28 Jul
2002
28 Jul
'02
1:38 a.m.
On Sat, 27 Jul 2002, Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) wrote:
Not sure I was implying anything. I will state unequivocally that
IMHO, Eldridge Cleaver had for so long been such a thorn in the legal
ass of California that any ruling against him could be considered
payback, not law. Whether or not that ruling coincided with current
law as it stood is and was irrelevant.
> City of
Berkeley v Eldridge Cleaver ~1988?
> Court ruled that it all belonged to the city, once at the curb! (and that
> Eldridge's recycling business constiuted "theft"!)
On Sat, 27
Jul 2002, Doc Shipley wrote:
Thought that was much earlier. In any case,
*any* court decision with
Cleaver's name on it can't be regarded as indicative.
Are you implying that the court ruled based on whose ox was gored, rather
than on the legal issues? You're right that it must have been earlier. It
was about 88 (or 90) when
the police "found" Eldridge "beaten half to death with clubs", and
took
him to Herrick hospital.
I Googled around a little, and mid/late 80's would be right for that
case. I must have been thinking of something else.
Doc