Neither of us "use" any of the facts. A judge hears the case, like in any civil suit, which is exactly what this is.
The question at stake on this thread is, "is this civil suit abusive?" Obviously, much of the threat thinks civil suits like this are abusive. I don't understand that point of view, because to my eyes, businesses that feed off street crime are the urban equivalent of factories that belch toxic waste into waterways.
If there is evidence that this particular suit is abusive, what is it? I'm open to it!
At this point, I trust the reporting of a local newspaper more than the claims of the US Attorney in Massachusetts. I'm glad that btilly pointed out your contradiction of TFA is based entirely on that latter, discredited source.
Speaking of discredited sources, the local newspaper is just reprinting a slight gloss on a press release from a group with a clear political axe to grind (a Koch-funded libertarian advocacy group representing the motel owners). I guess the judge hearing the case will have to sort out which side's version is more accurate.
I'm sure the Kochs and their pet lawyers are every bit as awful as all the law-and-order fans (and political participation critics!) here on HN contend. On the sliding scale of evil scumbags, however, they'd have to travel for miles to catch sight of any federal prosecutor one could name.
The question at stake on this thread is, "is this civil suit abusive?" Obviously, much of the threat thinks civil suits like this are abusive. I don't understand that point of view, because to my eyes, businesses that feed off street crime are the urban equivalent of factories that belch toxic waste into waterways.
If there is evidence that this particular suit is abusive, what is it? I'm open to it!