We do not have a right to public transportation. Therefore, we can be banned from its use without due process. Of course, if the denial is based in discrimination based on age, gender, race, ethnic background or a disability, then that is actionable.
How can you ban someone from public service, wheras other people are not. Isn't this discriminator right there?
Who determines what is sufficient cause to ban someone from transportation or not? They can say this for the slightest contrived reason without recourse. That means someone effectively can't live in the town or city.
What statute gives anyone this power?
Discrimination is legal iunless it is based on age, gender, race, ethnic background religion or disability. Whoever is in charge determines banning someone. Its not that a statute gives them the power, it is that a statute does not prevent them from doing it.
-Then, can they be sued in court for discriminate, inequitable, or friviolous actions, which presumably then is with malicious?
-This party is also a senior citizen and needs transportation to get around.
They can be sued if the discrimination is based on age.
Otherwise, how does someone get around; Private taxi or cab in exorbitantly expensive, especially for someone who is retired, and on minimum or low income?
-Age might be a factor, but a blatant punitive action is beyond all reason action to begin with, whether age is or isn't relevant.
Would you sentence someone for life for spitting on the sidewalk, if nothing prevents them?
-Isn't this inequitable?Can they be sued in Civil Court? Would bringing a doctor's letter be substantial reason to relent?
It is not a matter of what I would do as I do not make laws or policies. They can only be sued based on the criteria I stated above. Do you have a final question?
-to clarify what you are saying; So in effect someone can be effectively forced to move from an entire city in the united states, because someone more or less arbitrary and incongruently severe punishment makes it impossible to function in the community, and largely without recourse, unless based on certain narrow issues.?
So, if they can only be sued on Civil rights for race, relligion...etc. even though nothing prohibits them from using such power, does this mean there are no limits to what punitive actions they can do?
This is not private property where trespassing is illegal.
This is something basic, that people need to get around, to survive in their everyday activities. How does this public franchise allow them to take away someone's freedom of movement.? AND THIS IS NOT ME THAT IS INVOLVED IN THIS SITUATION, BUT SOMEONE I KNOW.
If sued in court, if they have unlimited power outside of criteria you mentioned, on what basis could the judge reduce this, even though it is inequatible.? Do they have to prove a reason to do this in Court, or can give any reason, without proof?
Furthermore, everybody pays taxes, and those taxes help support the public transportation franchise, that is a privilege given to them. What duties do they have to the public? Are they accountable for their actions, behavior...rude, nasty or insulting behavior..etc?
And the plantiff here pays those taxes.
Outside of proving one of those criteria, the action is still punitive. Are you saying that the franchise can invoke any punishment, whether extemely punitive or not, because there is no law preventing it? Then, there is no relief available in bringing this to Court..such as being banned for e.g. 3 months, a year, 5 years.?The punishment is arbitray and severe.
This is indefinite and forever, where the plantiff can't survive under these conditions and is effectively excommunicated from the community...severe winter, storms, heat...How does some some one survive then?
This in not me. I live in New York. Where there is no such ban, even thought there are thousands of excons living here.
Why such disproprotionate actions in different communities.
-So, to clarify, you are saying that the franchise can claim without proof, and invoke any punishment, however severe and inequitable, and the burden of proof is on the victim/plantiff and not the franchise.?
-Is there any court to mitigate or reverse this...equity court. ?
- and the franchise doesn't even have to even state any facts-never mind proof for it..except perhaps vague general accusations? Can they even claim they have proof, but not show it..to the judge?
-NOW we are specifically talking about the State of Missouri.
Does the law as you describe it to me apply in that State, or is it more liberal, or have more recourse?
-what court should one bring it to then?
or could one bring it to?
That assumes that the complaint is based solely on critera as you mentioned..right?
What about State/City Court?
Is ADEA American Discrmination Employment Act?
-In other words, there is no other basis to sue in State or Federal Court?
So, effectively, my friend has to move out of this Missouri city, or perhaps the entire State of Missouri. If he is banned in one City, is he banned in the entire State, especially there is no arrest and no charges, except what the Franchise says?
-No, I mean if that franchise is not in a different City?
Do they still have the power to blacklist someone anywhere in the State?
-So, in Court, Can plantiff argue, to show what punitive actions were taken against other people, and attempt to show that action taken was extremely inequatible to milder actions against others, or would that stand anyway, even if it was true?
And summon those other actions, or can Franchise simply refuse to show?
I think that the question is what recourse does one have in this situation includes this?
So, I assume, inequity is permissable?
-Respectively, What area of law do you specialize in, if any?
Ok. Any other references, suggestions to follow up on?
I did not rate bad service-I don't know where that came from.
I am simply unhappy with the law as quoted. I find it hard to believe this can be in the USA.
But Attorney Arcadier repliend to all my questions, except perhaps directly to equatible summons.
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).