Friday, January 4, 2008

Yellow House case in violation of fifth & fourteenth Constitutional Amendment rights

free html hit counter account login
Get free hit counter code here.



Photobucket



Violation of Yellow House store Lawrence Kansas business owners Fifth and fourteenth Amendment rights. A person should have the protection of Constituional rights!

When ACTIONS BY the POLICE DESTROY a persons REPUTATION.

Reputation and Goodwill in the community have been and continue to be significantly damaged in the Yellow House case.

“Both libel and defamation of character” Because statements made to the media by Law enforcement officials have caused rumor and innuendo against the Yellow House business and it owners. Because injury to reputation and goodwill is impossible or very difficult to quantify in monetary terms, it is irreparable and cannot adequately be redressed at law.

see case reference: Gateway Eastern Ry. Co. v. Terminal R.R. Ass'n of St. Lous, 35 F 3d 1134. 1140 (7th Cir. 1994) Abbott Labs, 971 F2d at 16; Cleveland air Clinic, 968 F. Supp at 1247.

Due to Law enforcements name calling and labeling unsubstantiated statements to the media that "Yellow House was the largest fencing operation ever in the history of Lawrence" Selling tens of thousands of dollars worth of stolen items pilfered off the backs of trucks" These erroneous statements were clearly in violation of Lawrence Kansas Police departments policies and procedures. These statements have further robbed the Neighbors and thier business of reputational interests.

"Where a person's good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake because of what the government is doing to the business owners, notice and an opportunity to be heard are essential.

see case reference: ”Wisconsin v. Constantineu, 400 U.S> 43, 437 (1971) The right to be heard before being condemned to suffer grievous loss of any kind, is a principle basic to our society and a violation of the Due Process Clause. The due process requires consideration of three factors: (1) The private interests affected by the official action; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation and the probable value of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and (3) the government's interest.

See reference case: Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976)

Application of these factors makes clear that officials violated the fifth Amendment by failing to give notice and a pre-deprivation hearing, or, at the very least, a post deprivation hearing during the nearly 3 years the defendants property including important financial documentation and computers has been held, during which time Law enforcement has misplaced expensive seized evidence, broken chain of evidence rules and made public statements, without charges, causing humiliation and loss of business, that "were mere speculation" without basis or merit.

PHYSICAL SEIZURE OF PROPERTY VIOLATES DEFENDANTS essential protections of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The fifth Amendment, forbids the deprivation of "life, liberty, or property. without due process of law..." because deprivation of life, liberty or property by adjudication is preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.

see reference case: Mullane V. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313 (1950) "The purpose of this requirement is... to protect (the individual's) use and possession of property from arbitrary encroachment-to minimize substantively unfair or mistaken deprivations of property.”Fuentes V. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 80-81 (1972).

The Fourteenth Amendment secures the right to due process;

With complete disregard of the most rudimentary requirements of the Due Process Clause, For nearly three years, police continue to block Guy and Carrie Neighbors property without providing a pre-deprivation or a post- deprivation hearing at which the Neighbors would have the opportunity to meet and rebut the government's allegations.

This has deprived The Neighbors of constitutionally protected property interests.

Thus allowing purchased extended warranties to expire, loss of value of property, loss of ownership, extended loss of important data, thus resulting in obstruction of financial business gains. Even temporary nonfinal deprivation of property is nonetheless a deprivation for purposes of due process.

see case reference: Fuentes, 407 U.S. at 85; see, e.g., connecticut v. Doehr, 501 U.S. 1, 12 (1991)

No comments: