACKSON, A CERTIFIED LACTATION COUNSELOR, AND REACHING OUR SISTERS EVERYWHERE - A NONPROFIT DEDICATED TO PROVIDING BREASTFEEDING SUPPORT TO MINORITY COMMUNITIES - JOINED WITH IJ IN JUNE 2018 TO CHALLENGE GEORGIA'S MANDATE THAT LACTATION CONSULTANTS GET A LICENSE FROM THE STATE, WHICH THEY COULD ONLY OBTAIN IF THEY WERE CERTIFIED BY A SPECIFIC PRIVATE ORGANIZATION, REQUIRING TWO YEARS OF COLLEGE COURSES AND MORE THAN 300 HOURS OF SUPERVISED CLINICAL WORK. IMPOSING THIS REQUIREMENT WOULD HAVE REDUCED THE NUMBER OF LACTATION CONSULTANTS, ESPECIALLY OUTSIDE OF MAJOR CITIES. IJ'S CLIENTS HAVE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE, AND THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THIS CERTIFICATION IMPROVES CARE. IN A MAJOR VICTORY FOR ECONOMIC FREEDOM IN THE PEACH STATE, IN MAY 2023, THE GEORGIA SUPREME COURT UNANIMOUSLY RULED REQUIRING LACTATION CARE PROVIDERS TO GO THROUGH THIS ORDEAL TO OBTAIN A STATE-ISSUED LICENSE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VIOLATES GEORGIAN'S RIGHT TO EARN AN HONEST LIVING. THE RULING ENSURES THAT HUNDREDS OF GEORGIAN LACTATION CONSULTANTS CAN CONTINUE TO HELP WOMEN THROUGHOUT THE STATE. THE DECISION ALSO CLEARLY LAID OUT THE GEORGIA CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD FOR EVALUATING LAWS THAT BURDEN OCCUPATIONS. THOSE LAWS MUST ACTUALLY PROTECT THE PUBLIC, BE SUPPORTED BY ACTUAL EVIDENCE, AND NOT BE UNDULY BURDENSOME. THE RULING HELPS NOT JUST THE HUNDREDS OF AFFECTED LACTATION CONSULTANTS BUT ALSO ENTREPRENEURS IN MANY OTHER OCCUPATIONS. STATE OF ARIZONA V. JERRY JOHNSON IJ FILED A LAWSUIT ON BEHALF OF JERRY JOHNSON AFTER OFFICERS INTERROGATED HIM AT THE PHOENIX AIRPORT AND SEIZED THE ALMOST $40,000 HE WAS CARRYING. JERRY HAD COMMITTED NO CRIME AND WAS ON HIS WAY TO BUY A TRUCK FOR HIS SMALL TRUCKING BUSINESS. BUT THE OFFICERS BASELESSLY ACCUSED HIM OF LAUNDERING MONEY. STATE PROSECUTORS THEN USED CIVIL FORFEITURE TO TAKE JERRY'S MONEY. JERRY HAD TO PROVE THE MONEY WAS HIS, BUT THE COURT FOUND THAT JERRY WAS MORE LIKELY TO BE TRANSPORTING THE PROCEEDS OF DRUG TRAFFICKING THAN TRAVELING WITH THE MONEY ON A LEGITIMATE BUSINESS TRIP. THIS EFFECTIVELY REQUIRED JERRY TO PROVE HIS OWN INNOCENCE. THE COURT ORDERED THE FORFEITURE OF JERRY'S MONEY - BUT IT VIOLATES DUE PROCESS TO REQUIRE SOMEONE TO PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE TO SECURE THE RETURN OF THEIR PROPERTY. SO, JERRY PARTNERED WITH IJ TO APPEAL THE COURT'S DECISION. THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS OVERTURNED THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION, AND THEN, IN NOVEMBER 2022, IT GRANTED IJ'S MOTION TO PUBLISH THE DECISION. ON REMAND, IN APRIL 2023, THE ARIZONA SUPERIOR COURT FOR MARICOPA COUNTY DISMISSED THE STATE'S CASE WITH PREJUDICE AND RIGHTFULLY RETURNED THE MONEY TO JERRY. THE RULING HOLDS THAT PROPERTY OWNERS DO NOT HAVE TO PROVE THEIR OWN INNOCENCE JUST TO CONTEST A FORFEITURE. FULL CIRCLE OF LIVING AND DYING, ET AL. V. SANCHEZ, ET AL. AKHILA MURPHY AND DONNA PEIZER ARE END-OF-LIFE DOULAS, HELPING PLAN HOME FUNERALS AND PROVIDING EMOTIONAL AND PRACTICAL SUPPORT TO THE DYING PERSON AND THE FAMILY. IN DECEMBER 2019, THE CALIFORNIA CEMETERY AND FUNERAL BUREAU RULED THAT AKHILA AND DONNA'S BUSINESS IS AN UNLICENSED FUNERAL AGENCY, MEANING AKHILA AND DONNA MUST BECOME LICENSED FUNERAL DIRECTORS AND BUILD A FUNERAL HOME - THUS PROTECTING FUNERAL HOMES FROM COMPETITION WHILE LIMITING OPTIONS FOR GRIEVING FAMILIES. SO, AKHILA AND DONNA JOINED WITH IJ TO FILE A LAWSUIT IN FEDERAL COURT TO DEFEND THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH AND THEIR 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EARN AN HONEST LIVING. IN JANUARY 2023, THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RULED THAT SEVERAL OF THE REGULATIONS VIOLATED AKHILA'S AND DONNA'S FIRST AMENDMENT AND ECONOMIC LIBERTY RIGHTS. THE RULING PROTECTS THOSE WHO WANT TO SPEAK AND BRING VALUABLE SERVICES TO THE PUBLIC. BEAVER ET AL. V. MOORE ET AL. IN MARCH 2021, WEST VIRGINIA ENACTED THE HOPE SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM: WEST VIRGINIA'S FIRST SCHOOL CHOICE PROGRAM AND ONE OF THE MOST EXPANSIVE EDUCATION SAVINGS ACCOUNT PROGRAMS IN THE NATION. THE HOPE SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM DOES NOT USE ANY FUNDS MEANT FOR WEST VIRGINIA'S PUBLIC SCHOOLS, BUT IN JANUARY 2022, THE GROUP PUBLIC SCHOOLS PUBLIC FUNDS CHALLENGED THE PROGRAM'S CONSTITUTIONALITY. IJ HELPED TWO PARENTS INTERVENE TO COUNTER THE LAWSUIT. AFTER A TRIAL COURT JUDGE ENJOINED THE PROGRAM, UPENDING THOUSANDS OF FAMILIES' SCHOOL YEAR PLANS, IJ APPEALED TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT. IN NOVEMBER 2022, THE WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE HOPE SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM, PAVING THE WAY FOR FAMILIES THROUGHOUT THE STATE TO USE SCHOLARSHIPS TO SUPPORT THEIR CHILDREN'S EDUCATION. GARRETT AND HELD V. TEXAS STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY, ET AL. IN 45 STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, DOCTORS CAN DISPENSE MEDICINE DIRECTLY TO THEIR PATIENTS, SAVING PATIENTS TIME AND MONEY AND MAKING IT MORE LIKELY THEY WILL FILL THEIR PRESCRIPTIONS. TEXAS, HOWEVER, LARGELY BANS DOCTORS FROM DISPENSING MEDICATION AND ONLY ALLOWS IT IN CERTAIN RURAL AREAS WHERE THE DOCTOR IS MILES AWAY FROM ANY PHARMACY. THE BAN SERVES ONLY TO PROTECT THE PROFITS OF PHARMACIES, SO IJ IS REPRESENTING TEXAS DOCTORS IN A LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THIS BAN ON DOCTOR DISPENSING. IN DECEMBER 2020, A DISTRICT COURT UPHELD THE STATE'S BAN, AND IN JANUARY 2023, TEXAS' 3RD COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THAT RULING. WE FILED FOR REVIEW AT THE STATE SUPREME COURT IN APRIL AND STAND READY TO BRING OUR CHALLENGE TO THE STATE'S HIGHEST COURT. OPTERNATIVE, INC. V. SOUTH CAROLINA BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS TECHNOLOGY ALLOWS CONSUMERS TO TAKE A ROUTINE VISION TEST IN THE COMFORT OF THEIR OWN HOME USING THEIR PERSONAL COMPUTER AND SMARTPHONE. AN OPHTHALMOLOGIST REVIEWS THE RESULTS AND WRITES A PRESCRIPTION. DEVELOPED BY HEALTHCARE STARTUP VISIBLY (FORMERLY OPTERNATIVE), THESE TESTS ARE INEXPENSIVE AND ENABLE MORE PEOPLE TO GET EYEGLASS PRESCRIPTIONS MORE QUICKLY AND EASILY THAN EVER BEFORE. BUT OPTOMETRISTS HAVE GONE TO EXTRAORDINARY LENGTHS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM ONLINE COMPETITORS LIKE VISIBLY. IN SOUTH CAROLINA, THE GOVERNMENT MADE IT A CRIME FOR ANY OPHTHALMOLOGIST TO DISPENSE AN EYEGLASS PRESCRIPTION USING VISIBLY'S TECHNOLOGY. IJ FILED SUIT IN OCTOBER 2016 TO STAMP OUT THIS BLATANT ECONOMIC PROTECTIONISM AND PROTECT BOTH THE RIGHTS OF ENTREPRENEURS TO EARN AN HONEST LIVING AND THE RIGHTS OF DOCTORS AND PATIENTS TO BENEFIT FROM MODERN TECHNOLOGY. DESPITE AN INITIAL SETBACK, IN AUGUST 2022, THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED A COURT OF APPEALS RULING THAT VISIBLY HAS STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LAW BANNING THE USE OF THEIR TECHNOLOGY IN THE STATE, ALLOWING OUR CASE TO PROCEED IN THE TRIAL COURT. N'DA AND DIGNITY NON-EMERGENCY MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION, INC., V. HYBL, ET AL. MARC N'DA RUNS A HOME HEALTH AGENCY, AND WHEN HE SAW HIS PATIENTS GETTING BAD SERVICE FROM NON-EMERGENCY MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION COMPANIES, HE DECIDED TO START HIS OWN COMPANY TO PROVIDE BETTER SERVICE. TO DO SO, HE NEEDS A "CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY" (CON) FROM THE GOVERNMENT. SUCH LAWS PROTECT ESTABLISHED BUSINESSES BY SHUTTING OUT NEW COMPETITION, RAISING PRICES, AND LOWERING SERVICE. AMONG OTHER REQUIREMENTS, MARC MUST GET PERMISSION FROM HIS COMPETITORS BEFORE HE CAN BEGIN OPERATING. NOT SURPRISINGLY, THOSE COMPETITORS SAID "NO." MARC TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO PROTECT HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EARN AN HONEST LIVING. THOUGH NEBRASKA PASSED A LAW REPEALING SOME CON REQUIREMENTS IN AUGUST 2020, IT DID NOT REPEAL THE ONE PREVENTING MARC'S BUSINESS. IJ ARGUED IN THE STATE DISTRICT COURT IN JANUARY 2023. |
| SINGLETON AND SINGLETON VISION CENTER V. NORTH CAROLINA DEP'T OF HEALTH AND |
HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. NORTH CAROLINA MAKES IT ILLEGAL FOR DOCTORS TO OFFER NEW HEALTH CARE SERVICES, BUILD NEW FACILITIES OR BUY NEW EQUIPMENT WITHOUT OBTAINING A CERTIFICATE OF NEED FROM A BOARD DOMINATED BY REGULATORS AND INDUSTRY INSIDERS. IF THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT THERE ARE ALREADY "ENOUGH" PROVIDERS IN A COMMUNITY, DOCTORS ARE FORBIDDEN FROM OFFERING SERVICES TO PATIENTS WHO NEED THEM. IN APRIL 2020, IJ JOINED UP WITH DR. JAY SINGLETON, AN OPHTHALMOLOGIST FROM NEW BERN, TO FILE A CHALLENGE TO NORTH CAROLINA'S CON LAW. DR. SINGLETON OWNS A STATE-OF-THE-ART OUTPATIENT OPERATING FACILITY BUT CANNOT START THE CON APPLICATION PROCESS TO PERFORM SURGERIES THERE BECAUSE A FORMULA PUT IN PLACE BY STATE REGULATORS HAS ALREADY DETERMINED THAT HIS COMMUNITY DOES NOT "NEED" ANOTHER SURGERY CENTER. IN JUNE 2022, THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE STATE'S ANTI-COMPETITIVE LAW IS CONSTITUTIONAL, AFFIRMING A LOWER COURT'S DECISION AND DISMISSING THE SUIT. IJ IS APPEALING THE DECISION TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT. TIWARI, ET AL. V. MEIER, ET AL. DIPENDRA TIWARI AND KISHOR SAPKOTAARE ARE NEPALI IMMIGRANTS WHO WANTED TO START A HOME HEALTH AGENCY THAT CATERS TO THE LARGE NEPALI-SPEAKING POPULATION IN LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY. THEIR FUTURE COMPETITOR - A $2 BILLION HEALTH CARE CONGLOMERATE - ARGUED THAT THEIR NEW AGENCY WAS UNNEEDED, AND THE STATE OF KENTUCKY REFUSED TO ISSUE DIPENDRA AND KISHOR'S BUSINESS A CERTIFICATE OF NEED THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO OPERATE. THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS THE RIGHT TO EARN AN HONEST LIVING FREE FROM UNREASONABLE GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE, AND IT IS UNREASONABLE FOR KENTUCKY TO PICK WINNERS AND LOSERS IN THE MARKETPLACE. SO DIPENDRA, KISHOR, AND IJ CHALLENGED KENTUCKY'S CON REQUIREMENT FOR HOME HEALTH AGENCIES IN FEDERAL COURT. UNFORTUNATELY, THE 6TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS UPHELD IN FEBRUARY 2022 THE SUMMARY-JUDGMENT LOSS WE RECEIVED IN A LOWER COURT, AND U.S. SUPREME COURT DECLINED TO TAKE THE CASE. N'DAKPRI, ET AL. V. LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY, ET AL. IJ REPRESENTS THREE NATURAL HAIR BRAIDERS - ASHLEY N'DAKPRI, LYNN SCHOFIELD, AND MICHELLE ROBERTSON - WHO WANT TO EARN AN HONEST LIVING BUT FACE ENORMOUS AND IRRATIONAL OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING HURDLES. ALTHOUGH HAIR BRAIDING IS NOT A THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY, THE LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY REQUIRES ANYONE SEEKING A BRAIDING LICENSE TO COMPLETE 500 HOURS OF UNNECESSARY AND IRRELEVANT TRAINING. THIS RUNS AFOUL OF THE LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION, WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO LICENSE SOMETHING AS SAFE AND COMMON AS BRAIDING HAIR. IN OCTOBER 2019, A JUDGE IN BATON ROUGE DENIED THE BOARD'S MOTION TO DISMISS. WE ARE NOW PREPARING FOR TRIAL AT THE DISTRICT COURT. SHAZIA ITTIQ AND SEEMA PANJWANI V. OKLAHOMA STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY AND BARBERING, ET AL. SHAZIA ITTIQ AND SEEMA PANJWANI ARE EYEBROW THREADERS IN OKLAHOMA WHO ARE SUBJECTED TO ONEROUS AND IRRELEVANT REGULATIONS BY THE OKLAHOMA BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY. THE BOARD REQUIRES THREADERS TO COMPLETE AT LEAST 600 HOURS OF COSMETOLOGY SCHOOLING, NOT A MINUTE OF WHICH ADDRESSES THREADING. THEY ALSO MUST PASS TWO EXAMS THAT ONLY TEST PRACTICES THREADERS NEVER USE. SHAZIA AND SEEMA HAVE PRACTICED THREADING SINCE THEY WERE TEENAGERS AND SPENT YEARS DEVELOPING THEIR BUSINESSES FROM THE GROUND UP. BOTH PARTNERED WITH IJ IN FEBRUARY 2021. AFTER IJ FILED ITS SUIT, THE LICENSING BOARD CREATED A SPECIALTY LICENSE FOR THREADERS AND GRANTED A THREADING LICENSE TO SHAZIA'S EMPLOYEE, THUS PAVING THE WAY FOR SHAZIA TO LEGALLY OPERATE HER BUSINESS WITHOUT REQUIRING HER OTHER EMPLOYEES TO COMPLETE UNRELATED CLASSES. DAVIS V. OKLAHOMA STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY AND BARBERING, ET AL. BRANDY DAVIS' LIVELIHOOD WAS STRIPPED AWAY FROM HER IN JANUARY 2022. A PROFESSIONAL, LICENSED EYELASH-EXTENSION SPECIALIST IN TEXAS, BRANDY HAD A THRIVING BUSINESS IN THE LONE STAR STATE. BUT WHEN SHE MOVED TO OKLAHOMA, HER STATE LICENSE, PRIVATE CERTIFICATE, AND EXPERTISE MEANT NOTHING TO THE OKLAHOMA STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY AND BARBERING, WHICH FORBIDS HER FROM APPLYING EYELASH EXTENSIONS WITHOUT A COSMETOLOGY OR ESTHETICIAN LICENSE. BUT BRANDY JUST WANTS TO DO EYELASH EXTENSIONS, NOT OTHER COSMETOLOGY PRACTICES. OKLAHOMANS HAVE A RIGHT TO EARN AN HONEST LIVING AND ENJOY THE GAINS OF THEIR INDUSTRY WITHOUT FACING OVERBEARING LICENSING DEMANDS. THAT IS WHY BRANDY TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO FILE A LAWSUIT TO ENFORCE HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EARN A LIVING IN HER TRADE. 360 VIRTUAL DRONE SERVICES LLC AND MICHAEL JONES V. RITTER, ET AL. IN MARCH 2021, IJ SUED ON BEHALF OF MICHAEL JONES AFTER THE NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF EXAMINERS FOR ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS THREATENED HIM WITH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CONSEQUENCES. MICHAEL USES A DRONE TO TAKE PHOTOS OF LAND AND CREATE MAPS FOR CUSTOMERS TO MONITOR PROPERTY. MICHAEL DOES NOT PRACTICE SURVEYING, A MORE FORMAL PROFESSION THAT MARKS THE LEGAL BOUNDARIES OF PROPERTY. EVEN SO, THE BOARD ACCUSED HIM OF PROVIDING UNLICENSED SURVEYING SERVICES. IN RESPONSE TO THE BOARD'S THREATS, MICHAEL SHUT DOWN HIS BUSINESS. THE STATE'S LICENSING LAWS STIFLE INNOVATION, AND THEY ALSO UNCONSTITUTIONALLY RESTRICT FREE SPEECH BY REQUIRING THE GOVERNMENT'S PERMISSION TO CREATE AND DISSEMINATE IMAGES AND DATA. MICHAEL PARTNERED WITH IJ TO SUE THE BOARD IN FEDERAL COURT TO DISASSEMBLE THE STATE'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS AND OPEN THE DOOR FOR OTHER ENTREPRENEURS TO CREATIVELY USE TECHNOLOGY TO PROVIDE CHEAPER, MORE CONVENIENT SERVICES. IN MARCH 2023, A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE UPHELD THE RESTRICTION THAT PREVENTS MICHAEL FROM CREATING MAPS WITH HIS DRONES. IJ WILL APPEAL THE DECISION TO THE 4TH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. CROWNHOLM, ET AL. V. MOORE, ET AL. RYAN CROWNHOLM IS THE FOUNDER OF A BUSINESS CALLED MYSITEPLAN.COM. RYAN USES PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION FROM THE INTERNET TO MAKE A DIGITAL DRAWING THAT SHOWS THE CUSTOMER'S LOT LINES AND THE BUILDINGS, DRIVEWAYS, FENCES, ETC. ON THE PROPERTY. BUT THE CALIFORNIA BOARD FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS, AND GEOLOGISTS CLAIMED THAT RYAN WAS ILLEGALLY PRACTICING LAND SURVEYING WITHOUT A LICENSE. IF ALL IT TAKES TO BE ILLEGALLY PRACTICING LAND SURVEYING IS TO DEPICT PROPERTY LINES AND SOME FEATURES OF A PROPERTY WITHIN THOSE LINES, ANYONE WHO HAS EVER DRAWN AN INFORMAL MAP IS A CRIMINAL. THE SUPREME COURT HAS MADE CLEAR THAT THE CREATION AND DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION ARE SPEECH WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. NOW, WITH BOTH THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND IJ BY HIS SIDE, RYAN IS FIGHTING BACK IN FEDERAL COURT TO SAVE HIS BUSINESS AND PROTECT THE RIGHT OF ALL ENTREPRENEURS TO PROVIDE USEFUL INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC. IN DECEMBER 2022, THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT DENIED RYAN'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND IN JANUARY 2023, THE COURT DISMISSED THE CASE. IJ IS APPEALING TO THE 9TH CIRCUIT. HIGHT V. U.S. DEP'T OF HOMELAND SECURITY CAPTAIN MATTHEW HIGHT HAS BEEN A MERCHANT MARINER FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS. HE DECIDED TO WORK TOWARD GETTING HIS LICENSE TO PILOT COMMERCIAL VESSELS ON THE SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY AND LAKE ONTARIO. CAPTAIN HIGHT WAS REQUIRED BY THE COAST GUARD TO TRAIN WITH THE SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY PILOTS' ASSOCIATION, A FOR-PROFIT BUSINESS. AFTER DISAGREEMENTS OVER THE FINANCIAL PRACTICES OF THE ASSOCIATION'S LEADERSHIP, THE ASSOCIATION SUDDENLY INFORMED THE COAST GUARD THAT IT RECOMMENDED AGAINST GRANTING CAPTAIN HIGHT A LICENSE. THE COAST GUARD THEN REFUSED TO ALLOW HIGHT TO TAKE THE EXAM TO BECOME A REGISTERED PILOT. WITH NO MEANINGFUL WAY TO CONTEST THE RECOMMENDATION WITH THE COAST GUARD, HIGHT TEAMED UP WITH IJ, AND IN MARCH 2021, A FEDERAL COURT ORDERED THE COAST GUARD TO LET HIM TAKE THE EXAM HE NEEDS TO BECOME A REGISTERED PILOT, WHICH HE PASSED. AFTER A LONG DELAY, THE COAST GUARD THEN DENIED HIGHT'S APPLICATION, SO WE ARE BACK IN COURT TO HOLD THE GOVERNMENT TO ACCOUNT FOR ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BEHAVIOR. |
| ELIZABETH BROKAMP V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; ELIZABETH BROKAMP V. JAMES, ET A |
IN DECEMBER 2020, IJ FILED A CASE ON BEHALF OF ELIZABETH BROKAMP, A PROFESSIONAL COUNSELOR LOCATED AND LICENSED IN VIRGINIA. ACROSS THE POTOMAC RIVER, WASHINGTON, D.C. LAW DOES NOT ALLOW ELIZABETH TO PROVIDE TELETHERAPY TO CLIENTS LOCATED IN D.C., EVEN THOUGH ELIZABETH COULD MEET IN PERSON WITH THOSE SAME CLIENTS AT AN OFFICE IN VIRGINIA. AS A RESULT, SINCE MOVING HER PRACTICE ONLINE DURING THE PANDEMIC, ELIZABETH HAS BEEN FORCED TO TURN AWAY NEW CLIENTS FROM THE DISTRICT. IN APRIL 2021, IJ FILED ANOTHER SUIT ON BEHALF OF ELIZABETH, THIS TIME CHALLENGING A SIMILAR RESTRICTION IN NEW YORK. D.C.'S AND NEW YORK'S RESTRICTIONS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE TELETHERAPY IS SPEECH AND THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT REQUIRE A LICENSE TO TALK. WE ARGUE THAT THE TECHNOLOGY THAT ALLOWS OUR CLIENT TO HELP PATIENTS ACROSS STATE LINES SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS THAT VIOLATE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. IN MARCH 2022, A JUDGE DENIED D.C.'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE SUIT. IN NEW YORK, A JUDGE GRANTED THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS IN LATE 2021, AND THE 2ND CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECISION. WE ARE CONSIDERING A PETITION TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. WAYNE NUTT V. NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF EXAMINERS FOR ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS WAYNE NUTT PRACTICED ENGINEERING FOR FOUR DECADES. BECAUSE HE WORKED FOR BIG MANUFACTURERS THROUGHOUT HIS WHOLE CAREER, HE WAS EXEMPT FROM NORTH CAROLINA'S LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR ENGINEERS. NOW THAT WAYNE IS RETIRED, HE NO LONGER WANTS TO PRACTICE ENGINEERING. HE ONLY WANTS TO TALK ABOUT IT. HE HAS FOUND HIMSELF DEPLOYING HIS HARD-WON EXPERTISE TO TESTIFY AT TOWN COUNCIL MEETINGS AND WRITE LETTERS TO GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. HE ALSO WANTS TO TESTIFY IN OTHER LAWSUITS RELATED TO HIS AREA OF EXPERTISE - HYDRAULICS. THE TROUBLE IS THAT ALL OF THIS IS A CRIME ACCORDING TO THE NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF EXAMINERS FOR ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS. IN THE GOVERNMENT'S VIEW, ONLY LICENSED ENGINEERS CAN TALK ABOUT ENGINEERING, EVEN IF THOSE SAME UNLICENSED ENGINEERS CAN DO ACTUAL ENGINEERING. WAYNE CAN EITHER GET A LICENSE OR STOP TALKING. BUT WAYNE DOES NOT WANT TO BECOME A LICENSED ENGINEER BECAUSE, IN HIS LATER 70S, HE IS NOT LOOKING TO START A BRAND NEW CAREER. SO, HE TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO FILE A FEDERAL LAWSUIT TO STRIKE DOWN THIS UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTION ON PROFESSIONAL SPEECH. SANCHEZ V. OFFICE OF THE STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION IJ JOINED WITH ALTAGRACIA YLUMINADA "ILUMI" SANCHEZ IN APRIL 2018 TO FIGHT THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA'S OFFICE OF THE STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION'S REGULATIONS REQUIRING MANY OF THE CITY'S DAY CARE PROVIDERS TO GO TO COLLEGE OR LOSE THEIR JOBS. THESE REGULATIONS WOULD HAVE CAREER-ENDING CONSEQUENCES FOR ILUMI, WHO RUNS A DAY CARE IN HER HOME IN NORTHEAST D.C. AND HAS WORKED WITH CHILDREN FOR OVER 20 YEARS. TO COMPLY WITH THE NEW REGULATIONS AND RETURN TO SCHOOL FOR A DEGREE IRRELEVANT TO CHILDCARE IS TOO MUCH OF A STRAIN ON ILUMI'S TIME AND MONEY. FOR PARENTS, THE REGULATIONS WOULD RAISE PRICES AND LOWER OPTIONS. IN JANUARY 2021, THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DISMISSED THE LAWSUIT, AND THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE D.C. CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THAT DECISION IN DECEMBER 2022. IN JANUARY 2023, THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DENIED OUR PETITION FOR REVIEW. THAT SAID, THE REQUIREMENT WAS SET TO TAKE EFFECT IN 2020 FOR MOST PROVIDERS WHEN WE FIRST FILED. THAT START DATE WAS DELAYED AT LEAST TO THE END OF 2023. D.C. ALSO DECIDED TO EXEMPT HOME PROVIDERS WITH TEN YEARS OF EXPERIENCE, INCLUDING OUR CLIENT ILUMI. WITHOUT IJ, ILUMI'S DAY CARE WOULD BE CLOSED, BUT SHE AND OTHER HOME PROVIDERS NOW CAN CONTINUE TO OPERATE. ABDALLAH BATAYNEH ET AL. V. COLORADO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ET AL. IJ AND OUR CLIENT ABDALLAH BATAYNEH FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST COLORADO'S MONOPOLISTIC SCHEME THAT PREVENTED HIM FROM LAUNCHING A SHUTTLE SERVICE BUSINESS. ABDALLAH WORKS AT A HOT SPRINGS RESORT AND HEARD NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS THAT EXISTING SERVICES WERE TOO EXPENSIVE AND HAD POOR CUSTOMER SERVICE, SO HE DECIDED TO CREATE HIS OWN COMPANY THAT WOULD PROVIDE BETTER SERVICE. UNFORTUNATELY, COLORADO LAW ALLOWS POWERFUL INDUSTRY INSIDERS TO DENY NEW COMPETITION BY REQUIRING NEW WOULD-BE BUSINESSES TO OBTAIN PERMISSION FROM EXISTING MONOPOLIES. EXISTING SHUTTLE COMPANIES USED THIS LAW TO THWART ABDALLAH IN STARTING HIS BUSINESS BY ARGUING THAT HIS SERVICES WERE NOT "NEEDED." THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO PICK WINNERS AND LOSERS, AND EXISTING COMPANIES SHOULD NOT HAVE THE POWER TO KEEP WOULD-BE COMPETITORS OUT OF BUSINESS. ABDALLAH PARTNERED WITH IJ IN MARCH 2021 TO SUE THE STATE REGULATORY AGENCY. IN MARCH 2023, THE COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS DISMISSED ABDALLAH'S CASE. NOW HE IS ASKING THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT TO OVERTURN THAT RULING SO HE CAN FINALLY HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT. SURFVIVE, ET AL. V. CITY OF SOUTH PADRE ISLAND IN SOUTH PADRE ISLAND, TEXAS, THE CITY GOVERNMENT CAPS FOOD TRUCK PERMITS AT 12 AND REQUIRES FOOD TRUCKS TO GET A RESTAURANT OWNER'S APPROVAL ON THEIR APPLICATION. THIS MEANS LESS CHOICE AND HIGHER PRICES FOR SOUTH PADRE ISLAND RESIDENTS AND VISITORS, AND IT VIOLATES THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION, WHICH FORBIDS LAWS THAT SERVE ONLY TO PROTECT BUSINESSES FROM COMPETITION. IJ TEAMED UP WITH SURFVIVE - A LOCAL NONPROFIT'S FOOD TRUCK - AND FOOD TRUCK OWNERS ANUBIS AND RAMSES AVALOS TO CHALLENGE SOUTH PADRE ISLAND'S LAW. IN DECEMBER 2020, A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE STRUCK DOWN THE FOOD TRUCK PERMIT CAP. ASTONISHINGLY, THE ISLAND CHOSE TO DEFY THE ORDER BEFORE IT EVEN FILED AN APPEAL. THEN, AFTER THE CITY DID APPEAL, IN JUNE 2022, TEXAS' 13TH COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE TRIAL COURT DECISION, HELD THAT THE LAW WAS A REASONABLE WAY TO PROMOTE THE ECONOMY, AND SAID THE GOVERNMENT WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT BECAUSE THE CLAIMS WERE NOT VIABLE. IJ APPEALED TO THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT, WHICH REQUESTED MERITS BRIEFING; WE AWAIT A FINAL DECISION ON OUR PETITION. PROCTOR, ET AL. V. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA NICOLE GONZALEZ OWNS PROPERTY IN JACKSONVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA, WHERE SHE'D LIKE TO HOST A FOOD TRUCK ALONGSIDE HER GENERAL GOODS STORE THERE. ANTHONY PROCTOR ("TONY") AND OCTAVIUS RAYMOND ("RAY") ARE BOTH MARINE VETERANS AND FOOD TRUCK ENTREPRENEURS WHO WANT TO PARTNER WITH PROPERTY OWNERS LIKE NICOLE TO SET UP AND SELL THEIR FOOD TO HUNGRY RESIDENTS. BUT CITY ORDINANCES SQUASH FOOD TRUCK FREEDOM WITH PROXIMITY AND SIGNAGE RESTRICTIONS, PLUS A HIGH PERMIT FEE. THAT'S WHY NICOLE, TONY, AND RAY HAVE TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO FIGHT THE CITY'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL ECONOMIC PROTECTIONISM. PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY AND EARN THEIR HONEST LIVING WITHOUT THE GOVERNMENT SUPPRESSING THEIR TRUTHFUL AND ACCURATE SPEECH OR CHARGING THEM EXCESSIVE AND UNREASONABLE PERMIT FEES. WISCONSIN COTTAGE FOODS ASSOCIATION V. WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ET AL. WISCONSIN BANS THE SALE OF MANY HOMEMADE FOODS, INCLUDING COMMON AND SHELF-STABLE FOODS LIKE CANDIES, CHOCOLATES, GRANOLA, AND ROASTED COFFEE BEANS. FOR THOSE WHO WOULD DARE SELL, SAY, A PIECE OF FUDGE MADE IN THEIR HOME KITCHEN, THE PUNISHMENT COULD BE UP TO $1,000 IN FINES OR SIX MONTHS IN JAIL. WISCONSIN'S BAN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SAFETY. SO, IN FEBRUARY 2021, SEVEN WISCONSINITES AND THE WISCONSIN COTTAGE FOODS ASSOCIATION JOINED WITH IJ IN A LAWSUIT TO ALLOW THE SALE OF HOME-PREPARED, SAFE, NON-BAKED FOODS. IN DECEMBER 2022, A TRIAL COURT DECISION ALLOWED HOME BAKERS IN WISCONSIN TO SELL SHELF-STABLE FOODS DIRECTLY TO CONSUMERS. BUT AN APPELLATE COURT IN MAY 2023 RULED TO TEMPORARILY ALLOW THE STATE TO ENFORCE THE BAN ON THE SALE OF CERTAIN HOMEMADE FOODS WHILE THE CASE PROCEEDS ON APPEAL. GURROLA AND HERRERA V. DUNCAN ET AL. DARIO GURROLA LEARNED HOW TO FIGHT FIRES IN CALIFORNIA'S WELL-KNOWN INMATE FIREFIGHTING PROGRAM. WHEN HE TURNED HIS LIFE AROUND, HE THOUGHT HE COULD TURN THE SKILLS HE LEARNED WHILE INCARCERATED INTO A CAREER SERVING THE PUBLIC AS A FIREFIGHTER. BUT CALIFORNIA, DESPITE USING THOUSANDS OF INMATES TO FIGHT ITS WILDFIRES, PERMANENTLY BANS THOSE SAME PEOPLE FROM RECEIVING THE EMT CERTIFICATION NEEDED TO BECOME A CAREER FIREFIGHTER IF THEY HAVE MORE THAN ONE FELONY ON THEIR RECORD. SO, ALTHOUGH HE HAS ALL THE NECESSARY SKILLS AND TRAINING, DARIO CAN ONLY WORK AS A VOLUNTEER OR SEASONAL FIREFIGHTER. DARIO AND IJ CHALLENGED THIS UNJUST RESTRICTION TO VINDICATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EARN AN HONEST LIVING. AND, IN SEPTEMBER 2020, IJ PARTNERED WITH A NEW PLAINTIFF, FERNANDO HERRERA, WHO IS SIMILARLY PREVENTED FROM BECOMING A CERTIFIED FIRST RESPONDER BECAUSE OF HIS RECORD. SINCE THEN, CALIFORNIA PARTIALLY REFORMED THE LAW, ALLOWING SOME FORMER INMATES TO RECEIVE EMT CERTIFICATION. DARIO'S CASE WAS DISMISSED BY THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE 9TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS UPHELD THE DECISION. BANNING DARIO FROM EMT CERTIFICATION DOESN'T PROTECT CALIFORNIANS; IT JUST DEPRIVES THEM OF A COMMITTED AND QUALIFIED FIREFIGHTER. |
| CAREY V. LAND |
RUDY CAREY HAD A LONG BATTLE WITH ADDICTION AND SPENT TIME IN PRISON BEFORE TURNING HIS LIFE AROUND. HIS FIRST-HAND EXPERIENCE MAKES HIM WELL-SUITED TO GUIDE OTHERS THROUGH RECOVERY, AND HE WORKED SUCCESSFULLY FOR FIVE YEARS AS A COUNSELOR AT A FREDERICKSBURG, VIRGINIA, TREATMENT FACILITY - UNTIL HE DISCOVERED HIS CAREER WAS ILLEGAL. THE STATE BANS PEOPLE WITH CONVICTIONS FOR ANY OF 176 "BARRIER CRIMES" (RANGING FROM RECKLESS BOAT DRIVING TO BURGLARY) FROM BEING EMPLOYED IN A "DIRECT CARE" POSITION. IN SEPTEMBER, IJ TEAMED UP WITH RUDY IN FEDERAL COURT TO VINDICATE A SIMPLE TRUTH: VIRGINIA SHOULD JUDGE WHO PEOPLE ARE TODAY, NOT WHO THEY WERE TWO DECADES AGO. THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE CASE AND THEN DENIED OUR MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IN AUGUST 2022, HOLDING THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF A PARDON PREVENTS RUDY FROM CHALLENGING THE LAW, EVEN THOUGH THE GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA HAS NOT COMMITTED TO RULING ON HIS APPLICATION ANY TIME SOON. IN RE ARM & RAGE LLC JOE ARMSTRONG OWNS WJBE, KNOXVILLE'S ONLY RADIO STATION FOCUSED ON THE BLACK COMMUNITY. BUT THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION IS THREATENING TO SHUT IT DOWN; NOT FOR ANYTHING WJBE DID, BUT BECAUSE JOE WAS CONVICTED OF MAKING A FALSE STATEMENT ON HIS 2008 PERSONAL TAX RETURN, FOUR YEARS BEFORE HE EVEN BOUGHT THE STATION. THE U.S. CONSTITUTION PROTECTS AMERICANS FROM THIS TYPE OF IRRATIONAL GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE. IJ WILL DEFEND JOE AT AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING AND, IF NECESSARY, FIGHT FOR HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN COURT. DAVID AND PEGGY SCHROEDER V. CITY OF WILMINGTON, ET AL. AFTER RETIRING, DAVID AND PEG SCHROEDER BOUGHT A TOWNHOME IN WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA, TO STAY AT WHEN THEY VISITED FAMILY. TO AFFORD THE TOWNHOME, THEY PLANNED ALSO TO OFFER IT AS A VACATION RENTAL WHEN THEY WERE NOT LIVING THERE. BUT AFTER $75,000 IN RENOVATIONS, THE CITY PASSED A ZONING ORDINANCE THAT CREATED A HARD CAP ON HOW MANY PROPERTIES WERE ALLOWED TO ENGAGE IN VACATION RENTALS. ANY PROPERTY THAT FELL WITHIN 400 FEET OF ANOTHER VACATION RENTAL WOULD BE PROHIBITED FROM OPERATING AS A VACATION RENTAL. TO DECIDE WHICH PROPERTY OWNERS WOULD RETAIN THEIR RIGHT TO OFFER VACATION RENTALS, THE CITY DEVISED A RANDOMIZED LOTTERY PROCESS THAT THE SCHROEDERS LOST. THEN THE CITY GAVE PROPERTIES THAT DID NOT WIN THE LOTTERY ONE YEAR TO "RECOUP THEIR LOSSES". THIS, ACCORDING TO THE CITY, WOULD ABSOLVE THE CITY OF HAVING TO PAY THE SCHROEDERS ANY COMPENSATION FOR DESTROYING THEIR RENTAL BUSINESS. BUT IF THE CITY WANTS TO TAKE THE SCHROEDERS' PROPERTY RIGHTS, IT HAS TO PAY THEM. IJ PARTNERED WITH DAVID AND PEG TO SUE THE CITY, ARGUING THAT THE STATE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS THEIR RIGHT TO RENT, AND IT PROHIBITS THE CITY FROM GRANTING EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES AND CREATING RENTAL MONOPOLIES THAT PROHIBIT EVERYONE ELSE FROM RENTING. IN SEPTEMBER 2020, A SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE RULED THE CITY'S ORDINANCE VIOLATED A STATEWIDE LAW, AND IN APRIL 2022, AN APPEALS COURT AFFIRMED THAT RULING - ESTABLISHING PRECEDENT THAT WILL PREVENT OTHER NORTH CAROLINA CITIES FROM PASSING SIMILAR RESTRICTIONS. IJ RECEIVED FROM THE CITY OF WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA, $304,564.20 IN ATTORNEYS' FEES AND $2,055.26 IN COSTS RECOVERED. HOMELESS CHARITY, ET AL. V. AKRON BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS IN RESPONSE TO A SOARING HOMELESS POPULATION IN AKRON, OHIO, SAGE LEWIS STEPPED UP TO PROVIDE REAL SUPPORT TO THOSE IN NEED BY ALLOWING A FEW HOMELESS MEN AND WOMEN TO PITCH THEIR TENTS IN THE BACK LOT OF HIS BUILDING. THIS INFORMAL ARRANGEMENT EVOLVED INTO A COMMUNITY DESIGNED TO HELP HOMELESS MEN AND WOMEN TRANSITION BACK TO INDEPENDENCE. BUT WHILE AKRON OFFICIALS DO NOT OFFER ADEQUATE SOLUTIONS TO THE CITY'S HOMELESS PROBLEM, THEY WERE QUICK TO USE ZONING LAWS TO SHUT DOWN SAGE'S CHARITY. IJ JOINED WITH SAGE IN OCTOBER 2018 TO VINDICATE THE RIGHT TO CARRY ON THIS WORK BY KEEPING VULNERABLE PEOPLE OFF THE STREETS. IN MAY 2022, A STATE APPELLATE COURT UPHELD THE ZONING BOARD'S REFUSAL TO ALLOW SAGE TO OPERATE HIS SHELTER ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. WE WERE UNSUCCESSFUL IN OUR APPEALS TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT AND THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. THORNTON V. CITY OF BULLHEAD CITY, ARIZONA IN BULLHEAD CITY, ARIZONA, YOUR KINDNESS MIGHT COST YOU YOUR FREEDOM. IT NEARLY DID FOR NORMA THORNTON, A 78-YEAR-OLD GRANDMOTHER WHO WAS ARRESTED AND CRIMINALLY CHARGED FOR FEEDING THOSE IN NEED IN BULLHEAD CITY. UNDER A NEW ORDINANCE, THE CITY DEEMED IT A CRIMINAL MISDEMEANOR - PUNISHABLE BY FINES AND EVEN IMPRISONMENT - TO SHARE PREPARED FOOD IN A PUBLIC PARK FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. HOMELESSNESS IS A COMPLICATED AND SERIOUS PROBLEM, BUT CRIMINALIZING ACTS OF CHARITY ISN'T THE SOLUTION. WHAT'S MORE, IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THAT'S WHY NORMA JOINED IJ IN A FEDERAL LAWSUIT AGAINST BULLHEAD CITY TO STRIKE DOWN THIS ORDINANCE AND ALLOW NORMA, AND OTHERS LIKE HER, TO USE CHARITY TO HELP THOSE IN NEED. SHAW, ET AL. V. METRO. GOV'T OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE, IS THE CENTER OF COUNTRY MUSIC. YET, INCREDIBLY, THE CITY BANNED MUSICIANS FROM MAKING MUSIC IN THEIR OWN HOMES. NASHVILLE OUTLAWED HOME-BASED BUSINESSES THAT SERVE CLIENTS, PREVENTING LOCAL MUSICIANS, HAIR STYLISTS, AND OTHER BUDDING ENTREPRENEURS FROM BUILDING THEIR OWN AMERICAN DREAM. NASHVILLE RESIDENTS, LIKE IJ CLIENTS LIJ SHAW AND PAT RAYNOR, FACE STEEP FINES IF ANY CUSTOMERS PHYSICALLY COME TO THEIR HOMES TO DO BUSINESS. AT THE SAME TIME, NASHVILLE ALLOWS OTHER TYPES OF HOME-BASED BUSINESSES. IJ AND THE BEACON CENTER OF TENNESSEE TEAMED UP TO VINDICATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO USE YOUR OWN HOME TO EARN AN HONEST LIVING. IN OCTOBER 2019, A NASHVILLE COURT DISMISSED THE SUIT. WE APPEALED THAT RULING TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT, AND IN AUGUST 2022, THE HIGH COURT VACATED THE DISMISSAL, ALLOWING OUR CLIENTS TO CONTINUE THEIR LAWSUIT. THE CASE HAS NOW RETURNED TO THE CHANCERY COURT OF DAVIDSON COUNTY FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. BEN AND HANK BRINKMANN, AND MATTITUCK 12500 LLC., V. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK THE FAMILY OWNERS OF BRINKMANN'S HARDWARE THOUGHT THEY HAD FOUND THE PERFECT LOCATION FOR A NEW STORE IN SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK. BUT EVEN THOUGH THEY FOLLOWED ALL THE RULES, THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD IS TRYING TO USE EMINENT DOMAIN TO TAKE THEIR PROPERTY FOR A "PARK" (BY WHICH THE TOWN MEANS THAT IT WILL LEAVE THE LAND AS AN UNIMPROVED LOT). IT IS AN EXTREME AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL TACTIC TO PREVENT AN ENTIRELY LEGAL BUSINESS FROM SERVING THE COMMUNITY. THE TOWN, WHERE THEY PURCHASED A COMMERCIAL-ZONED LOT, HAS DONE EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO STOP THE BRINKMANNS: IT SLOW-PLAYED THE PERMITTING PROCESS, IMPOSED EXORBITANT FEES, AND THEN ENACTED A TARGETED MORATORIUM ON BUILDING PERMITS ALONG A ONE-MILE STRETCH OF ROAD WITH THE BRINKMANNS' PROPERTY IN THE CENTER. THE BRINKMANNS HAVE TEAMED UP WITH IJ IN FEDERAL COURT TO END THE TOWN'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL ATTEMPTS TO USE EMINENT DOMAIN TO STOP A COMPLETELY LEGAL USE OF PROPERTY TO BUILD A BUSINESS. AFTER A LOSS IN THE TRIAL COURT, WE ARE NOW UP ON APPEAL IN THE 2ND CIRCUIT. KING V. CITY OF LAKEWAY, TEXAS, ET AL. BIANCA KING IS A SINGLE MOTHER TO TWO SMALL CHILDREN. SHE WATCHES A FEW OF HER NEIGHBORS' CHILDREN AT HER HOME, WHICH BACKS UP TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD GOLF COURSE IN LAKEWAY, TEXAS. THE SIGHT AND SOUND OF CHILDREN IN HER PRIVATE BACKYARD LED SEVERAL GOLFERS, INCLUDING THE FORMER TOWN MAYOR, TO COMPLAIN ABOUT BIANCA'S BUSINESS AT A PERMIT HEARING. LAKEWAY REQUIRES HOME BUSINESSES MEET VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE CRITERIA, AND THE TOWN DENIED BIANCA A PERMIT FOR HER HOME DAY CARE. BUT BIANCA IS PROVIDING A VALUABLE SERVICE, AND THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS OVERLY OPPRESSIVE LAWS THAT BURDEN A PERSON'S ECONOMIC OR PROPERTY RIGHTS. SO, BIANCA AND IJ ASKED THE TEXAS STATE COURTS TO REVERSE LAKEWAY'S DENIAL OF HER PERMIT AND TO RULE THAT LAKEWAY CANNOT PREVENT HARMLESS HOME BUSINESSES LIKE BIANCA'S DAY CARE. IN JUNE 2023, THE LAKEWAY CITY COUNCIL GRANTED A PERMIT ALLOWING BIANCA TO KEEP HER HOME DAY CARE BUSINESS OPEN. AZAEL SEPULVEDA V. CITY OF PASADENA, TEXAS, ET AL. AZAEL SEPULVEDA, ALSO KNOWN AS OZ, HAS RUN A CAR REPAIR SHOP FOR TEN YEARS. IN SUMMER 2021, HE BOUGHT A STOREFRONT IN HIS HOMETOWN OF PASADENA, TEXAS. BUT THE CITY DEMANDED HE BUILD 23 PARKING SPACES, SOMETHING HIS ONE-MAN SHOP DIDN'T NEED AND COULDN'T AFFORD. IJ AND OZ FILED A LAWSUIT ASKING TEXAS STATE COURTS TO STRIKE DOWN PASADENA'S AUTO-SHOP PARKING REQUIREMENTS. IJ SECURED AN EARLY INJUNCTION THAT PREVENTED THE CITY FROM ENFORCING ITS LAW WHILE THE CASE WAS PENDING. IN MAY 2022, THE CITY APPROVED A CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT PAVES THE WAY FOR OZ TO OPEN HIS SHOP. SINCE THAT TIME, CITY OFFICIALS HAVE DRAGGED THEIR FEET ON ALLOWING HIM TO OPEN HIS NEW SHOP. SO, IN MARCH 2023, OZ FILED A MOTION TO ENFORCE THE AGREEMENT. |
| BAKER V. CITY OF MCKINNEY, TEXAS |
IN SUMMER 2020, THE MCKINNEY, TEXAS, SWAT TEAM USED TEAR GAS GRENADES, EXPLOSIVES, AND AN ARMORED VEHICLE TO BOMBARD VICKI BAKER'S HOME TO PURSUE A FUGITIVE WHO HAD HIDDEN INSIDE. THE CITY THEN REFUSED TO PAY ANY OF THE MORE THAN $50,000 IN DAMAGE THEY CAUSED. YET WHEN THE GOVERNMENT DELIBERATELY DESTROYS AN INNOCENT OWNER'S PROPERTY IN SERVICE OF THE PUBLIC GOOD - IN THIS CASE, PUBLIC SAFETY - IT MUST COMPENSATE THAT OWNER. UNFORTUNATELY, SOME LOWER COURTS IN RECENT YEARS HAVE HELD THAT THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE THE GOVERNMENT TO REIMBURSE OWNERS FOR PROPERTY DAMAGED BY POLICE ACTIONS. IJ FILED SUIT IN MARCH 2021 ON VICKI'S BEHALF. IN APRIL 2022, FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, A FEDERAL COURT RULED THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES COMPENSATION WHEN POLICE INTENTIONALLY DESTROY AN INNOCENT PERSON'S PROPERTY. THANKS TO THAT VICTORY, A JURY AWARDED VICKI $59,656.59 IN DAMAGES IN JUNE 2022. BUT THE CITY APPEALED. IN JUNE 2023, IJ DEFENDED ITS CLIENT AND THE JURY'S VERDICT BEFORE THE 5TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. SARK, ET AL. V. CITY OF MAULDIN, SOUTH CAROLINA, ET AL. JEREMY SARK AND MARIE DOUGHERTY ARE CLASSIC SMALL-TOWN ENTREPRENEURS WHO OWN AN AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SHOP AND U-HAUL RENTAL BUSINESS IN MAULDIN, SOUTH CAROLINA. BUT MAULDIN OFFICIALS DECIDED THAT U-HAUL TRUCKS AND TRAILERS ARE SIMPLY TOO UGLY FOR THE NEW DOWNTOWN THEY ENVISION. THE MAULDIN CITY COUNCIL AMENDED THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE TO OUTLAW U-HAUL RENTALS ALMOST EVERYWHERE, FORCING JEREMY AND MARIE TO CLOSE THIS IMPORTANT PART OF THEIR SMALL BUSINESS. BUT THAT VIOLATES SOUTH CAROLINA LAW - THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T PROHIBIT SOMEONE FROM CONTINUING A SAFE, REASONABLE, PREEXISTING USE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY. THAT'S WHY JEREMY AND MARIE JOINED IJ TO FIGHT BACK. IN DECEMBER 2022, THE CITY COUNCIL VOTED TO CHANGE ITS ZONING CODE TO ALLOW JEREMY AND MARIE'S U-HAUL RENTAL BUSINESS TO CONTINUE. IN RE: SANDERSVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY'S PETITION FOR APPROVAL TO ACQUIRE REAL ESTATE BY CONDEMNATION TO BRING RAIL SERVICE TO ONE PRIVATELY HELD ROCK QUARRY, THE SANDERSVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY WANTS TO DRIVE A TRACK STRAIGHT THROUGH THE HEART OF SEVERAL PARCELS OF PROPERTY IN THE SMALL TOWN OF SPARTA, GEORGIA - INCLUDING PARCELS THAT HAVE BEEN IN THE GARRETT AND SMITH FAMILIES FOR GENERATIONS. UNDER GEORGIA LAW, PRIVATE RAILROAD COMPANIES CAN USE THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN ONLY FOR A PUBLIC USE - BUT GRABBING LAND THAT BELONGS TO OTHERS TO BUILD A TRACK TO SERVICE PRIVATE INTERESTS IS NOT A PUBLIC USE. THAT'S WHY THE GARRETTS AND THE SMITHS HAVE JOINED WITH IJ TO STAND UP TO SANDERSVILLE RAILROAD'S ATTEMPT TO WIELD THE STATE'S POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN TO TAKE THEIR GENERATIONAL LAND. THEY ARE ASKING THE COMMISSION TO DENY SANDERSVILLE RAILROAD'S REQUEST FOR AUTHORITY TO TAKE THEIR LAND TO BUILD THE TRACK BECAUSE IT IS NOT A PUBLIC USE. PUNXSUTAWNEY HUNTING CLUB, INC., ET AL. V. PENNSYLVANIA GAME COMMISSION, ET AL. LIKE MANY STATES, PENNSYLVANIA GRANTS ITS WILDLIFE OFFICERS VIRTUALLY UNLIMITED POWER TO ENTER PRIVATE LAND WHENEVER THEY PLEASE TO SNOOP AROUND FOR POTENTIAL HUNTING VIOLATIONS. KNOWING THAT, WILDLIFE OFFICERS HAVE REPEATEDLY ENTERED HUNTING CLUBS' PROPERTIES WITHOUT CONSENT OR WARRANTS TO SPY ON MEMBERS AND INTERROGATE THEM ABOUT THEIR COMPLIANCE WITH HUNTING LAWS. IN 2007, THE STATE SUPREME COURT SAID THAT WAS LEGAL. BUT THE PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION HAS UNIQUE TEXT PROTECTING PRIVATE LAND FROM WARRANTLESS SEARCHES, AND THE TIME HAS COME FOR THE COURT TO HONOR THAT TEXT. THE PUNXSUTAWNEY AND PITCH PINE HUNTING CLUBS, REPRESENTED BY IJ, ARE SUING IN STATE COURT TO RESTORE ALL PENNSYLVANIANS' RIGHT TO BE SECURE ON THEIR LAND. FICKEN V. CITY OF DUNEDIN, FLORIDA, ET AL. IJ JOINED WITH JIM FICKEN OF DUNEDIN, FLORIDA, TO CHALLENGE THE CITY'S ATTEMPT TO FORECLOSE HIS HOME SIMPLY BECAUSE HIS GRASS WAS TOO LONG. WHILE JIM WAS OUT OF TOWN TENDING TO HIS LATE MOTHER'S ESTATE, CITY CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FINED HIM FOR HIS LONG GRASS, TO THE TUNE OF $500 PER DAY. BY THE TIME HE GOT BACK AND BECAME AWARE THAT HE WAS BEING FINED, THE FINES HAD ALREADY ACCRUED TO NEARLY $30,000. THE CITY TOLD JIM HE HAD 15 DAYS TO PAY, OR THEY WOULD GET THEIR MONEY BY FORECLOSING ON HIS HOME. UNFORTUNATELY, A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE RULED AGAINST JIM BY UPHOLDING THE CITY'S OUTRAGEOUS FINE. THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 11TH CIRCUIT REJECTED JIM'S APPEAL. DURING THE LITIGATION, HOWEVER, THE CITY ADOPTED A FINE-REDUCTION PROCESS FOR PEOPLE, LIKE JIM, FACING EXORBITANT FINES FOR SMALL VIOLATIONS. WITH IJ'S ASSISTANCE, JIM AVAILED HIMSELF OF THAT PROCESS AND OBTAINED AN 80 PERCENT REDUCTION IN HIS ORIGINAL FINE. JIM PAID THE FINE - ALONG WITH AN ADDITIONAL (AND CONTROVERSIAL) $15,000 FOR THE CITY'S LEGAL FEES - AND THE CITY RELEASED ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN AGAINST JIM. THOMAS, ET AL. V. COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT, CALIFORNIA, ET AL. HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, IMPOSES A DAILY CIVIL PENALTY OF UP TO $10,000 PER VIOLATION, FOR UP TO 90 DAYS, FOR ANY CODE VIOLATION IT SAYS IS RELATED TO CANNABIS. SHOCKINGLY, HUMBOLDT WILL FINE NEW HOMEBUYERS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS BECAUSE, BEFORE THEY BOUGHT THE PLACE, THE PRIOR PROPERTY OWNER ALLEGEDLY GREW MARIJUANA ILLEGALLY. WHILE THESE INNOCENT OWNERS HAVE ALL OF TEN DAYS TO WEIGH THEIR OPTIONS UNDER THE THREAT OF MILLIONS IN FINES, THE COUNTY TYPICALLY OFFERS A COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT, UNDER WHICH OWNERS WAIVE THEIR RIGHTS IN EXCHANGE FOR A SINGLE DAY'S WORTH OF FINES. THESE TACTICS HAVE PUT HUNDREDS OF INNOCENT PROPERTY OWNERS UNDER IMMENSE PRESSURE AND LEGAL UNCERTAINTY. THEY NEVER GREW CANNABIS - BUT THEY ALSO CAN'T GET THEIR DAY IN COURT - THEY FACE CRIPPLING FINES AND CAN'T DEVELOP THEIR LAND. THE EXCESSIVE FINES CLAUSE REQUIRES THAT ANY FINES MUST BE PROPORTIONAL TO THE ALLEGED OFFENSE, AND THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT ENTITLES EVERYONE TO A JURY OF THEIR PEERS IN CIVIL CASES. THAT'S WHY FOUR HUMBOLDT RESIDENTS HAVE JOINED WITH IJ TO FILE A CLASS ACTION AGAINST THE COUNTY. IN MAY 2023, A FEDERAL JUDGE GRANTED THE COUNTY'S MOTION TO DISMISS; IJ WILL APPEAL THE DECISION. DAVIS, ET AL. V. CITY OF CHICAGO IN APRIL 2019, IJ FILED A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT CHALLENGING CHICAGO'S MASSIVE AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL VEHICLE IMPOUND PROGRAM. IN A CITY THAT RUNS A CHRONIC BUDGET DEFICIT OF MORE THAN $100 MILLION, IMPOUNDING VEHICLES HAS BECOME AN EASY AND SIGNIFICANT SOURCE OF CASH. THE LEAD PLAINTIFFS IN OUR CLASS ACTION ARE INNOCENT OWNERS JEROME DAVIS AND VERONICA WALKER-DAVIS. THE CITY IMPOUNDED THEIR CAR AFTER AN AUTO-SHOP EMPLOYEE TOOK IT FOR A JOY RIDE WHILE IT WAS IN THE SHOP FOR REPAIRS. AFTER FIGHTING THE CITY FOR NEARLY A YEAR AND BEING CHARGED THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN FINES AND FEES, THE DAVISES ARRIVED TO PICK UP THEIR VEHICLE - ONLY TO FIND THAT CITY HAD ALREADY DESTROYED IT. IN JUNE 2020, THE MAYOR OF CHICAGO PROPOSED REFORMS TO THE IMPOUND PROGRAM THAT WOULD FIX SOME OF THE GLARING CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS. THEN, IN AUGUST 2020, A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE REJECTED THE CITY'S REQUEST TO DISMISS SEVERAL CLAIMS IN THE CASE, SO THE CASE CONTINUES. LOZANO, ET AL. V. ZION, ET AL. IN ZION, ILLINOIS, THE CITY REQUIRES LANDLORDS TO FORCE TENANTS TO OPEN THE DOORS OF THEIR HOMES TO CITY INSPECTORS WITHOUT A WARRANT. IF A TENANT REFUSES TO CONSENT TO AN INSPECTION, THE CITY THREATENS THEIR LANDLORD WITH RUINOUS FINES. THE CITY REFUSES TO ACQUIRE SEARCH WARRANTS IN RESPONSE TO TENANT OBJECTIONS. YOUR HOME IS YOUR CASTLE, WHETHER YOU RENT OR OWN, SO IN SEPTEMBER 2019, JOSEFINA LOZANO AND THREE OF HER TENANTS JOINED WITH IJ TO FILE A FEDERAL LAWSUIT TO SHUT DOWN ZION'S WARRANTLESS INSPECTION PROGRAM. THE CITY AMENDED THE ORDINANCE IN APRIL 2022 IN RESPONSE TO THE LAWSUIT SO THAT IT WILL NO LONGER PUNISH TENANTS OR LANDLORDS WHO REFUSE WARRANTLESS INSPECTIONS. THEN, IN JANUARY 2023, A JUDGE RATIFIED A CONSENT DECREE THAT MANDATES THAT ZION NO LONGER PUNISH RENTERS AND LANDLORDS FOR DECLINING WARRANTLESS INSPECTIONS. IJ RECEIVED FROM THE TOWN OF ZION, ILLINOIS, $15,000 IN ATTORNEYS' FEES. DOROTHY RIVERA ET AL. V. BOROUGH OF POTTSTOWN AND KEITH A. PLACE POTTSTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA, HAS A SIMILAR RENTAL INSPECTION LAW THAT FORCES LANDLORDS AND TENANTS TO OPEN THEIR PROPERTIES AND HOMES TO SUBMIT TO INTRUSIVE INSPECTIONS SEARCHING FOR HOUSING CODE VIOLATIONS EVEN IF A LANDLORD OR TENANT OBJECTS. THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION GUARANTEE PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN THE HOME. THAT IS WHY IJ TEAMED UP WITH A POTTSTOWN LANDLORD AND HIS TENANTS TO CHALLENGE THE GOVERNMENT'S USE OF ADMINISTRATIVE WARRANTS TO SEARCH HOMES WITHOUT VOLUNTARY CONSENT OR A WARRANT BASED UPON TRADITIONAL PROBABLE CAUSE. IN MAY 2020, THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA VACATED AND REMANDED A LOWER COURT'S RULING IN FAVOR OF POTTSTOWN AND ORDERED THE TOWN TO PRODUCE RECORDS RELATING TO THE RENTAL ORDINANCE, SO THE CASE IS ONGOING. |
| AMANDA WINK, ET AL. V. CITY OF ORANGE CITY, ET AL. |
ORANGE CITY, IOWA, ALSO FORCES LANDLORDS AND TENANTS TO OPEN THEIR PROPERTIES AND HOMES TO SUBMIT TO INTRUSIVE INSPECTIONS. THE ORDINANCE ALLOWS THE GOVERNMENT TO ENTER THE MOST INTIMATE CONFINES OF TENANTS' HOMES, EVEN WHEN LANDLORDS AND TENANTS OBJECT. ORDINARILY, WHEN A PERSON DOES NOT WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO ENTER THEIR HOME, THEY CAN REQUEST A WARRANT SUPPORTED BY SOME EVIDENCE THAT A VIOLATION OF THE LAW HAS OCCURRED. BUT IN ORANGE CITY, THE GOVERNMENT CAN GO TO COURT AND READILY OBTAIN AN "ADMINISTRATIVE" WARRANT, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY EVIDENCE THAT ANYTHING IS WRONG WITH THE HOME. THE U.S. AND IOWA CONSTITUTIONS GUARANTEE STRONG PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN THE HOME, MEANING THAT THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS VOLUNTARY CONSENT OR PROBABLE CAUSE TO ENTER YOUR HOME. ORANGE CITY'S INSPECTION SCHEME DEFIES THESE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES, SO IN MAY 2021, WE TEAMED UP WITH ORANGE CITY TENANTS AMANDA WINK, BRYAN SINGER, AND ERIKA NORDYKE, AND THEIR LANDLORDS, TO FILE A LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THE GOVERNMENT'S USE OF ADMINISTRATIVE WARRANTS. IN FALL 2021, A JUDGE DENIED THE CITY'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE SUIT. BRUMIT V. CITY OF GRANITE CITY CITY OFFICIALS IN GRANITE CITY, ILLINOIS, TRIED TO KICK ANDY SIMPSON AND DEBI BRUMIT (ALONG WITH DEBI'S GRANDCHILDREN) OUT OF THEIR HOME AS PUNISHMENT FOR A CRIME EVERYONE AGREES THEY DID NOT COMMIT. WHY? BECAUSE DEBI'S DAUGHTER (WHO DID NOT LIVE WITH HER) STOLE A VAN ELSEWHERE IN TOWN. GRANITE CITY HAS WHAT IT CALLS A "CRIME-FREE" HOUSING ORDINANCE THAT AMOUNTS TO A COMPULSORY EVICTION LAW. UNDER THE LAW, IF ANY MEMBER OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD OR EVEN A GUEST COMMITS A CRIME ANYWHERE IN THE CITY THEN YOUR LANDLORD IS REQUIRED TO EVICT YOU. BUT DEBI AND ANDY'S LANDLORD DID NOT WANT TO EVICT THEM. THAT IS WHY DEBI AND ANDY TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO SUE GRANITE CITY TO AFFIRM THAT AMERICANS CANNOT BE RENDERED HOMELESS AS PUNISHMENT FOR OTHER PEOPLE'S CRIMES. IN OCTOBER 2019, A FEDERAL JUDGE AGREED, ENTERING A RESTRAINING ORDER THAT KEPT DEBI AND ANDY SAFELY IN THEIR HOME WHILE THE LAWSUIT PROCEEDED THROUGH DISCOVERY AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT BRIEFING. HOWEVER, IN SEPTEMBER 2022, A JUDGE FROM THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS UPHELD THE ORDINANCE. IJ APPEALED THE DECISION AND ARGUED THAT APPEAL IN MAY 2023. HOHENBERG AND HANSON V. SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE, ET AL. WHEN A COURT PROCEEDING MAY RESULT IN A PERSON LOSING THEIR HOME, THE U.S. CONSTITUTION DEMANDS A FAIR PROCESS WITH RIGOROUS SAFEGUARDS. FOR DEFENDANTS IN MEMPHIS' ENVIRONMENTAL COURT, THE PROCESS IS ANYTHING BUT FAIR. SARAH HOHENBERG AND JOSEPH HANSON BOTH ENDED UP IN ENVIRONMENTAL COURT AFTER TREES FELL ON THEIR HOUSES. BOTH ENDED UP LOSING THEIR HOMES AFTER A YEARS-LONG PROCESS IN A COURT WHERE WITNESSES ARE NOT SWORN IN, EVIDENCE IS NOT AUTHENTICATED, AND PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT RECORDED, MAKING DECISIONS ALL BUT IMPOSSIBLE TO APPEAL. SARAH AND JOSEPH HAVE PARTNERED WITH IJ IN A LAWSUIT TO ENSURE THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL COURT, AND SIMILAR HOUSING COURTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY, PROVIDE THE DUE PROCESS THAT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES AND THAT THE COURT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR MAKING BOTH OF THEM HOMELESS. AFTER A VICTORY IN THE 6TH CIRCUIT IN MAY 2023 RECOGNIZING FEDERAL COURTS HAVE AUTHORITY TO HEAR CHALLENGES AGAINST LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WHEN THEY CREATE JUDICIAL SYSTEMS THAT VIOLATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, SARAH AND JOSEPH WILL CARRY ON THEIR FIGHT; THE CASE IS NOW REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER DISCOVERY AND BRIEFING. ADAMS V. CITY OF SEATTLE, WASHINGTON SEATTLE, LIKE MANY CITIES, IS EXPERIENCING A HOUSING SHORTAGE. THEIR ATTEMPT TO ADDRESS IT ONLY MAKES MATTERS WORSE. IN 2019, THE CITY CREATED THE MANDATORY HOUSING AFFORDABILITY (MHA) PROGRAM, WHICH PLACES UNIQUE BURDENS ON ANYONE BUILDING IN CERTAIN ZONES THROUGHOUT THE CITY. LONGTIME CENTRAL DISTRICT HOMEOWNER ANITA ADAMS WANTS TO BUILD A MODEST ADDITION TO HOUSE HER TWO ADULT CHILDREN. BUT BEFORE SHE CAN GET A BUILDING PERMIT, THE CITY DEMANDS THAT SHE EITHER BUILD ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS OR PAY NEARLY $77,000 INTO THE MHA PROGRAM. THOSE FEES MAKE ANITA'S PLANS IMPOSSIBLE - AND LEAVE THE CITY WITH FEWER AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS. ACROSS THE CITY, ANYONE WISHING TO CONSTRUCT A HOME MUST FACE INCOMPREHENSIBLY HIGH FEES OR BURDENSOME AND INTRUSIVE NEW HOUSING MANDATES LEVIED IN THE NAME OF "AFFORDABLE HOUSING." ANITA HAS PARTNERED WITH IJ TO CHALLENGE SEATTLE'S COUNTERPRODUCTIVE AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL MHA PROGRAM. DECKER, ET AL. V. CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, ET AL. CHASIDY DECKER, A NATIVE OF THE TREASURE VALLEY IN IDAHO, HAD A SAVVY SOLUTION TO OWNING A HOME AFTER BEING PRICED OUT OF THE GENERAL BOISE REAL ESTATE MARKET: SHE BOUGHT A BEAUTIFUL 252-SQUARE FOOT TINY HOUSE ON WHEELS AND FOUND A LOCAL MERIDIAN HOMEOWNER WHO WOULD LET HER PARK IT ON HIS PROPERTY FOR $600 PER MONTH. BUT THE DAY AFTER CHASIDY MOVED IN, THE CITY THREATENED BOTH CHASIDY AND THE HOMEOWNER WITH CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AND FINES OF $1,000 PER DAY UNLESS SHE MOVED OUT OF HER TINY HOUSE. CITIES LIKE MERIDIAN SHOULD PROMOTE RATHER THAN DISCOURAGE THEIR RESIDENTS' PRIVATE EFFORTS TO FIND AFFORDABLE HOUSING DURING A HOUSING CRISIS. BUT MERIDIAN'S BAN ON TINY HOMES ON WHEELS IS NOT JUST BAD POLICY - IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. WITH IJ, CHASIDY FILED A CONSTITUTIONAL LAWSUIT AGAINST MERIDIAN'S IRRATIONAL BAN ON LIVING IN TINY HOMES. IN NOVEMBER 2022, A STATE DISTRICT COURT ALLOWED CHASIDY'S CASE TO MOVE FORWARD. TINY HOUSE HAND UP, INC. V. CITY OF CALHOUN, GEORGIA, ET AL. CINDY TUCKER RUNS TINY HOUSE HAND UP, OR THHU, TO FILL A NICHE FOR SMALLER, LESS COSTLY HOMES. THEY'RE READY TO BUILD A COMMUNITY OF SOUTHERN-STYLE COTTAGES WITH 540 TO 600 SQUARE FEET OF LIVING SPACE EACH IN CALHOUN, GEORGIA, BUT THE CITY DEMANDS HOUSES HAVE OVER 1,000 SQUARE FEET. GEORGIA'S CONSTITUTION REQUIRES ZONING LAWS TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY RELATED TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALITY, OR GENERAL WELFARE. CALHOUN'S BAN ON SMALLER HOMES IS NOT RELATED TO ANYTHING OTHER THAN EXCLUDING PEOPLE WITH LOWER INCOMES AND FORCING PEOPLE TO LIVE IN HOMES THAT ARE LARGER THAN THEY WANT. SO, CINDY AND THHU HAVE TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO FIGHT FOR THEIR RIGHT TO BUILD MODESTLY SIZED HOMES. IN OCTOBER 2021, WE FILED A PETITION ASKING THE COURT TO FIND THAT THE CITY'S BAN VIOLATES THE GEORGIA CONSTITUTION. DUNCKEL, ET AL. V. CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA KIMBERLY DUNCKEL AND HER FAMILY FOUNDED FAIRYTALE FARM ANIMAL SANCTUARY TO GIVE NEGLECTED AND SPECIAL-NEEDS FARM ANIMALS A "HAPPILY EVER AFTER." BUT IN EARLY 2023, THE CITY TOLD KIMBERLY THE SANCTUARY COULD NOT CONTINUE TO SERVE THE COMMUNITY. AFTER A BACKLASH, THE CITY BACKED DOWN, BUT IT STILL PLACED HARSH LIMITS ON THE SANCTUARY, INCLUDING A BAN ON EVENTS AND CAPPING HOW MANY VOLUNTEERS CAN WORK AT A TIME. THE CITY WILL NOT EVEN ALLOW LOCAL GIRL SCOUT TROOPS TO VISIT. TOO OFTEN, ZONING CODES STRIP PEOPLE OF THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS, MAKING THEIR OWNERSHIP LITTLE MORE THAN A NAME ON A DEED. KIMBERLY TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO PROTECT PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS TO PURSUE THEIR CHOSEN OCCUPATION, INCLUDING AT NONPROFITS LIKE THE SANCTUARY. SHAHEED, ET AL. V. CITY OF WILMINGTON, DELAWARE, ET AL. WILMINGTON, DELAWARE, ISSUES A LOT OF PARKING TICKETS AND THEN ALLOWS PRIVATE COMPANIES TO TOW ANY CAR WITH MORE THAN $200 IN OUTSTANDING FINES. RATHER THAN PAY MONEY TO THOSE COMPANIES FOR THEIR SERVICES, THE CITY CONTRACTUALLY EMPOWERS THE TOWING COMPANIES TO KEEP AND SCRAP CARS. THE TOW COMPANIES GET TO KEEP THE FULL VALUE OF THE CARS - THE VALUE DOES NOT EVEN OFFSET THE OWNER'S OUTSTANDING TICKETS. WILMINGTON'S ENTIRE SYSTEM IS FUNDAMENTALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR BEING WOEFULLY DEFICIENT OF DUE PROCESS AND REPEATEDLY DEMANDING GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE FINES. IN NOVEMBER 2022, A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT RULED AGAINST THE CITY'S ATTEMPT TO DISMISS THE CASE, ALLOWING IJ'S SUIT TO CONTINUE. |
| MEADE AND SOOKRAM V. BONIN AND ETOH MONITORING, LLC |
THE U.S. CONSTITUTION REQUIRES JUDGES TO BE OBJECTIVE WHEN DECIDING WHETHER TO DEPRIVE A PERSON OF HER LIBERTY OR PROPERTY. WHEN JUDGES HAVE A PERSONAL, POLITICAL, OR FINANCIAL INTEREST IN A CASE, THEY VIOLATE THE 14TH AMENDMENT'S GUARANTEE OF DUE PROCESS. HAKEEM MEADE, MARSHALL SOOKRAM, AND TOO MANY OTHERS IN NEW ORLEANS WERE ORDERED TO SUBMIT TO ANKLE MONITORING BY A JUDGE WHO HAD PERSONAL, POLITICAL, AND FINANCIAL TIES TO THE COMPANY THAT PROVIDED AND CHARGED FOR THIS SERVICE. NOW, HAKEEM AND MARSHALL ARE FIGHTING TO ENSURE THAT ANKLE MONITORING DECISIONS IN ORLEANS PARISH AND ELSEWHERE ARE MADE WITHOUT BIAS OR THE APPEARANCE OF BIAS. IN MAY 2020, THEY TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO FILE A CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT SEEKING AN ORDER DECLARING THAT JUDICIAL DECISIONS INFLUENCED BY A JUDGE'S TIES TO A PRIVATE PARTY VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION AND REQUIRING THE COMPANY TO DISGORGE THE FEES IT HAS COLLECTED FROM DEFENDANTS APPEARING BEFORE THE JUDGE AND CANCEL ANY REMAINING FEES. IN SEPTEMBER 2021, A JUDGE DISMISSED THE LAWSUIT, AND IJ ARGUED OUR APPEAL TO THE 5TH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN AUGUST 2022. DEVILLIER, ET AL. V. STATE OF TEXAS RICHIE DEVILLIER IS A FARMER WHO HAS LIVED ON HIS FAMILY'S LAND IN WINNIE, TEXAS, FOR GENERATIONS. FOR AS LONG AS ANYONE CAN REMEMBER, THE DEVILLIERS' LAND HAS NEVER FLOODED - THAT IS, UNTIL THE EARLY 2000S, WHEN THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RENOVATED A NEARBY HIGHWAY. NOW, WHENEVER A MAJOR STORM HITS, THE DEVILLIER FAMILY FARM AND MANY OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE INUNDATED. THE EFFECTS HAVE BEEN DEVASTATING. EVEN THOUGH THE CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES JUST COMPENSATION FOR TAKINGS, SHOCKINGLY, THE 5TH CIRCUIT SIDED WITH TEXAS, HOLDING THAT PROPERTY OWNERS WHOSE LAND IS TAKEN BY THE STATE DON'T HAVE ANY FEDERAL REMEDY AT ALL. THAT RULING IS WRONG, AND IT CONFLICTS WITH RULINGS OF BOTH THE SUPREME COURT AND OTHER COURTS NATIONWIDE, WHICH IS WHY IJ ASKED THE SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW AND AFFIRM STATES CANNOT IGNORE THE CONSTITUTION. VALANCOURT BOOKS, LLC V. CLAGGETT, ET AL. VALANCOURT IS A SMALL PUBLISHING COMPANY OPERATING OUT OF THE RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, HOME OF JAMES JENKINS, WHO REVIVES AND POPULARIZES RARE, NEGLECTED, AND OUT-OF-PRINT FICTION. VALANCOURT HAS PUBLISHED MORE THAN 300 BOOKS, ALL OF WHICH IT HAS PERMISSION TO REPRINT. BUT IN JUNE 2018, JAMES RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM THE U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE DEMANDING THAT HE PROVIDE IT WITH COPIES OF EVERY SINGLE BOOK IN VALANCOURT'S CATALOG AND THREATENING HIM WITH FINES THAT COULD REACH HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IF HE FAILED TO COMPLY. A LITTLE-KNOWN PROVISION OF FEDERAL LAW MAKES IT ILLEGAL TO PUBLISH A NEW BOOK WITHOUT PROVIDING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WITH TWO FREE COPIES. VALANCOURT BOOKS JOINED WITH IJ IN AUGUST 2018 TO FILE A FEDERAL LAWSUIT AGAINST THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CLAIMING THAT THE BOOK-DEPOSIT MANDATE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT VIOLATES THE TAKINGS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AND OPERATES AS A PENALTY ON PEOPLE WHO PUBLISH PHYSICAL BOOKS WITHOUT TURNING OVER A COPY. IN JULY 2021, A DISTRICT COURT UPHELD THE LAW. WE APPEALED TO THE D.C. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND HELD ORAL ARGUMENTS IN OCTOBER 2022. RAINWATERS AND HOLLINGSWORTH V. TENNESSEE WILDLIFE RESOURCES AGENCY, ET AL. TERRY RAINWATERS AND HUNTER HOLLINGSWORTH OWN RURAL PROPERTIES IN TENNESSEE, WHICH THEY USE FOR HUNTING AND OTHER ACTIVITIES. THEIR PROPERTIES ARE THEIR SANCTUARIES, BUT OFFICERS FROM THE TENNESSEE WILDLIFE RESOURCES AGENCY (TWRA) ROUTINELY ENTER PRIVATE LAND ON A WHIM TO SEARCH FOR POTENTIAL HUNTING VIOLATIONS WITHOUT A WARRANT. THEY TRESPASS, TAKE PHOTOS AND VIDEOS, AND EVEN INSTALL CAMERAS TO RECORD 24/7. THE TENNESSEE CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS STATE OFFICIALS FROM BARGING IN WHENEVER THEY WISH. TERRY AND HUNTER TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO SUE TWRA IN TENNESSEE STATE COURT TO VINDICATE THE RIGHT OF ALL TENNESSEANS TO BE FREE FROM UNCONSTITUTIONAL SEARCHES. IN MARCH 2022, A THREE-JUDGE TRIAL COURT PANEL DECLARED THE WARRANTLESS ENTRY STATUTE "UNCONSTITUTIONAL, UNLAWFUL, AND UNENFORCEABLE." THE STATE HAS APPEALED, AND WE ARGUED THE APPEAL IN JUNE 2023. TAYLOR ET AL. V. NOCCO USING A CRUDE COMPUTER ALGORITHM, THE PASCO, FLORIDA, SHERIFF'S OFFICE CREATES A LIST OF PEOPLE THEY THINK ARE LIKELY TO COMMIT CRIMES. THEN, DEPUTIES ROUTINELY SHOW UP UNANNOUNCED AT THEIR HOMES TO INTERROGATE THEM AND, ESPECIALLY, THEIR FAMILY AND FRIENDS. TO INTIMIDATE THEIR TARGETS AND FAMILY MEMBERS INTO SUBMISSION, COUNTY DEPUTIES AGGRESSIVELY ISSUE CITATIONS FOR INNOCUOUS OFFENSES LIKE MISSING HOUSE NUMBERS. IN THE WORDS OF A FORMER PASCO COUNTY DEPUTY, THEY WERE UNDER ORDERS TO "[M]AKE THEIR LIVES MISERABLE UNTIL THEY MOVE OR SUE." SO, IN MARCH 2021, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IJ DID. THIS CASE WILL SEND A MESSAGE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY THAT FINES AND FEES SHOULD BE USED ONLY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC, NOT TO FORCE UNDESIRABLE RESIDENTS OUT OF TOWN. IN AUGUST 2021, A JUDGE DENIED THE SHERIFF'S MOTION TO DISMISS, MEANING OUR CLIENTS WILL HAVE THEIR DAY IN COURT. THE CASE AIMS TO END BOTH PRETEXTUAL CODE ENFORCEMENT AND HARASSMENT OF PEOPLE THAT POLICE THINK MIGHT COMMIT CRIMES IN THE FUTURE. MORALES V. CITY OF INDIO, ET AL. LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS IN INDIO, CALIFORNIA, TEAMED UP WITH A PRIVATE LAW FIRM TO CHARGE PROPERTY OWNERS THE COSTS OF THEIR OWN PROSECUTIONS. UNDER THIS OUTRAGEOUS SCHEME, THE LAW FIRM PROVIDED INDIO AND SEVERAL OTHER CALIFORNIA CITIES WITH "COST-NEUTRAL" CODE ENFORCEMENT SERVICES. THIS MEANS THAT EVERY TICKET THE CITY ISSUED FOR VIOLATIONS SUCH AS UN-MOWED GRASS OR SUN-DAMAGED ADDRESS NUMBERS WAS MONEY IN THE BANK FOR THE CITY AND THE LAW FIRM, WHICH THEN BILLED PROPERTY OWNERS THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FOR "PROSECUTION FEES." IF OWNERS DARED TO CONTEST THE FEES, THEIR LEGAL BILLS SIMPLY GREW LARGER. IJ FILED A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CITY IN FEBRUARY 2018 TO PUT A STOP TO THIS EGREGIOUS FORM OF POLICING FOR PROFIT. AND THAT DECEMBER, WE WON A RESOUNDING VICTORY WHEN THE CITY OF INDIO AGREED TO RETURN THE MONEY OF EVERYONE WHO WAS VICTIMIZED BY THE CITY'S SCHEME. BUT THEN, AFTER THE CASE HAD SETTLED AND SUBSTANTIVELY CONCLUDED, A TRIAL JUDGE NONETHELESS GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE PRIVATE LAW FIRM THAT HAD ISSUED THESE FEES - EVEN THOUGH THE ACTUAL GOVERNMENT DEFENDANTS HAD LONG SINCE FIRED THE FIRM AND IT WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE CASE. IJ HAS APPEALED THAT RULING TO ESTABLISH THAT FORMER GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS DO NOT HAVE STANDING TO OBJECT TO SETTLEMENTS ENTERED INTO BY THEIR ERSTWHILE EMPLOYERS. SUN VALLEY ORCHARDS, INC. V. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ET AL. THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR FINED SUN VALLEY ORCHARDS, A FOURTH-GENERATION FAMILY FARM IN SOUTHERN NEW JERSEY, OVER $550,000, THE BULK OF WHICH WAS BECAUSE OF A SINGLE PAPERWORK VIOLATION. THE TWO BROTHERS WHO OWN THE ORCHARD SPENT THE NEXT FIVE YEARS TRYING TO FIGHT THE AGENCY'S DECISION IN THE AGENCY'S IN-HOUSE ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS. IN EVERY HEARING, THE AGENCY SERVED AS PROSECUTOR, JUDGE, AND JURY, AND THE AGENCY WON EVERY TIME. IN SEPTEMBER 2021, THE BROTHERS JOINED WITH IJ TO FIGHT FOR THEIR RIGHT, AND THE RIGHT OF ALL AMERICANS, TO HAVE PROCEEDINGS BY THE GOVERNMENT TO IMPOSE SIGNIFICANT MONETARY PENALTIES HEARD BY A REAL COURT. C.S. LAWN & LANDSCAPE V. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR WHEN THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (DOL) DECIDED TO FINE CHUCK SAINE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, CHUCK DID NOT GET TO MAKE HIS CASE TO A JURY OF HIS PEERS - OR EVEN A REAL FEDERAL JUDGE. INSTEAD, THE AGENCY'S OWN EMPLOYEES SERVED AS PROSECUTOR, JUDGE, AND JURY. CHUCK'S ADMINISTRATIVE ODYSSEY BEGAN IN 2015, WHEN DOL INVESTIGATORS FIRST SHOWED UP AT HIS BUSINESS, AND ENDED IN 2022, WHEN DOL'S IN-HOUSE AGENCY JUDGES IMPOSED ALMOST $55,000 IN LIABILITY. NOW CHUCK IS JOINING WITH IJ TO FILE A CHALLENGE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, CHUCK SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO MAKE HIS DEFENSE IN A REAL FEDERAL COURT, WITH A REAL FEDERAL JUDGE, AND MAKE HIS DEFENSE BEFORE A JURY OF HIS PEERS. IF THE GOVERNMENT WANTS TO TAKE YOUR PROPERTY, YOU SHOULD GET YOUR DAY IN COURT - NOT YOUR DAY BEFORE A BUREAUCRAT. |
| JOSEPH CORSINI V. CITY OF NEW YORK |
THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS (DOB) IMPOSES FINES FOR VIOLATIONS TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF THE CITY AND ITS INHABITANTS. TOO OFTEN, THOUGH, IT PENALIZES PROPERTY OWNERS OVER TRIVIAL ISSUES AND LEAVES THEM OWING THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, AS IT DID WITH JOE CORSINI. JOE IS A PIGEON KEEPER - A COMMON HOBBY IN THE CITY. HE DECIDED TO BUILD A SMALL PIGEON COOP ON THE ROOF OF HIS HOME BUT DID NOT REALIZE HE NEEDED TO OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT. HE SOON RECEIVED $3,000 IN FINES AND AN ORDER THAT HE BRING HIS COOP INTO COMPLIANCE BY OBTAINING A PERMIT. WHILE ENGAGING WITH THE DOB, HE AMASSED APPROXIMATELY $11,000 IN FINES. EVENTUALLY, HE CONCEDED AND TOOK DOWN THE COOP. BUT THIS PROCESS DID NOT SIT WELL WITH JOE, AND HE TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO FIGHT BACK. PENALIZING A HOMEOWNER WITH FINES THAT CAN RANGE UP TO $25,000 PER VIOLATION AND FAILING TO PROVIDE A RECOURSE TO APPEAL SIMPLY RAISES MONEY FOR THE GOVERNMENT AND DEPRIVES PROPERTY OWNERS OF DUE PROCESS. JOE IS FIGHTING TO CHANGE THIS SYSTEM AND ENSURE THAT HOMEOWNERS ARE TREATED WITH DIGNITY AND DUE PROCESS. IN JANUARY 2022, A DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE SUIT ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS. WE FILED AN AMENDED COMPLAINT. TOTH V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNDER THE BANK SECRECY ACT OF 1970, AMERICANS WITH FOREIGN BANK ACCOUNTS CONTAINING MORE THAN $10,000 ARE REQUIRED TO FILE A ONE-PAGE FOREIGN BANK AND FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS REPORTING (FBAR) FORM WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. UNTIL 2010, MONICA TOTH WAS UNAWARE OF THE NEED TO FILE FBARS, SO SHE CAUGHT UP ON HER FILINGS, AND WAS ASSESSED A RELATIVELY MODEST AMOUNT OF BACK TAXES AND PENALTIES THAT SHE PAID PROMPTLY AND IN FULL. HOWEVER, BECAUSE THE IRS CAN IMPOSE CIVIL PENALTIES, THEY LEVIED THE MAXIMUM PENALTY OF $2,173,703 FOR HER FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE THE FBARS. A DISTRICT COURT AND THEN THE 1ST CIRCUIT REJECTED HER EIGHTH AMENDMENT DEFENSE ON STARTLING GROUNDS - THEY RULED THE PENALTY OF OVER $2 MILLION IS NOT A "FINE," SO THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT APPLY. WORKING WITH IJ ON HER APPEAL, MONICA ASKED THE SUPREME COURT TO INTERVENE AND CONFIRM WHAT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS: A DEBILITATING CIVIL PENALTY, WHICH COMPENSATES NO FINANCIAL LOSS TO THE GOVERNMENT, IS JUST THE SORT OF PUNISHMENT THE EXCESSIVE FINES CLAUSE EXISTS TO CHECK. UNFORTUNATELY, THE SUPREME COURT DENIED REVIEW. KATERGARIS V. CITY OF NEW YORK SERAFIM KATERGARIS BOUGHT A HOME IN HARLEM IN 2014. A TITLE REPORT CONFIRMED THE PROPERTY WAS FREE AND CLEAR OF ANY ENCUMBRANCES. BUT SEVEN YEARS LATER, WHEN HE WENT TO SELL THE PROPERTY, HE LEARNED THAT THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS HAD FINED HIM $1,000 WAY BACK IN 2014 - ALL BECAUSE A PRIOR OWNER ALLEGEDLY FAILED TO FILE PAPERWORK IN 2013 CERTIFYING THE HOME'S BOILER WAS INSPECTED THAT YEAR. NOT ONLY DID SERAFIM NOT OWN THE HOUSE AT THE TIME, BUT THE OWNER FROM WHOM HE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY HAD REMOVED THE BOILER BEFORE SERAFIM BOUGHT THE PLACE, SO, THERE WAS NO BOILER FOR SERAFIM TO INSPECT. THE FAILURE TO CERTIFY A BOILER INSPECTION IS ONE OF THE DEPARTMENT'S MANY UNREVIEWABLE FINES. SERAFIM HAS TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO SUE THE CITY IN FEDERAL COURT AND TAKE A STAND ON BEHALF OF ALL NEW YORKERS. HE HAS ASKED THE COURT TO DECLARE THAT UNREVIEWABLE FINES ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ORDER DOB TO AFFORD PEOPLE THEIR RIGHT TO BE HEARD AS DUE PROCESS REQUIRES. BRITTANY COLEMAN V. TOWN OF BROOKSIDE, ALABAMA, ET AL. SINCE 2018, THE TINY TOWN OF BROOKSIDE, ALABAMA, HAS BEEN A REVENUE-GENERATING FIEFDOM. HUNDREDS OF RESIDENTS - MOST INNOCENT OF ANY WRONGDOING - WERE PULLED OVER AND THE POLICE SEIZED AND TOWED THEIR CARS. TO GET THEIR CARS BACK, THEY WERE FORCED TO PAY HUNDREDS OR EVEN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FOR TOWING FEES, COURT COSTS, AND TRUMPED-UP TICKETS. TOWN OFFICIALS OPENLY DISCUSSED THEIR DESIRE TO EXTRACT REVENUE FROM THEIR CONSTITUENTS. IJ FILED A SWEEPING CLASS ACTION AGAINST THE TOWN IN APRIL 2022. WHILE A FEW LOCAL ATTORNEYS HAVE CHALLENGED THE TOWN'S ACTIONS, IJ'S CASE IS THE ONLY COMPREHENSIVE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT TO END THIS REGIME OF SYSTEMIC ABUSE. IN OCTOBER 2022, A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT DENIED QUALIFIED IMMUNITY, AND IN MARCH 2023, A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT REJECTED BROOKSIDE'S EFFORTS TO DISMISS THE CASE. AMANDA ROOT ET AL. V. CITY OF SIERRA VISTA AMANDA ROOT HAS CALLED SIERRA VISTA, IN SOUTHEAST ARIZONA, HOME FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS. IN THE LATE '90S, AMANDA ACQUIRED A SMALL LOT IN THE THEN CLOUD 9 MOBILE HOME PARK. SADLY, IN 2016, AMANDA'S MOBILE HOME BURNED TO THE GROUND, LEAVING HER TEMPORARILY HOMELESS. BUT IN 2017, AMANDA WAS GIVEN A PARK TRAILER TO PUT ON HER PROPERTY AND LIVE IN. THEN IN JULY 2020 - DURING THE MIDDLE OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC - THE CITY TRIED TO KICK AMANDA AND HER NEIGHBORS OUT OF THEIR HOMES AND OFF THEIR PROPERTY. THE CITY GAVE THEM JUST 30 DAYS TO LEAVE. THERE WAS NO HEARING OR APPEAL OFFERED. THE CITY SAYS THAT AMANDA LIVES IN AN "RV" INSTEAD OF A "MANUFACTURED HOME." TO BE CLEAR, IT IS PERFECTLY LEGAL TO LIVE IN AN RV IN SIERRA VISTA. THE CITY JUST SAYS AMANDA CANNOT HAVE AN RV ON THE PROPERTY SHE OWNS BECAUSE OF THE TECHNICALITIES OF THE CITY'S ZONING LAWS. NO ONE SHOULD BE MADE HOMELESS IN THE NAME OF ZONING, SO AMANDA AND HER NEIGHBORS TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO SUE THE CITY AND PROTECT THEIR RV HOMES. A JUDGE DISMISSED THE LAWSUIT IN SEPTEMBER 2021, AND THE APPEALS COURT RULED THEY COULD NOT EVEN APPEAL THAT DECISION. BUT IN JANUARY 2023, THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT OVERTURNED THE APPEALS COURT DECISION AND ASKED THE JUDGES TO RECONSIDER THE CASE CONSIDERING ANOTHER RECENT VICTORY BY IJ. ZENAIDA "SANDY" MARTINEZ V. CITY OF LANTANA, FLORIDA, ET AL. THE CITY OF LANTANA, FLORIDA, FINED SANDY MARTINEZ MORE THAN $165,000 FOR MINOR PROPERTY CODE VIOLATIONS - INCLUDING A $100,000 FINE FOR PARKING HER CARS IN HER DRIVEWAY IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE TIRES ON ONE SIDE OF THE CAR WERE ON THE EDGE OF THE LAWN INSTEAD OF ON THE PAVED DRIVEWAY. THE CITY ALSO FINED HER FOR A STORM-DAMAGED FENCE AND CRACKS IN HER DRIVEWAY. THE FINES ADD UP TO MORE THAN HALF THE VALUE OF HER HOME. EVEN AFTER SANDY MOVED HER CAR, THE CITY CONTINUED TO ASSESS DAILY FINES BECAUSE, SUPPOSEDLY, SHE DID NOT INFORM SOMEONE SHE HAD MOVED HER CAR'S WHEELS SO THAT THEY WERE NO LONGER ON ANY GRASS IN HER FRONT YARD. BUT THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT LOCK YOU INTO A LIFETIME OF DEBT AND CRIPPLE YOU FINANCIALLY BECAUSE YOUR DRIVEWAY IS TOO NARROW AND YOUR FENCE FELL IN A HURRICANE. BY TRYING TO IMPOSE RUINOUS FINES ON SANDY FOR SUCH MINOR INFRACTIONS, LANTANA IS VIOLATING SANDY'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM EXCESSIVE FINES. TO FIGHT BACK, SHE TEAMED UP WITH IJ IN FEBRUARY 2021 TO FILE A LAWSUIT IN FLORIDA STATE COURT TO HOLD THE CITY ACCOUNTABLE FOR THIS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BEHAVIOR. THAT JULY, A COURT REJECTED LANTANA'S ATTEMPT TO DISMISS THE LAWSUIT. LONG LAKE TOWNSHIP V. MAXON, ET AL. TODD AND HEATHER MAXON LIVE ON A FIVE-ACRE PROPERTY IN RURAL LONG LAKE TOWNSHIP, IN NORTHERN MICHIGAN. LONG LAKE USED A DRONE TO REPEATEDLY SURVEIL THEIR HOME WITHOUT A WARRANT FOR OVER TWO YEARS - TAKING INTRUSIVE, HIGH-RESOLUTION PHOTOGRAPHS AND VIDEOS OF THEIR HOME AND BACKYARD THAT COULD NOT BE CAPTURED WITHOUT A DRONE. NOW, THE GOVERNMENT WANTS TO USE THOSE PHOTOS AND VIDEOS AS EVIDENCE IN A ZONING ENFORCEMENT LAWSUIT MEANT TO PUNISH THE COUPLE FOR ALLEGED CODE VIOLATIONS ON THEIR PROPERTY. SHOCKINGLY, THE MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS RULED THE FOURTH AMENDMENT'S PROTECTION AGAINST WARRANTLESS SEARCHES DID NOT APPLY HERE. IF LONG LAKE CAN VIOLATE THE MAXONS' FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE, ANYONE CAN EXPECT TO SEE A DRONE HOVERING OVER THEIR BACKYARD SOON. TODD AND HEATHER MAXON ARE TEAMING UP WITH IJ TO APPEAL THIS DANGEROUS RULING TO THE MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT - IN MAY 2023, THE STATE'S HIGH COURT AGREED TO HEAR THE MAXONS' CASE. HIGHLANDER V. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES THE 30 ACRES JOSH HIGHLANDER (AN AVID HUNTER) OWNS OUTSIDE RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, IS PRIVATE LAND. AFTER AN INCIDENT WHERE HIS FAMILY NOTICED SOMEONE WEARING A CAMOUFLAGE LEAFY JACKET IN THEIR WOODS, JOSH SOON DISCOVERED THAT A CAMERA HE USED TO MONITOR GAME ON HIS PROPERTY WAS MISSING. HE CALLED POLICE TO REPORT THE THEFT, WHO SAID THE CAMERA WAS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES (DWR). IN THE WEEKS FOLLOWING, JOSH DID NOT RECEIVE A WARRANT NOR WAS HE GIVEN ANY HUNTING CITATIONS. VIRGINIA IS ONE OF MANY STATES WHERE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS CONDUCT WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF "OPEN FIELDS" UNDER A CENTURY-OLD U.S. SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT, LEAVING MOST PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE U.S. UNPROTECTED BY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT'S PROHIBITION AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. BUT THE DWR DID MORE THAN TRESPASS ON HIS PROPERTY AND OBSERVE HIS FAMILY. IT TOOK JOSH'S CAMERA TO SPY ON HIM. NOW, JOSH AND IJ ARE SUING IN STATE COURT TO GET HIS CAMERA BACK, TO PROTECT HIS HOME, AND TO RESTORE THE RIGHT OF ALL VIRGINIANS TO BE SECURE ON THEIR LAND. |
| QUINONEZ V. 5 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE AND UNITED STATES POSTAL |
INSPECTION SERVICE OFFICIALS IN THE SPRING OF 2020, LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENTS WORKING FOR THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE BASELESSLY SEIZED A SET OF FOUR ORDINARY BOXES CONTAINING THOUSANDS OF COVID-19 FACE MASKS WITH POLITICAL SLOGANS. THE MASKS BELONGED TO RENE QUINONEZ, WHO OPERATES OAKLAND-BASED MOVEMENT INK LLC. BLACK LIVES MATTER ORGANIZERS HIRED RENE TO PRINT AS MANY FACE MASKS AS POSSIBLE TO DISTRIBUTE TO PROTESTORS. HE WORKED NEARLY NONSTOP TO PRINT AND SHIP THE MASKS. BUT THEY DIDN'T ARRIVE IN TIME BECAUSE OFFICIALS SEIZED THE PLAIN BROWN BOXES WITHOUT A WARRANT, CLAIMING THEY LOOKED LIKE OTHER BOXES FROM OTHER CITIES THAT HAD CONTAINED DRUGS. RENE'S BUSINESS TOOK SERIOUS DAMAGE. IN JUNE 2022, RENE AND MOVEMENT INK PARTNERED WITH IJ TO FILE A FEDERAL LAWSUIT TO VINDICATE HIS FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. IN JUNE 2023, A FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGE PARTIALLY GRANTED AND PARTIALLY DENIED THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS. BROWN AND ROLIN V. TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, ET AL. WHEN TRAVELERS GO ONLINE TO FIND OUT WHETHER IT IS LEGAL TO FLY WITH CASH, THE GOVERNMENT TELLS THEM THAT THERE ARE NO RESTRICTIONS ON TRAVELING WITH ANY AMOUNT OF MONEY ON DOMESTIC FLIGHTS. WHAT IT DOES NOT TELL FLYERS IS THAT, UPON SEEING CASH, TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (TSA) SCREENERS WILL DETAIN THEM AND TURN THEM OVER TO LAW ENFORCEMENT, WHO WILL TAKE THEIR MONEY WITHOUT ANY CAUSE FOR SUSPICION AND WITHOUT FILING ANY CRIMINAL CHARGES. THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED TO IJ CLIENT TERRY ROLIN AND HIS DAUGHTER REBECCA BROWN, WHO HAD TERRY'S LIFE SAVINGS OF $82,000 SEIZED AT THE PITTSBURGH AIRPORT BY THE TSA AND DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION WHEN REBECCA WAS TRYING TO TAKE THE MONEY HOME WITH HER TO BOSTON TO DEPOSIT INTO A NEW JOINT BANK ACCOUNT. TO END THESE UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRACTICES, IJ HAS FILED A FOURTH AMENDMENT CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT ON BEHALF OF TERRY, REBECCA, AND OTHER TRAVELERS. IN MARCH 2021, IJ WON A FIRST-ROUND VICTORY WHEN A FEDERAL JUDGE REJECTED THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE CASE. LARA V. STATE OF NEVADA, ET AL. FORMER MARINE STEPHEN LARA WAS DRIVING FROM TEXAS TO VISIT HIS DAUGHTERS IN CALIFORNIA IN THE WINTER OF 2021 WHEN THE NEVADA HIGHWAY PATROL (NHP) PULLED HIM OVER ON A FLIMSY PRETEXT AND SEIZED HIS LIFE SAVINGS, DESPITE HAVING NO EVIDENCE OF ANY CRIME. THEY HANDED HIS MONEY OVER TO THE U.S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, IN THE ANTICIPATION THAT THE AGENCY WOULD KICK BACK A PORTION TO THE HIGHWAY PATROL. SO, STEPHEN TEAMED UP WITH IJ. ONE DAY AFTER FILING THE LAWSUIT, AND ONLY HOURS AFTER A TOP WASHINGTON POST STORY ON THE CASE, THE DEA AGREED TO RETURN STEPHEN'S MONEY. BUT STEPHEN'S CASE IS NOT OVER. WE ALSO SUED THE NHP IN NEVADA STATE COURT TO HOLD THE GOVERNMENT TO ACCOUNT AND TO STOP THE NHP FROM VIOLATING NEVADA LAW IN EXCHANGE FOR LUCRATIVE KICKBACKS FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. INGRAM, ET AL. V. WAYNE COUNTY FOR DECADES, RESIDENTS OF DETROIT AND WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN, HAVE LIVED UNDER CONSTANT THREAT OF HAVING THEIR CARS TAKEN AWAY AND RANSOMED BACK TO THEM FOR $1,000 OR MORE. THE PERPETRATORS ARE POLICE AND PROSECUTORS WHO USE CIVIL FORFEITURE TO SEIZE HUNDREDS OF CARS EACH YEAR. DETROITERS MELISA INGRAM AND ROBERT REEVES BOTH LOST THEIR CARS WHEN WAYNE COUNTY SEIZED THEM BASED ON OTHER PEOPLE'S ALLEGED MISBEHAVIOR. SO, THEY HAVE PARTNERED WITH IJ IN A MAJOR FEDERAL CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF WAYNE COUNTY'S FORFEITURE PROGRAM. WE ARE ALSO FIGHTING FOR THE RETURN OF OUR CLIENT STEPHANIE WILSON'S CAR. AN APPEALS COURT OVERTURNED OUR WIN IN STEPHANIE'S FORFEITURE CASE IN A LOWER COURT, AND NOW, THE MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT ACCEPTED REVIEW OF THE MID-LEVEL COURT DECISION THAT REVERSED OUR WIN. OUR GOAL WITH THIS CASE IS TO ENFORCE THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND THE RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM UNREASONABLE SEIZURES AND EXCESSIVE FINES, THUS DISMANTLING MUCH OF DETROIT'S CAR FORFEITURE SYSTEM. NWAORIE V. U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION ANTHONIA NWAORIE IS A REGISTERED NURSE AND AN AMERICAN CITIZEN WHO WAS ON HER WAY TO NIGERIA IN OCTOBER 2017 WITH $41,377 SHE HAD SAVED TO OPEN A MEDICAL CLINIC. BUT AT HOUSTON'S GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTINENTAL AIRPORT, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (CBP) AGENTS DISCOVERED HER MONEY AND TOOK EVERY PENNY - EVEN THOUGH SHE OBTAINED THE MONEY LEGALLY AND PLANNED TO USE IT LEGALLY. CBP STATED IT WOULD RETURN HER MONEY ONLY IF SHE SIGNED AN AGREEMENT WAIVING HER RIGHT TO INTEREST ON THE SEIZED PROPERTY AND HER RIGHTS TO SUE CBP OVER ANYTHING RELATED TO THE CONFISCATION OF HER MONEY. ANTHONIA TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO FILE A FEDERAL CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST CBP, AND WITHIN JUST ONE MONTH, SHE RECEIVED HER MONEY BACK. YET, IJ FORGED AHEAD WITH THE LAWSUIT TO END CBP'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND UNLAWFUL BEHAVIOR. IN AUGUST 2019, A DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE CASE; IN APRIL 2023, THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 5TH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THE DISMISSAL. NOW, IJ SEEKS REHEARING IN ANTHONIA'S CASE TO ADDRESS THE INCORRECT FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASIS OF THE DISMISSAL, AND TO ENSURE THAT THE RIGHTS OF ALL PROPERTY OWNERS SUBJECTED TO CBP'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRACTICES ARE PROTECTED. WOODS, ET AL. V. HARRIS COUNTY, ET AL.; STATE OF TEXAS V. $41,680 POLICE IN TEXAS'S MOST POPULOUS COUNTY ROUTINELY ASK DRIVERS IF THEY HAVE CASH IN THE CAR - ONLY TO SEIZE THE CASH, ACCUSE IT OF A CRIME, AND DRIVE AWAY WITH IT IN THEIR PATROL CAR. AMEAL WOODS AND JORDAN DAVIS GOT TRAPPED BY HARRIS COUNTY'S FORFEITURE RACKET AND WANT THEIR LIFE SAVINGS BACK AFTER POLICE SEIZED $41,680 MEANT FOR BUYING A USED VEHICLE AND HELD IT WITHOUT NOTICE FOR TWO YEARS. HARRIS COUNTY HAS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL FINANCIAL INCENTIVE TO SEIZE AND FORFEIT CASH AND OTHER PROPERTY WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE AND TO DO SO EXCESSIVELY, SWEEPING IN INNOCENT PEOPLE AND PROPERTY. THAT IS WHY AMEAL AND JORDAN HAVE TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO FILE A MAJOR CLASS-ACTION LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF HARRIS COUNTY'S CIVIL FORFEITURE PROGRAM. MEANWHILE, A TEXAS TRIAL COURT ALLOWED THE GOVERNMENT TO KEEP AMEAL AND JORDAN'S MONEY, AND WE HAVE APPEALED. RICHARDSON, ET AL. V. $20,771.00, ET AL. IN JULY 2020, IJ INTERVENED ON BEHALF OF TRAVIS GREEN, A SOUTH CAROLINA MAN FROM WHOM OFFICIALS AND PROSECUTORS SEIZED AND ATTEMPTED TO PERMANENTLY TAKE MONEY. INITIALLY, AFTER HEARING ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES, A JUDGE RULED THAT THE STATUTES PROSECUTORS TRIED TO USE TO FORFEIT TRAVIS' MONEY VIOLATED DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AND AN INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM EXCESSIVE FINES. THE PROSECUTORS APPEALED THE DECISION TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT, AND IJ PARTNERED WITH TRAVIS TO DEFEND HIS VICTORY AND PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR SOUTH CAROLINIANS. IN SEPTEMBER 2022, IN A STUNNING DECISION, THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE STATE'S CIVIL FORFEITURE LAWS, CLAIMING THAT ITS HANDS ARE TIED, AND REFORM MUST COME FROM THE LEGISLATURE. PAUL SNITKO, ET AL. V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL. USING CIVIL FORFEITURE, THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SOUGHT TO PERMANENTLY TAKE THE CONTENTS OF HUNDREDS OF SAFE DEPOSIT BOXES, INCLUDING OVER $85 MILLION IN CASH AND PRECIOUS METALS, JEWELRY, AND OTHER VALUABLES WORTH MILLIONS MORE. BUT THE BOXES' OWNERS WERE NOT ACCUSED OF ANY CRIME. IN MAY 2021, SEVERAL OF THOSE OWNERS JOINED WITH IJ TO STOP THE GOVERNMENT'S FORFEITURE PLANS IN THEIR TRACKS. AFTER GRANTING PRELIMINARY RELIEF HOLDING THAT THE GOVERNMENT VIOLATED THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AND THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE BY TRYING TO FORFEIT SEIZED PROPERTY WITHOUT GIVING A REASON WHY, THE COURT IN OCTOBER 2021 CERTIFIED THE CASE AS A CLASS ACTION. NOW, IJ AND THE BOX OWNERS ARE APPEALING A DISTRICT COURT DECISION ISSUED IN SEPTEMBER 2022 THAT SAID THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE WAS CONSTITUTIONAL. MARTIN V. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ET AL. LINDA MARTIN AND HER HUSBAND REGGIE WERE CAUGHT UP IN THE SAME DOJ RAID OF SAFE DEPOSIT BOXES DESCRIBED ABOVE. AFTER THE FBI SEIZED THE MONEY LINDA AND REGGIE WERE SAVING TO BUY A HOUSE, THEY AND HUNDREDS OF OTHER BOX RENTERS RECEIVED FORFEITURE NOTICES TELLING THEM THE GOVERNMENT WANTED TO TAKE THEIR PROPERTY FOREVER, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE NOT NAMED IN THE INDICTMENT AGAINST THE SAFE DEPOSIT BOX COMPANY. LINDA'S FORM DID NOT SAY WHAT THE FBI THOUGHT LINDA HAD DONE WRONG, AND SHE HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH ANY CRIME. LINDA DID NOT REALIZE THAT BY SELECTING THE FIRST OPTION ON THE CONFUSING FORM, "FILE A PETITION FOR REMISSION," SHE WAS LEAVING IT COMPLETELY IN THE HANDS OF THE FBI WHETHER TO RETURN ANY OF HER SAVINGS. SO, LINDA TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO FILE A NATIONWIDE CLASS-ACTION LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THE FBI'S FORFEITURE NOTICES. IF THE GOVERNMENT WANTS TO FORFEIT SOMEONE'S PROPERTY, IT SHOULD TELL THEM WHAT IT THINKS THEY DID WRONG. |
| U.S. V. $8,040 |
CRISTAL STARLING RUNS A MOBILE FOOD CART IN ROCHESTER, NEW YORK, TO PROVIDE FOR HERSELF AND HER GRANDNEPHEW. BUT IN THE FALL OF 2020, THE LOCAL POLICE RAIDED HER APARTMENT AND SEIZED $8,040. POLICE ACCUSED CRISTAL'S THEN-BOYFRIEND OF DEALING DRUGS, BUT HE WAS ACQUITTED BY A JURY. THAT DIDN'T STOP LAW ENFORCEMENT FROM TRYING TO KEEP HER MONEY PERMANENTLY THROUGH CIVIL FORFEITURE. UNABLE TO HIRE A LAWYER, CRISTAL FOUGHT FOR HER MONEY AS BEST SHE COULD, BUT MISSED THE DEADLINE TO FILE ONE REQUIRED PIECE OF PAPER. IN A NON-FORFEITURE CASE, THE COURT WOULD HAVE LET CRISTAL CONTINUE HER CASE. IJ HAS JOINED WITH CRISTAL TO APPEAL A LOWER COURT'S DECISION THAT CRISTAL CANNOT CONTINUE CHALLENGING THE FORFEITURE. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. BRIAN MOORE, JR. IN 2021, DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION (DEA) AGENTS SEIZED $8,500 IN CASH FROM BRIAN MOORE AT ATLANTA'S AIRPORT WHILE HE WAS WAITING TO BOARD A FLIGHT. BRIAN SUED TO GET THE MONEY BACK AND, AFTER ABOUT A YEAR OF LITIGATION, THE GOVERNMENT EVENTUALLY RETURNED HIS MONEY. BUT THE FEDERAL COURT REFUSED TO ACKNOWLEDGE BRIAN'S VICTORY. AFTER THE COURT DISMISSED THE CASE, BRIAN ASKED FOR THE $15,200 IN FEES THAT HIS ATTORNEYS HAD ACCRUED WHILE DEFENDING HIS PROPERTY FROM FORFEITURE. YET THE COURT RULED THAT BRIAN DID NOT REALLY WIN THE CASE - DESPITE GETTING HIS MONEY BACK AND GETTING THE ENTIRE CASE DISMISSED - BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAD VOLUNTARILY ASKED FOR ITS CASE TO BE DISMISSED. NOW, BRIAN HAS TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO APPEAL HIS CASE TO THE 11TH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. IT COSTS MONEY TO DEFEND YOUR PROPERTY AGAINST CIVIL FORFEITURE AND THOSE WHO SUCCESSFULLY FIGHT THE GOVERNMENT'S ATTEMPT TO TAKE THEIR PROPERTY DESERVE TO BE MADE WHOLE. IF THEY ARE NOT COMPENSATED FOR THE COST OF SUCCESSFULLY LITIGATING THEIR CASE, EVEN MORE PROPERTY OWNERS WILL SIMPLY GIVE UP RATHER THAN CONTEST THIS GOVERNMENT ABUSE. SPARGER-WITHERS V. TAYLOR, ET AL. UNLIKE EVERY OTHER STATE IN THE NATION, INDIANA OUTSOURCES CIVIL FORFEITURE SUITS TO PRIVATE LAWYERS ON A CONTINGENCY-FEE BASIS. THE MORE PROPERTY THE STATE FORFEITS, THE MORE MONEY THE LAWYERS POCKET. HUNDREDS OF THESE FOR-PROFIT CIVIL FORFEITURE CASES ARE FILED EACH YEAR. IN FALL 2021, IJ PUSHED BACK WITH A FEDERAL CLASS-ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST ONE OF THE STATE'S MOST PROLIFIC CONTINGENCY-FEE PROSECUTORS. THE CLAIM IS AS SIMPLE AS IT IS IMPORTANT: UNDER BASIC DUE-PROCESS PRINCIPLES, PROSECUTORS CANNOT HAVE A PERSONAL FINANCIAL STAKE IN THE CASES THEY PROSECUTE. SUCH A SYSTEM DELEGITIMIZES THE JUSTICE SYSTEM AND SKEWS PROSECUTORIAL INCENTIVES. IT'S PAST TIME TO PUT AN END TO FOR-PROFIT PROSECUTIONS. IN SEPTEMBER 2022, A FEDERAL COURT ALLOWED THE LAWSUIT TO PROCEED AND AUTHORIZED THE CASE AS A CLASS ACTION. STATE OF INDIANA V. $2,435 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY, ET AL. MOST STATES, INCLUDING INDIANA, HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS SECURING THE RIGHT TO JURY TRIALS IN CIVIL CASES. IN SEPTEMBER 2022, THE INDIANA COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THIS PROTECTION IN THE INDIANA CONSTITUTION DOESN'T APPLY WHEN THE GOVERNMENT BRINGS CIVIL FORFEITURE ACTIONS. THIS RULING DEPRIVES INDIVIDUALS STATEWIDE OF VITAL CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION IN THE PROCESS. IN NOVEMBER 2022, IJ PETITIONED THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT TO TAKE THE CASE AND CONFIRM WHAT SHOULD ALREADY BE OBVIOUS: WHEN THE GOVERNMENT SUES TO FORFEIT YOUR PROPERTY, YOU'RE ENTITLED TO MAKE YOUR CASE TO A JURY. PLATT V. MOORE, ET AL. ARIZONA'S FORFEITURE LAWS ARE SO COMPLICATED THAT EVEN LAWYERS OFTEN STRUGGLE TO UNDERSTAND THEM - LET ALONE THE AVERAGE PERSON. TWO VICTIMS OF THIS MAZE ARE TERRY AND RIA PLATT, AN ELDERLY COUPLE WHO HAD THEIR CAR SEIZED AFTER POLICE PULLED OVER THEIR SON, WHO DID NOT OWN THE CAR, FOR A WINDOW TINT VIOLATION. THE POLICE FOUND CASH AND A SMALL AMOUNT OF PERSONAL USE MARIJUANA, BOTH OF WHICH THE SON SAID WERE HIS. PROSECUTORS TRIED TO IGNORE THE LAW AND FORFEIT THE CAR. WHEN THE PLATTS TRIED TO GET THEIR CAR BACK, THE GOVERNMENT DENIED THEM THEIR DAY IN COURT USING A LOOPHOLE IN ARIZONA'S "UNCONTESTED" FORFEITURE SYSTEM. SHORTLY AFTER IJ GOT INVOLVED, THE PROSECUTORS RETURNED THE CAR, AND THE CASE MOTIVATED SOME REFORMS OF ARIZONA FORFEITURE LAW. BUT ARIZONA STILL ALLOWS "UNCONTESTED FORFEITURES." A FEDERAL APPELLATE COURT REINSTATED THE PLATTS' LONG-RUNNING CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE AGAINST FORFEITURE ABUSE IN ARIZONA, BUT IN JUNE 2023, THE STATE SUPERIOR COURT RULED AGAINST IJ'S ARGUMENT THAT THE PLATTS' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED. DAVID AND AMY CARSON V. COMMISSIONER OF THE MAINE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OUR LAWSUIT ON BEHALF OF THE CARSON FAMILY WAS IJ'S VEHICLE TO CLOSE A LOOPHOLE IN OUR 2020 U.S. SUPREME COURT VICTORY IN ESPINOZA V. MONTANA, IN WHICH THE COURT DECLARED STATES COULD NOT EXCLUDE SCHOOLS FROM PARTICIPATING IN AN EDUCATIONAL CHOICE PROGRAM DUE TO THEIR RELIGIOUS STATUS. MAINE HAD BEEN PROVIDING TUITION FUNDS TO FAMILIES IN AREAS WITHOUT PUBLIC SCHOOLS SO THAT THE FAMILIES COULD ATTEND THE PRIVATE SCHOOL OF THEIR CHOICE, EXCEPT RELIGIOUS PRIVATE SCHOOLS. SEIZING ON A GREY AREA IN THE ESPINOZA OPINION, THE STATE OF MAINE INSISTED ITS TUITIONING PROGRAM DIDN'T REJECT RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS BECAUSE OF THEIR RELIGIOUS STATUS, BUT BECAUSE PUBLIC FUNDS COULD BE PUT TO RELIGIOUS USE, A SUPPOSEDLY ACCEPTABLE FORM OF DISCRIMINATION. IJ AND OUR CLIENTS ARGUED OTHERWISE: A STATE MUST REMAIN NEUTRAL WITH REGARD TO RELIGION. IN A 6-3 VICTORY IN JUNE 2022, THE JUSTICES HELD THAT MAINE'S REFUSAL TO LET FAMILIES SPEND EDUCATION BENEFITS AT SCHOOLS THAT OFFER RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION. IJ RECEIVED FROM THE STATE OF MAINE $800,000 IN ATTORNEYS' FEES. MICHAEL AND NANCY VALENTE ET AL. V. VERMONT AGENCY OF EDUCATION ET AL. SINCE 1869, VERMONT HAS GIVEN PARENTS A CHOICE: IF THEIR LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT DOES NOT PROVIDE INSTRUCTION FOR THEIR CHILD'S GRADE-LEVEL, THEN THE STATE GIVES PARENTS A STIPEND TO SPEND AT ANY SCHOOL, PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, EXCEPT PRIVATE RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS. DESPITE IJ'S VICTORY IN ESPINOZA V. MONTANA IN JUNE 2020, WHICH CONFIRMED THAT THE CONSTITUTION OUTLAWS RELIGIOUS STATUS-BASED DISCRIMINATION, VERMONT CONTINUED TO EXCLUDE PRIVATE RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS FROM ITS TUITIONING PROGRAM. THUS, THREE VERMONT FAMILIES TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO FILE A LAWSUIT. LITIGATION IN VERMONT WAS STAYED PENDING THE OUTCOME OF CARSON - WHICH ADDRESSED THE SAME LEGAL ISSUE - AT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. IN FEBRUARY 2023, A FEDERAL JUDGE APPROVED A SETTLEMENT THAT ENDED THE LAWSUIT, GUARANTEEING VERMONT PARENTS WHO QUALIFY FOR TUITION BENEFITS CAN SPEND THOSE BENEFITS ON THE PRIVATE SCHOOL OF THEIR CHOICE, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE SCHOOL IS RELIGIOUS. THE CLIENTS ALL RECEIVED THE TUITION BENEFITS FOR THE YEARS THAT THEY HAD BEEN DENIED. IJ RECEIVED FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT $54,369.40 IN ATTORNEYS' FEES, AND RECEIVED FROM THE VERMONT SCHOOL BOARD INSURANCE TRUST $110,000 IN ATTORNEYS' FEES. KELLY, ET AL., V. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ET AL. PASSED INTO LAW IN 2013, THE OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM (OSP) PROVIDES SCHOLARSHIPS TO OVER 12,000 K-12 STUDENTS IN NORTH CAROLINA WHO USE THE PROGRAM TO ATTEND PARTICIPATING SCHOOLS. THE OSP FACED A CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE FOR THE SECOND TIME. ALONG WITH A COALITION OF NORTH CAROLINA PARENTS, IJ FOUGHT TO SECURE THE OPPORTUNITIES THE OSP HAS BROUGHT FOR THOSE WHO RELY ON THE PROGRAM. IN APRIL 2023, THE PLAINTIFFS CHALLENGING THE PROGRAM DISMISSED THEIR LAWSUIT, ENSURING THAT CHILDREN CAN ACCESS THE BEST OPPORTUNITIES TO EDUCATION IN NORTH CAROLINA. METRO. GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, ET AL., V. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ET AL. IN MAY 2019, TENNESSEE ENACTED THE TENNESSEE EDUCATION SAVINGS ACCOUNT PILOT PROGRAM ACT, WHICH PROVIDES SCHOLARSHIPS WORTH UP TO $7,300 TO FAMILIES FROM SHELBY COUNTY AND METRO NASHVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO SEND THEIR CHILDREN TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS. IJ IS INTERVENING ON BEHALF OF TWO PARENTS TO DEFEND THE PROGRAM FROM A LAWSUIT CHALLENGING ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY. IJ AND OUR CLIENTS APPEALED OUR LOSS AT CHANCERY COURT TO THE TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT, AND WE RE-ARGUED THE APPEAL IN FEBRUARY 2022 AFTER THE UNEXPECTED DEATH OF A JUSTICE. IN MAY 2022, THE JUSTICES RULED IN OUR FAVOR AND DIRECTED THE LOWER COURT TO REOPEN THE CASE AND CONSIDER THE REMAINING CLAIMS THAT WERE NOT ANALYZED IN THE INITIAL RULING AGAINST IJ. IN NOVEMBER 2022, THE CHANCERY COURT FOR DAVIDSON COUNTY DISMISSED ALL LEGAL CLAIMS RAISED IN TWO LAWSUITS CHALLENGING THE PROGRAM. |
| COUNCIL FOR BETTER EDUCATION, INC., ET AL. V. KENTUCKY FINANCE AND |
ADMINISTRATION CABINET, ET AL. IN JUNE 2021, IJ INTERVENED IN A KENTUCKY LAWSUIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE STATE'S NEW EDUCATIONAL CHOICE PROGRAM, THE EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY ACCOUNT PROGRAM. THE PROGRAM GIVES THOUSANDS OF LOW- AND MIDDLE-INCOME FAMILIES IN KENTUCKY INCREASED EDUCATIONAL FREEDOM AND IS FUNDED ENTIRELY BY PRIVATE DONATIONS. BUT A GROUP REPRESENTING KENTUCKY PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS FILED A LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THE PROGRAM'S CONSTITUTIONALITY. IN OCTOBER 2021, A TRIAL COURT JUDGE RULED THE PROGRAM UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON TWO GROUNDS. THE KENTUCKY SUPREME COURT ACCEPTED OUR APPEAL, BUT SIDED WITH OPPONENTS OF THE PROGRAM, AND DECLARED THE PROGRAM UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN DECEMBER 2022. COLUMBUS CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL. VS. OHIO ET AL. IN JANUARY 2022, A GROUP REPRESENTING FIVE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS FILED A LEGAL CHALLENGE TO STRIKE DOWN TWO OF OHIO'S EIGHT PRIVATE SCHOOL CHOICE PROGRAMS. THIS CASE INVOLVES A FLURRY OF ALLEGATIONS, LIKE THAT THE PROGRAMS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DIVERT MONEY FROM THE STATE'S PUBLIC SCHOOLS TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS. THE MOST UNIQUE CLAIM IS AN ACCUSATION THAT OHIO'S VOUCHER PROGRAMS RESULT IN SEGREGATED PUBLIC SCHOOLS: SINCE AN ALLEGEDLY DISPROPORTIONATE PERCENTAGE OF NON-MINORITY STUDENTS USE THE PROGRAM, THE PERCENTAGE OF MINORITY STUDENTS IN SOME PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS HAS INCREASED. THEIR COMPLAINT DISREGARDS THE INTERESTS OF THOUSANDS OF HARDWORKING FAMILIES (LIKE OUR CLIENTS) OF ALL RACES WHO FOR YEARS HAVE DEPENDED ON THIS PROGRAM TO ACCESS SCHOOLS THEY WOULD OTHERWISE BE UNABLE TO AFFORD. IN JANUARY 2022, IJ TEAMED UP WITH FIVE OHIO FAMILIES TO DEFEND THE OPPORTUNITIES OHIO'S CHOICE PROGRAMS OFFER. HOWES V. EDELBLUT, ET AL. IN JUNE 2021, NEW HAMPSHIRE ENACTED THE EDUCATION FREEDOM ACCOUNT (EFA) PROGRAM, PROVIDING GRANITE STATE FAMILIES WITH EDUCATIONAL CHOICE. BUT WHILE PARENTS COUNT ON THE PROGRAM TO HELP THEM EDUCATE THEIR CHILDREN, OPPONENTS THINK THOSE PARENTS - EVEN PARENTS WHO CANNOT AFFORD OTHER OPTIONS - SHOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO SEND THEIR CHILDREN TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS. TO THAT END, THE HEAD OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE PROGRAM. IF THE EFA PROGRAM'S OPPONENTS SUCCEED, THEY WILL DEPRIVE LOW-INCOME FAMILIES OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEND THEIR CHILDREN TO SCHOOLS THAT BETTER MEET THEIR NEEDS. IJ IS DEFENDING THE PROGRAM ON BEHALF OF THREE PARENTS WHOSE CHILDREN ARE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE EFAS UNDER THE PROGRAM. ALEXANDER, ET AL. V. ACTING COMMISSIONER HEIDI TESHNER AS A SPARSELY POPULATED STATE, ALASKA FACES UNIQUE CHALLENGES IN ENSURING THAT ALL CHILDREN CAN RECEIVE AN EDUCATION. TO ADDRESS THIS CONCERN, THE STATE CREATED "CORRESPONDENCE PROGRAMS," IN WHICH A STUDENT'S PUBLIC SCHOOL USES THE POST OFFICE OR FLOAT PLANES TO DELIVER LESSONS TO STUDENTS ACROSS THE STATE AND THEN PICKS UP AND GRADES ASSIGNMENTS. IN JANUARY 2023, A LAWSUIT WAS FILED CHALLENGING THE CORRESPONDENCE PROGRAM. A GROUP OF ALASKA FAMILIES WHO BENEFIT FROM THE PROGRAM TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO DEFEND IT AGAINST THIS LAWSUIT, BECAUSE ALL PARENTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO DIRECT THEIR CHILD'S EDUCATION. REGULUS BOOKS, LLC, V. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE AND DIVERS; HART V. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, AND ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, DECIDED TO REQUIRE A BUSINESS LICENSE TO WRITE NOVELS, AND THEY ASSESSED THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN BACK TAXES AGAINST SOME OF THEIR HARDWORKING FREELANCE WRITERS, WHILE EXEMPTING NEWSPAPERS, MAGAZINES, RADIO, AND TELEVISION. CHARLOTTESVILLE'S MONEY-GRAB IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, SO BESTSELLING NOVELISTS CORBAN ADDISON AND JOHN HART TEAMED UP WITH IJ IN JULY 2019 TO FILE LAWSUITS AGAINST THE CITY AND COUNTY ASKING FOR REFUNDS OF THEIR BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES AND CHALLENGING THE TAXES' CONSTITUTIONALITY UNDER THE FIRST AND 14TH AMENDMENTS. IN JUNE 2022, THE VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT UPHELD A LOWER COURT'S DECISION THAT DISMANTLED THE TAX LEVIED BY THE CITY. AS A RESULT, CORBAN WILL RECEIVE A TAX REFUND AND WILL NO LONGER BE SUBJECT TO THE BUSINESS LICENSE TAX. AFTER THE VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT DECISION, ALBEMARLE COUNTY RETURNED JOHN HART'S IMPROPER TAXES. IJ RECEIVED FROM THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, $217.00 IN ATTORNEYS' FEES AND RECEIVED FROM TAXING AUTHORITY CONSULTING SERVICES $1,015.70 IN ATTORNEYS' FEES. MILLS AND SOUTHWEST ENGINEERING CONCEPTS, LLC V. ARIZONA BOARD OF TECHNICAL REGISTRATION, ET AL. FOR 12 YEARS, GREG MILLS HAS RUN AN ARIZONA ENGINEERING FIRM. LIKE 80% OF AMERICAN ENGINEERS, HE DOES NOT HAVE AN ENGINEER'S LICENSE, WHICH IS NOT LEGALLY REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECTS THAT HE WORKS ON. BUT IN MAY 2019, THE ARIZONA BOARD OF TECHNICAL REGISTRATION THREATENED TO SHUT DOWN GREG'S COMPANY AND FINE HIM BECAUSE HE DOES NOT HAVE A STATE-ISSUED LICENSE, WHICH THE BOARD'S RULES SAY HE WOULD NOT NEED IF HE WORKED AT A MANUFACTURING COMPANY. GREG PARTNERED WITH IJ SO THAT HE AND OTHER ARIZONA ENGINEERS CAN DO THE WORK THEY ARE QUALIFIED TO DO WITHOUT UNCONSTITUTIONAL INTERFERENCE FROM THE BOARD. IN MAY 2020, THE MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT RULED THAT GREG COULD NOT SUE TO PROTECT HIS RIGHTS UNTIL THE BOARD FINISHED ITS ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS AGAINST HIM. WE APPEALED, AND IN A UNANIMOUS DECISION, THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT RULED THAT GREG CAN SUE THE BOARD OF TECHNICAL REGISTRATION TO PROTECT HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO CALL HIMSELF AN ENGINEER AND CONTINUE HIS ENGINEERING CAREER. GREG IS GOING BACK TO MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT TO ARGUE THAT THE BOARD'S BAN ON CALLING HIMSELF AN ENGINEER OR OFFERING HIS ENGINEERING SERVICES TO CLIENTS, VIOLATES HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, AS WELL AS OTHERS LIKE HIM. HINES V. TEXAS STATE BOARD OF VETERINARY MEDICAL EXAMINERS, ET AL. DR. RON HINES IS A RETIRED AND PHYSICALLY DISABLED LICENSED VETERINARIAN IN TEXAS. FROM 2002 TO 2012, HE GAVE PET OWNERS AROUND THE COUNTRY VETERINARY ADVICE ONLINE, MOSTLY TO THOSE WHO LACKED ACCESS TO VETERINARIANS AND OFTEN FOR FREE. THE TEXAS STATE BOARD OF VETERINARY MEDICAL EXAMINERS SHUT RON DOWN, SUSPENDED HIS LICENSE, AND FINED HIM. RON AND IJ FILED A FEDERAL LAWSUIT TO VINDICATE HIS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH, BUT AN APPEALS COURT RULED THAT RON'S SPEECH WASN'T PROTECTED BECAUSE HE WAS SPEAKING AS PART OF A LICENSED OCCUPATION. SINCE THEN, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS ADOPTED IJ'S ARGUMENTS ON THIS TYPE OF SPEECH AND AFFIRMED THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTS IT, SO RON AND IJ FILED A NEW LAWSUIT TO VINDICATE HIS RIGHT TO GIVE VETERINARY ADVICE TO PET OWNERS. IN DECEMBER 2020, THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 5TH CIRCUIT HELD THAT RESTRICTING DR. HINES' ONLINE PET ADVICE IMPLICATED HIS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. THE APPELLATE DECISION WILL PROTECT SPEAKERS THROUGHOUT TEXAS. THE CASE CONTINUES IN THE DISTRICT COURT, WHICH RULED IN DECEMBER 2021 THAT TEXAS MUST SATISFY THE CONSTITUTION'S MOST DEMANDING FREE SPEECH STANDARD. UPSOLVE, INC., ET AL. V. JAMES UPSOLVE BEGAN BY OFFERING A FREE APP TO WALK PEOPLE THROUGH CHAPTER 7 BANKRUPTCY - AN AWARD-WINNING INNOVATION THAT HAS NOW HELPED RELIEVE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN DEBT. UPSOLVE'S NEXT PROJECT, THE AMERICAN JUSTICE MOVEMENT, WAS DESIGNED TO TRAIN VOLUNTEERS, LIKE REVEREND JOHN UDO-OKON, TO GIVE BASIC LEGAL ADVICE PEOPLE NEED TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST DEBT-COLLECTION SUITS THAT PLAGUE SO MANY NEW YORKERS. THE SORT OF ADVICE CONTEMPLATED BY UPSOLVE'S NEW PROJECT IS A CRIME AND COULD JAIL REVEREND JOHN FOR UP TO FOUR YEARS FOR ENGAGING IN THE "UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW." THAT IS WHY REVEREND JOHN AND UPSOLVE HAVE JOINED WITH IJ TO CHALLENGE NEW YORK'S PROHIBITION ON LEGAL ADVICE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT LAWYERS UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT. IT CANNOT BE A CRIME SIMPLY TO GIVE SOMEONE ADVICE. YOUNG, ET AL. V. TOWN OF CONWAY, NEW HAMPSHIRE LEAVITT'S COUNTRY BAKERY HAS BEEN A PILLAR OF THE TOWN OF CONWAY, NEW HAMPSHIRE, FOR OVER 45 YEARS. THE BAKERY'S OWNER, SEAN YOUNG, ALLOWED A GROUP OF LOCAL HIGH SCHOOL ART STUDENTS TO PAINT OVER THE BLANK FAADE ABOVE ITS FRONT DOOR. THE RESULT WAS A WHIMSICAL DEPICTION OF A SUNNY NEW ENGLAND MOUNTAIN LANDSCAPE MADE ENTIRELY OF BAKED GOODS. BUT THE TOWN'S ZONING OFFICIALS INSIST THE MURAL MUST COME DOWN - INSISTING THE MURAL IS NO MURAL AT ALL - RATHER, IT IS A SIGN LARGER THAN WHAT THE TOWN'S SIGN CODE ALLOWS. GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS DON'T GET TO TELL PEOPLE, INCLUDING ENTREPRENEURS AND BUSINESSES, WHAT THEY CAN AND CAN'T PAINT. TO PROTECT HIS RIGHTS, SEAN HAS TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO FILE A FEDERAL LAWSUIT CHALLENGING CONWAY'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL SIGN CODE. |
| PRZYBOCKI, ET AL. V. U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE, ET AL. |
MICHELLE PRZYBOCKI AND ENTREPRENEUR KETAN VAKIL SUFFER FROM DIGESTIVE ISSUES. WHEN KETAN SAW HOW DIFFICULT IT WAS TO DETERMINE WHICH FOODS WERE LOW FODMAP (AN ACRONYM FOR DIFFICULT-TO-DIGEST SUGARS), HE STARTED A BUSINESS TO PROVIDE LOW-FODMAP FOODS TO INDIVIDUALS WITH DIGESTIVE ISSUES. BUT THEN THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA) INFORMED HIM THAT A FEDERAL LAW BANNED PROVIDING THIS INFORMATION ON FOOD LABELS - NOT BECAUSE SUCH LABELING WOULD BE FALSE, BUT MERELY BECAUSE IT IS NOT INCLUDED ON THE GOVERNMENT'S LIST OF PREAPPROVED "NUTRIENT CONTENT CLAIMS." MICHELLE AND KETAN HAVE JOINED WITH IJ TO FILE A FIRST AMENDMENT LAWSUIT IN FEDERAL COURT CHALLENGING THE USDA'S CENSORSHIP OF LOW-FODMAP LABELS. VICTORY WILL MEAN THAT TENS OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WILL FINALLY BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY WHICH FOODS WILL HELP THEM AVOID DEBILITATING PAIN, AND IT WILL REMIND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT CENSORSHIP HURTS CONSUMERS AND IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. DEL CASTILLO V. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH IN 2014, HEATHER DEL CASTILLO STARTED A BUSINESS PROVIDING PERSONALIZED HEALTH COACHING. SHE NEVER CLAIMED TO BE A LICENSED NUTRITIONIST OR DIETITIAN, BUT THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ORDERED HER TO CEASE PROVIDING NUTRITIONAL ADVICE AND DEMANDED THAT SHE PAY OVER $750 IN FINES. HEATHER COULD NOT AFFORD TO SPEND YEARS AND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS GETTING THE DEGREE TO BECOME A LICENSED DIETICIAN, SO SHE SHUT HER BUSINESS DOWN. THESE SORTS OF OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING LAWS PROTECT THE ECONOMIC INTERESTS OF LICENSE HOLDERS BY CENSORING WHAT OTHERS CAN SAY AND HEAR. HEATHER AND IJ FILED A FEDERAL LAWSUIT CHALLENGING FLORIDA'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTION ON GIVING DIETARY ADVICE. UNFORTUNATELY, IN JULY 2019, A FEDERAL DISTRICT UPHELD THE LICENSING REQUIREMENT ON THE BASIS THAT HEATHER'S ADVICE WAS "CONDUCT NOT "SPEECH AND THEREFORE EXEMPT FROM FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS. WE APPEALED THE DECISION TO THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 11TH CIRCUIT, WHICH UPHELD THE LOWER COURT'S DECISION IN FEBRUARY 2022, AND IN DECEMBER 2022, THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DECLINED OUR PETITION FOR REVIEW. SYLVIA GONZALEZ V. CITY OF CASTLE HILLS, TEXAS SYLVIA GONZALEZ, A RETIRED RESIDENT OF CASTLE HILLS, TEXAS, RAN FOR LOCAL OFFICE IN 2019 AND DEFEATED A WELL-CONNECTED AND POWERFUL INCUMBENT AFTER KNOCKING ON MORE THAN 500 DOORS AND TALKING WITH HUNDREDS OF RESIDENTS. SYLVIA HELPED ORGANIZE A NON-BINDING PETITION CALLING FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE CASTLE HILLS CITY MANAGER. INCENSED BY THE CRITICISM, CITY OFFICIALS RETALIATED WITH A CAMPAIGN OF HARASSMENT THAT CULMINATED IN SYLVIA BEING ARRESTED AND SPENDING A DAY IN JAIL, ACCUSED OF STEALING HER OWN PETITION. IN SEPTEMBER 2020, SYLVIA TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO HOLD ACCOUNTABLE THE CITY OFFICIALS WHO VIOLATED HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. CITY OFFICIALS CLAIMED THEY COULD NOT BE SUED BECAUSE OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. IN MARCH 2021, A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE DENIED THE OFFICIALS IMMUNITY, RULING THAT THROWING SOMEONE IN JAIL FOR EXERCISING THEIR RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH IS A CLEARLY ESTABLISHED VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. CITY OFFICIALS APPEALED THE RULING, AND THE 5TH CIRCUIT HELD THAT THE OFFICIALS WERE ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY. IJ FILED A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WITH THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ON BEHALF OF SYLVIA IN APRIL 2023, AND WE AWAIT A DECISION. ERICA BREWER AND ZACHARY MALLORY V. TOWN OF EAGLE ET AL.; ANNALYSE AND JOSEPH VICTOR V. TOWN OF EAGLE ET AL. IJ REPRESENTS ANNALYSE AND JOSEPH VICTOR IN ONE LAWSUIT AND ERICA BREWER AND ZACH MALLORY IN ANOTHER AGAINST THE TOWN OF EAGLE, WISCONSIN. THE TOWN IMPOSED $87,900 IN FINES AND FEES ON ANNALYSE AND JOSEPH VICTOR FOR A VARIETY OF VIOLATIONS RELATED TO A FEW TRUCKS THAT WERE PARKED ON THEIR NEARLY 10 ACRES OF RURAL PROPERTY. SIMILARLY, THE TOWN TARGETED ERICA AND ZACH AFTER ERICA SPOKE IN SUPPORT OF A NEIGHBOR AT A TOWN MEETING. SOON, THE TOWN THREATENED THEM WITH $20,000 IN FINES AND FEES FOR VIOLATIONS LIKE AN UNPERMITTED FLOWER PLANTER, TALL GRASS, AND THE LOCATION OF A BARN THAT WAS ON THE PROPERTY WHEN THEY PURCHASED THE LAND. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS CANNOT LEVY DISPROPORTIONATE FINES TO RAISE MONEY OR TARGET PEOPLE AS RETALIATION, SO WE ARE FIGHTING IN COURT TO STOP THIS ABUSE. IN AUGUST 2021, A COURT GRANTED OUR REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PROTECTING ERICA AND ZACH FROM CONTINUED HARASSMENT BY THE TOWN WHILE THEY SEEK TO VINDICATE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. AFTER A COURT DENIED OUR MOTION TO VACATE THE FINES AGAINST THE VICTORS, IJ AND THE VICTORS APPEALED AND ULTIMATELY REACHED A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE TOWN. THE CASE ON BEHALF OF ERICA BREWER AND ZACH MALLORY CONTINUES IN THE TRIAL COURT. PULLIAM V. COUNTY OF FORT BEND, TEXAS, ET AL. THIS FEDERAL LAWSUIT SEEKS TO VINDICATE THE FREE-SPEECH RIGHTS OF JUSTIN PULLIAM, A CITIZEN JOURNALIST WHO WAS EXCLUDED FROM A POLICE PRESS CONFERENCE AND ARRESTED FOR FILMING A POLICE ENCOUNTER WITH A MENTALLY ILL MAN. AS PART OF HIS PROJECT TO INSTILL MORE ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY INTO THE ACTIONS OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS, JUSTIN TRACKS CALLS ON A SCANNER AND DRIVES TO THE SCENE TO DOCUMENT LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSES. THE FORT BEND COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE BEGAN TO SINGLE JUSTIN OUT AND INTIMIDATE HIM, AND AUTHORITIES ARE NOW PROSECUTING HIM FOR INTERFERING WITH POLICE DUTIES, EVEN THOUGH HE DID NOT INTERFERE WITH THE OFFICERS IN ANY WAY. NOW, JUSTIN AND IJ ARE FIGHTING BACK AGAINST THE FORT BEND DEPUTIES' UNLAWFUL BEHAVIOR. HE HAS FILED A FEDERAL LAWSUIT TO PROTECT HIS FIRST AND 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND TO ENSURE THE CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHO VIOLATE THEM. WILLIAM FAMBROUGH V. EAST CLEVELAND ET AL. IN 2021, WILLIAM FAMBROUGH USED HIS VAN - OUTFITTED AS A SOUND TRUCK WITH A CANDIDATE POSTER - TO CAMPAIGN FOR A CHALLENGER TO THE INCUMBENT MAYOR OF EAST CLEVELAND. RATHER THAN RESPECT WILLIAM'S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, THE CITY GOVERNMENT RETALIATED AGAINST HIM. POLICE OFFICERS REPEATEDLY SHOWED UP AT WILLIAM'S HOME, FINED HIM, AND TOWED HIS VAN. AND THEY CITED WILLIAM FOR "NOISE POLLUTION," DESPITE HIS OBTAINING A PERMIT TO BROADCAST CAMPAIGN MESSAGES FROM HIS VAN. WILLIAM AND IJ ARE FIGHTING BACK WITH A LAWSUIT AGAINST EAST CLEVELAND SO THAT OTHER CITIES DO NOT USE THEIR CODES OR ORDINANCES AS PRETEXTS TO VIOLATE THEIR RESIDENTS' FREE SPEECH RIGHTS. NOVAK V. CITY OF PARMA, OHIO ANTHONY NOVAK DECIDED TO CREATE A FACEBOOK PAGE PARODYING THE PARMA POLICE DEPARTMENT'S PAGE. THE PARMA POLICE DEPARTMENT DID NOT APPRECIATE ANTHONY'S CRITICISM; POLICE OBTAINED A WARRANT FOR HIS ARREST, SEARCHED HIS APARTMENT, SEIZED HIS ELECTRONICS, AND CHARGED HIM WITH A FELONY UNDER AN OHIO LAW THAT CRIMINALIZES USING A COMPUTER TO "DISRUPT" "POLICE OPERATIONS." ANTHONY SPENT FOUR DAYS IN JAIL BUT WAS EVENTUALLY FOUND NOT GUILTY IN A JURY TRIAL. WHEN ANTHONY TRIED TO VINDICATE HIS RIGHTS BY FILING A CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUIT, THE COURTS REFUSED TO HOLD THE POLICE OFFICERS ACCOUNTABLE FOR VIOLATING ANTHONY'S FIRST AND FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. IF THE POLICE CAN USE THEIR AUTHORITY TO ARREST THEIR CRITICS WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE, EVERYONE'S RIGHTS ARE AT RISK. WITH THE HELP OF IJ, ANTHONY ASKED THE SUPREME COURT TO TAKE UP HIS CASE, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, THE COURT DECLINED TO TAKE THE CASE. WAYLON BAILEY V. ILES IT'S NOT A CRIME TO MAKE A JOKE ON THE INTERNET. BUT WHEN WAYLON BAILEY POSTED AN INNOCUOUS JOKE ON FACEBOOK COMPARING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC TO A ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE, HE LEARNED THE HARD WAY OVERZEALOUS LOCAL OFFICIALS DON'T ALWAYS HONOR THAT CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE. THOUGH THE POST WAS CLEARLY SATIRICAL, THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE STORMED UPON WAYLON'S HOUSE WITH GUNS DRAWN, ARRESTED WAYLON, AND TOOK HIM TO JAIL. EVEN THOUGH ARRESTING WAYLON TRAMPLED HIS FREE SPEECH RIGHTS, THE COURTS HAVE REFUSED TO HOLD THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE ACCOUNTABLE AND GRANTED THE SHERIFFS QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. NOW, WAYLON HAS TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO APPEAL THIS DECISION. IF WAYLON'S CASUAL ONLINE JOKING CAN RESULT IN AN ARREST, THEN NOBODY'S ONLINE SPEECH IS SAFE. |
| GIBSON V. GOLDSTON |
DURING DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS BETWEEN MATTHEW GIBSON AND HIS EX-WIFE, THE JUDGE IN THE CASE, RALEIGH COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA, FAMILY-COURT JUDGE LOUISE GOLDSTON, PERSONALLY FORCED HER WAY INTO MATTHEW'S HOME TO SEARCH FOR ITEMS THAT WERE IN DISPUTE. GOLDSTON WAS ULTIMATELY CENSURED AND FINED BY THE WEST VIRGINIA HIGH COURT FOR VIOLATING THE STATE'S CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT. WHEN MATTHEW SUED FOR THESE EGREGIOUS VIOLATIONS OF HIS PRIVACY AND FREE SPEECH RIGHTS, GOLDSTON ARGUED THAT SHE WAS NOT LIABLE BY INVOKING A COURT-MADE DOCTRINE CALLED JUDICIAL IMMUNITY. BUT JUDICIAL IMMUNITY IS RESERVED FOR JUDICIAL ACTIONS, AND SEARCHING SOMEONE'S HOME IS NOT A JUDICIAL ACT. THE TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY RECOGNIZED THIS PRINCIPLE AND DENIED GOLDSTON JUDICIAL IMMUNITY FOR HER ACTIONS. NONETHELESS, GOLDSTON IS NOW APPEALING THAT DECISION TO THE 4TH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. ON APPEAL, MATTHEW IS TEAMING UP WITH IJ TO PROTECT IMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES BY HOLDING JUDGES ACCOUNTABLE. BROWNBACK V. KING IN 2014, JAMES KING, AN INNOCENT COLLEGE STUDENT, WAS MISTAKEN FOR A PETTY THIEF BY PLAINCLOTHES OFFICERS ACTING AS PART OF A JOINT FEDERAL-STATE TASK FORCE. WHEN THEY TOOK HIS WALLET, JAMES THOUGHT HE WAS BEING MUGGED AND TRIED TO FLEE. THE OFFICERS TACKLED HIM, BRUTALLY BEAT HIM, AND CHOKED HIM UNCONSCIOUS. WHEN THE OFFICERS RESPONSIBLE REALIZED THEIR MISTAKE, THEY CHARGED JAMES WITH SEVERAL VIOLENT FELONIES. EVENTUALLY, JAMES WAS FULLY ACQUITTED ON ALL CHARGES BY A JURY. BUT THE PROCESS OF CLEARING HIS NAME COST JAMES YEARS OF HIS LIFE AND HIS FAMILY'S ENTIRE SAVINGS. IN 2016, HE FILED A FEDERAL LAWSUIT AGAINST THE TASK FORCE MEMBERS. BUT GOVERNMENT IMMUNITY DOCTRINES MADE JAMES' OPTIONS EXTREMELY LIMITED AND PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. HE TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO VINDICATE HIS RIGHTS AND ENSURE THAT OTHER AMERICANS COULD HOLD THE GOVERNMENT TO ACCOUNT WHEN IT VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION. IN FEBRUARY 2021, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT ISSUED ITS DECISION REJECTING THE GOVERNMENT'S REQUEST TO CREATE A NEW KIND OF IMMUNITY FOR THE OFFICERS. THE DECISION WAS MIXED IN THAT IT DIDN'T CATEGORICALLY RULE FOR POLICE VICTIMS EITHER. INSTEAD, IT SENT THE CASE BACK TO THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 6TH CIRCUIT TO RESOLVE AN ISSUE ABOUT WHETHER POLICE VICTIMS CAN BRING SEVERAL DIFFERENT CLAIMS IN A SINGLE SUIT. UNFORTUNATELY, THE 6TH CIRCUIT CITED OUTDATED CASE LAW TO APPLY IMMUNITY AND LET THE GOVERNMENT OFF THE HOOK. NOW, IJ IS ASKING THE U.S. SUPREME COURT TO HEAR THE CASE ONCE AGAIN. ROSALES V. BRADSHAW IN 2018, MARIO ROSALES WAS DRIVING HOME WHEN HE PASSED AN OFF-DUTY CHAVES COUNTY, NEW MEXICO SHERIFF'S DEPUTY. IN A FIT OF ROAD RAGE, THE DEPUTY FOLLOWED MARIO HOME, BLOCKED HIM IN THE DRIVEWAY, AND ULTIMATELY POINTED A GUN AT HIM. THE DEPUTY LOST HIS JOB AND WAS CONVICTED OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, BUT WHEN MARIO SUED HIM, A FEDERAL COURT DISMISSED HIS SUIT BECAUSE OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. GOVERNMENT AGENTS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY FOR ACTIONS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THEIR JOB, AND POINTING A GUN AT A NON-THREATENING PERSON IS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. MARIO HAS JOINED WITH IJ TO APPEAL THIS DECISION TO THE 10TH CIRCUIT AND HOLD THE OFFICER ACCOUNTABLE. ROSALES V. LEWIS, ET AL. NOW LIVING IN LOUISIANA, IN JUNE 2022, MARIO ROSALES FROM THE CASE DESCRIBED ABOVE AND HIS GIRLFRIEND GRACIE WERE DRIVING HOME FROM WORK. THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING SUSPICIOUS, AND MARIO WAS FOLLOWING THE TRAFFIC LAWS. DESPITE THAT, A POLICE VEHICLE FOLLOWED AND IMMEDIATELY PULLED MARIO OVER. WHEN MARIO AND GRACIE ASKED WHY THEY HAD BEEN PULLED OVER, THE OFFICERS ANSWERED THAT MARIO FAILED TO USE HIS TURN SIGNAL - BUT MULTIPLE RECORDINGS OF THE INCIDENT CLEARLY SHOW THAT MARIO USED HIS BLINKER. OVER 20 MINUTES AFTER PULLING OVER MARIO AND GRACIE, THE OFFICERS LET THEM GO. THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS AGAINST THIS STOP-FIRST-JUSTIFY-LATER FORM OF POLICING. THAT IS WHY MARIO AND GRACIE HAVE SUED THE POLICE OFFICERS AND THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, LOUISIANA - TO ENFORCE THE CONSTITUTIONAL BOUNDARIES THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO PROTECT MOTORISTS FROM BOGUS TRAFFIC STOPS THAT TURN INTO FREE-FOR-ALL FISHING EXPEDITIONS FOR CRIMES. REEVES V. COUNTY OF WAYNE, ET AL. FOUR YEARS AGO, ROBERT REEVES' CAR WAS SEIZED BY POLICE IN DETROIT USING CIVIL FORFEITURE. IN 2020, HE PARTNERED WITH IJ TO FILE THE FEDERAL CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT TO PUT AN END TO WAYNE COUNTY'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRACTICE OF SEIZING CARS FROM INNOCENT MOTORISTS DESCRIBED ABOVE. WITHIN TWO WEEKS OF FILING THE SUIT, WAYNE COUNTY PROSECUTORS BEGAN TO WAGE A WAR OF RETRIBUTION AGAINST ROBERT. THEY FILED TWO FELONY CHARGES AGAINST ROBERT AND THEN ATTEMPTED TO LEVERAGE THOSE CHARGES TO DERAIL HIS FEDERAL CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT. WHEN A JUDGE DISMISSED THAT, THEY DIDN'T GIVE UP. INSTEAD, THEY FILED A SECOND SET OF IDENTICAL CHARGES, WHICH WERE ONCE AGAIN DISMISSED FOR LACK OF EVIDENCE. TO ENSURE THAT NO ONE ELSE IS THREATENED WITH JAIL TIME FOR DARING TO HOLD GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ACCOUNTABLE, ROBERT JOINED IJ TO FILE A SECOND LAWSUIT AGAINST WAYNE COUNTY FOR THEIR HARASSMENT AGAINST HIM. POLLREIS V. MARZOLF IN DECEMBER 2021, IJ FILED A CERT PETITION ASKING THE U.S. SUPREME COURT TO TAKE UP AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ARREST CASE ON BEHALF OF TWO BOYS WHO WERE HANDCUFFED AND HELD AT GUNPOINT WHILE WALKING HOME FROM THEIR GRANDMOTHER'S HOUSE IN 2018. A DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE OFFICER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY FOR VIOLATING THE BOYS' FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS, BUT THE 8TH CIRCUIT HELD THAT QUALIFIED IMMUNITY SHIELDS THE OFFICER BECAUSE THE BOYS HAD NEVER BEEN "ARRESTED" AT ALL. THIS CONTINUES A GROWING TREND OF FEDERAL COURTS CONSIDERING HIGHLY INTRUSIVE, SOMETIMES VIOLENT LAW ENFORCEMENT CONDUCT AS CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE ENCOUNTERS. IN JANUARY 2022, THE HIGH COURT DENIED THE BOYS' PETITION. THE CASE CONTINUES THROUGH IJ'S SEPARATE APPEAL TO THE 8TH CIRCUIT ON BEHALF OF THE BOYS' MOTHER, CASSI POLLREIS, WHO AN OFFICER THREATENED WITH A TASER. DESPITE DENYING THE OFFICER QUALIFIED IMMUNITY ON THE BOYS' CLAIMS, THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED IMMUNITY ON CASSI'S. BUT POLICE CANNOT DRAW WEAPONS ON BYSTANDERS WHO POSE NO THREAT. SCHOTT V. BABB, MOLINA, SALAZAR, AND BEXAR CO., TEXAS ALEK SCHOTT WAS DRIVING HOME FROM A WORK TRIP WHEN A BEXAR COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPUTY PULLED HIM OVER. THE DEPUTY CALLED A DRUG DOG TO SEARCH HIS TRUCK, AND THE DOG ALLEGEDLY ALERTED TO THE PRESENCE OF DRUGS. POLICE PROCEEDED TO TEAR APART ALEK'S TRUCK, BUT THEY FOUND NOTHING BECAUSE THERE WAS NOTHING TO FIND. FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, THE TRAFFIC STOP WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. FOOTAGE FROM ALEK'S OWN DASHCAM SHOWS HE NEVER DRIFTED LANES. THE FOURTH AMENDMENT PROHIBITS STOP-FIRST, JUSTIFY-LATER POLICING. IN ALEK'S CASE, THE DEPUTY USED AN UNJUSTIFIED TRAFFIC STOP TO PROBE INTO CRIMES ALEK HADN'T COMMITTED. ALEK IS PARTNERING WITH IJ TO SUE THE DEPUTIES AND BEXAR COUNTY FOR VIOLATING HIS FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS BECAUSE IF WE THE PEOPLE MUST FOLLOW THE LAW, GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS MUST FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION. ERMA WILSON V. MIDLAND COUNTY FORMER ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY RALPH PETTY OF MIDLAND, TEXAS, SPENT HIS DAYS PROSECUTING CRIMINAL CASES AND HIS NIGHTS ACTING AS A LAW CLERK ON THE VERY CASES HE WAS PROSECUTING. IJ CLIENT ERMA WILSON CANNOT PURSUE HER DREAM OF BECOMING A NURSE BECAUSE OF A FELONY DRUG CONVICTION FOLLOWING A TAINTED TRIAL PROSECUTED BY PETTY - WHO AS A CLERK ALSO DRAFTED THE FINAL JUDGMENT AND SENTENCING ORDER AGAINST HER. FOR 20 YEARS, PETTY ACTED ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BENCH IN MORE THAN 300 CASES. SUCH A PLAIN CONFLICT OF INTEREST VIOLATES THE RIGHT TO A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL COURT OF LAW. SO, IN APRIL 2022, ERMA JOINED WITH IJ TO FILE A LAWSUIT AGAINST PETTY, OTHER RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS, AND MIDLAND COUNTY ITSELF. A VICTORY IN THIS CASE WILL PUT OTHER PROSECUTORS AND JUDGES ON NOTICE ABOUT THE LIMITS OF THEIR IMMUNITY. CENTRAL SPECIALTIES INC. V. LARGE IN 2017, A COUNTY TRAFFIC ENGINEER IN MINNESOTA CREATED A NEW WEIGHT LIMIT FOR TRUCKS TRAVELING ON THE HIGHWAY. THEN, AN HOUR LATER, HE PRETENDED TO BE A TRAFFIC COP BY PULLING OVER TWO TRUCKS, DETAINING THE DRIVERS FOR HOURS, AND CALLING STATE TROOPERS TO COME GIVE THE DRIVERS TICKETS. DESPITE TRAFFIC STOPS BEING COMPLETELY OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE ENGINEER'S JOB, THE 8TH CIRCUIT COURT GRANTED HIM QUALIFIED IMMUNITY FOR THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL STOPS. THIS DECISION RUNS IN THE FACE OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT'S PRECEDENT ON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AND THIS NATION'S HISTORICAL PRACTICES. SO, IJ AND OWNER OF THE TRUCKS, CENTRAL SPECIALTIES, INC. (CSI), TEAMED UP TO ASK THE HIGH COURT TO WEIGH IN AND STOP THIS EXPANSION OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY FOR ROGUE GOVERNMENT AGENTS. IN OCTOBER 2022, THE SUPREME COURT REJECTED IJ'S APPEAL TO REVIEW THE CASE. |
| ANILAO, ET AL. V. SPOTA, ET AL. |
A GROUP OF IMMIGRANT NURSES (UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF ATTORNEY FELIX VINLUAN) RESIGNED FROM SENTOSA NURSING HOME AFTER SENTOSA BROKE ITS CONTRACT WITH THE WORKERS. SENTOSA THEN ATTEMPTED MULTIPLE EFFORTS TO PUNISH THE NURSES, DESPITE THE FACT THE NURSES WERE REPEATEDLY FOUND TO HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG. IN 2009, A NEW YORK APPELLATE COURT ORDERED THAT THE PROSECUTION OF THE NURSES BE STOPPED BECAUSE THE SUFFOLK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE BROUGHT CHARGES "WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION." IN DECEMBER 2022, WITH THE HELP OF IJ, THE NURSES AND FELIX ASKED THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO HEAR THEIR CASE AGAINST THE OFFICIALS FROM THE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE WHO BROUGHT FORWARD THE BOGUS CHARGES. PROSECUTORS ARE NOT ABOVE THE LAW, AND WHEN THEY BLATANTLY VIOLATE PEOPLE'S RIGHTS, THEY SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. SADLY, IN APRIL 2023, THE SUPREME COURT DECLINED TO HEAR THE CASE. J.T.H., ET AL. V. COOK IN MAY 2018, A 15-YEAR-OLD BOY WAS SEXUALLY ABUSED BY BRANDON COOK, A DEPUTY IN THE SCOTT COUNTY, MISSOURI, SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. A FEW MONTHS AFTER THE ASSAULT, THE BOY'S PARENTS THREATENED TO SUE BRANDON COOK'S EMPLOYER, SCOTT COUNTY, FOR ITS NEGLIGENCE IN ALLOWING BRANDON - WHO HAD BEEN DISCIPLINED IN PREVIOUS LAW ENFORCEMENT JOBS - TO SERVE AS A DEPUTY. ONLY SEVEN WEEKS AFTER THAT THREAT, THE PARENTS FOUND THEMSELVES SUBJECT TO AN INTRUSIVE INVESTIGATION FOR CHILD NEGLECT BY A CHILD-WELFARE INVESTIGATOR IN SCOTT COUNTY, SPRING COOK, WHO CLAIMED THAT THE PARENTS WERE THE ONES TO BLAME FOR LETTING THEIR SON BE SEXUALLY ABUSED. AFTER THEY WERE EXONERATED, THEY SUED THE CPS OFFICER. BUT ACCORDING TO THE COURT, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION FROM RETALIATORY INVESTIGATION. INVESTIGATIONS CAN BE AN EFFECTIVE TOOL FOR INTIMIDATION, AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ACROSS THE IDEOLOGICAL SPECTRUM WEAPONIZE THIS POWER TO PUNISH THOSE WHO SPEAK OUT AGAINST THEM. IJ TEAMED UP WITH THE PARENTS IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT TO GIVE THEM THEIR DAY IN COURT. THE COURT DECLINED TO HEAR THE CASE IN JANUARY 2023. YASSIN V. WEYKER IFRAH YASSIN WAS ONE OF SEVERAL IMMIGRANTS WHOSE LIVES WERE UPENDED BY ST. PAUL POLICE OFFICER HEATHER WEYKER. IT IS WELL DOCUMENTED THAT WEYKER FABRICATED A CRIME RING AND SINGLE-HANDEDLY RUINED THE LIVES OF DOZENS OF PEOPLE SHE LANDED IN FEDERAL PRISON OVER A FICTITIOUS STORY. IFRAH STOOD TRIAL - FACING LIFE IN PRISON - AND WAS ULTIMATELY FOUND NOT GUILTY. A FEDERAL APPEALS COURT HAS STATED CLEARLY THAT WEYKER LIED. BECAUSE WEYKER WAS ALSO DEPUTIZED AS A FEDERAL OFFICER TO WORK ON A JOINT STATE-FEDERAL TASK FORCE, BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS REJECTED IFRAH'S EFFORTS TO HOLD WEYKER ACCOUNTABLE. NO POLICE OFFICER SHOULD BE ABLE TO LIE, RUIN AN INNOCENT PERSON'S LIFE, AND GET AWAY WITH IT. YET, NATIONWIDE, COURTS NOW GRANT OFFICERS WHO SERVE ON JOINT STATE-FEDERAL TASK FORCES BLANKET IMMUNITY FROM ACCOUNTABILITY WHEN THEY VIOLATE SOMEONE'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. THAT'S WHY IJ, ON IFRAH'S BEHALF, ASKED THE U.S. SUPREME COURT TO HEAR IFRAH'S CASE. UNFORTUNATELY, IN FEBRUARY 2023, THE SUPREME COURT DECLINED TO HEAR HER APPEAL. MOHAMUD V. WEYKER IN AUGUST 2021, IJ FILED A PETITION ASKING THE U.S. SUPREME COURT TO TAKE UP A CASE CHALLENGING BLANKET IMMUNITY FOR FEDERAL OFFICIALS. A SOMALI REFUGEE NAMED HAMDI MOHAMUD WAS FRAMED BY A MINNESOTA POLICE OFFICER (THE SAME OFFICER MENTIONED ABOVE) IN AN ATTEMPT TO SALVAGE A FABRICATED INVESTIGATION. THE OFFICER'S LIES SENT HAMDI TO FEDERAL DETENTION FOR TWO YEARS. ACCORDING TO THE 8TH CIRCUIT, THE OFFICER'S ROLE ON A JOINT FEDERAL-STATE TASK FORCE MEANS SHE CANNOT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE AS A FEDERAL OFFICER FOR DERAILING A TEENAGER'S FUTURE. UNFORTUNATELY, THE HIGH COURT DENIED HER PETITION IN JUNE 2022. EVEN SO, THE 8TH CIRCUIT HELD THAT, IF HAMDI COULD SHOW THE OFFICER WAS ACTING AS A STATE OFFICER WHEN SHE VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION, HAMDI'S CASE COULD MOVE FORWARD. WITH NEWLY DISCOVERED DOCUMENTS, HAMDI HAS RETURNED TO THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT TO PROVE THE OFFICER WAS ACTING AS A STATE OFFICER, EVEN WHILE SHE ACTED AS A FEDERAL OFFICER. IJ WILL CONTINUE THIS FIGHT UNTIL JUSTICE IS SECURED FOR THOSE WHOSE RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED BY FEDERAL OFFICERS AND OFFICIALS. AMICUS BRIEFS FILED FY23 (JULY 1, 2022 - JUNE 30, 2023) SEC V. MICHELLE COCHRAN DAMIAN STINNIE, ET AL. V. RICHARD D. HOLCOMB, ET AL. ARIYAN INC., DOING BUSINESS AS DISCOUNT CORNER, ET AL. V. SEWERAGE & WATER BOARD OF NEW ORLEANS LAFAYETTE CITY-PARISH CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT V. BENDEL PARTNERSHIP, ET AL. UNITED STATES V. LUIS SANCHEZ, ET AL. HEALTH AND HOSPITAL CORP. OF MARION COUNTY, ET AL. V. IVANKA TALEVSKI, ET AL. SEATTLE EVENTS V. STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON V. CHARLES TATUM BRIAN TINGLEY V. ROBERT W. FERGUSON, ET AL. BLACK LIVES MATTER D.C., ET AL. V. WILLIAM P. BARR, ET AL. JAMES CERISIER V. CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL. RICHARD RODGERS V. CHARLES H. HUCKELBERRY, ET AL. STATE OF INDIANA V. JEFFREY DIAZ, ET AL. DAPHNE MOORE V. UNITED STATES RAFAEL MARFIL, ET AL. V. CITY OF NEW BRAUNFELS, TX CINDY MENDOZA, ET AL. V. KRIS STRICKLER, ET AL. PRISCILLA VILLARREAL V. THE CITY OF LAREDO, TEXAS, ET AL. RICHARD DEVILLIER, ET AL. V. STATE OF TEXAS JERRY ROGERS, JR. V. RANDY SMITH, SHERIFF, ET AL. HANNA KARCHO POLSELLI, ET AL. V. IRS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN V. TRAVIS MICHAEL JOHNSON FLORENCE OWNER 1, LLC, ET AL. V. DUKE ENERGY KENTUCKY, INC. KEVIN CLARKE, ET AL. V. CFTC DENISE MEJIA V. WESLEY MILLER, ET AL. MARK MCDONALD, ET AL. V. KRISTINA D. LAWSON, ET AL. OYOMA ASINOR, ET AL./ALEXANDER CAMERON, ET AL. V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL. (SIGN ON AMICUS) THE CIVIL SURVIVAL PROJECT, ET AL. V. STATE OF WASHINGTON, ET AL. INGE BERGE V. SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF GLOUCESTER, ET AL. KALEY CHILES V. PATTY SALAZAR, ET AL. GERALDINE TYLER, ET, AL. V. HENNEPIN COUNTY, ET AL. SOUTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP, ET AL. V. ALAN WILSON GARRETT SMITH, ET AL. V. STATE OF GEORGIA, EX REL. JOSEPH K. MULHOLLAND THE GYM 24/7 FITNESS, LLC, ET AL. V. STATE OF MICHIGAN DIJON SHARPE V. WINTERVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL. TEXAS DEPT. OF INSURANCE, ET AL. V. STONEWATER ROOFING, LTD. CO. DONALD LOGSDON, JR. V. UNITED STATES MARSHAL SERVICE, ET AL. NEW GEORGIA PROJECT, INC., ET AL. V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF GEORGIA, ET AL. MISSISSIPPI DEPT. OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION, ET AL. V. PARENTS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS DONNA BUETTNER-HARTSOE, ET AL. V. BALTIMORE LUTHERAN HIGHT SCHOOL ASSOC. KODY H. KINSLEY V. ACE SPEEDWAY RACING, ET AL. HALIMA TARIFFA CULLEY, ET AL. V. STEVEN T. MARSHALL, ET AL. DAVID SOSA V. MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA, ET AL. |
Attach to Form 990 or Form 990-EZ. 
Attach to Form 990 or 990-EZ.