But these idiot DDDB lawyers went right ahead and said the case was about “development.” Is DDDB really working for Ratner? They’ve lost EVERY case.

What the Court is looking for is for DDDB to understand that in the lead “minimum scrutiny” case–West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (and whatever its parallel New York case is)–the Court grounds policy discretion on “maintenance.”

In fact, “maintenance” is EXPLICITLY used even in U.S. v. Carolene Products, which–in its footnote 4–supposedly draws a distinction between “political” and “social” facts which government uses as a justification for keeping such facts as housing (a fact at issue in Atlantic Yards) at minimum scrutiny and keeping its control over the fact of housing.

Indeed, “maintenance” is used even in Berman v. Parker, in which the justification for kicking people out of housing was…housing people!!

The Court is sloppy, DDDB is sloppy, and in this sloppiness, DDDB will LOSE LOSE LOSE.

If opponents of eminent domain want to win, they are going to have to force the Court to be much more disciplined and address and clarify its own holdings.

The question for the court (and this should have been in Federal, not state court), should have been:

Is Atlantic Yards maintenance for purposes of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?

Of course, this would have required the incompetent DDDB lawyers to understand this:

Maintenance, according to Supreme Court, is the interrelation of important facts.

That, in turn, would have required that DDDB’s stupid stupid stupid lawyers understand that, according to West Virginia v. Barnette, an important fact is

1. a fact of human experience
2. which history has demonstrated
3. is not affected by attempts to affect it.

Because exercises of religion passed that test, they got strict scrutiny and removal from the political system.

But I’m not sure DDDB WANTS housing removed from the political system, so maybe that’s why they don’t argue that housing is an important fact, and therefore Atlantic Yards must maintain housing and since it proposes involuntarily depriving people of housing, it does not maintain important facts and therefore is unconstitutional.

You see? You REALLY have to understand the law to fight these devils. Does it look to you like DDDB’s stupid stupid stupid lawyers ever actually read the law?

Of course not. Until a lawyer is willing to insist that the court clarify what, in FACT (not in LAW), is maintenance, eminent domain actions will be difficult to defeat.

But DDDB’s stupid stupid stupid lawyers are too stupid, too ignorant and too corrupt to do this.

So they have lost EVERY case. EVERY case. Hi Daniel Goldstein, how often have I written to you saying this, and how often have you said that you trust your lawyers? Are you working for Ratner, Daniel?