Mediaboss Marketing

TO THE OWNERS OF THE WITHIN DESCRIBED REAL ESTATE AND ALL INTERESTED PARTIES NOTICE OF SHERIFF'S SALE By virtue of a certified copy of a decree to me directed from the Clerk of Circuit Court of Marshall County, Indiana, in Cause No. 50C01-1711-MF-000075 wherein U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for Residential Asset Securities Corporation, Home Equity Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-KS1 was Plaintiff, and Tanya M. Mata A/K/A Tonya M. Mata; Capital One Bank (USA), NA F/K/A Capital One Bank; Briarwood Estates Condominium Association were Defendants, requiring me to make the sum as provided for in said Decree with interest and cost, I will expose at public sale to the highest bidder, on the 22nd day of March, 2022, at the hour of 1:00 pm or as soon thereafter as is possible, at http://www.zeusauction.com, the fee simple of the whole body of Real Estate in Marshall County, Indiana. Home 69 on Home Site 69 of Briarwood Estates Condominiums, a residential horizontal property regime, together with an undivided 1/92nd interest in the common area within said horizontal property regime, subject to and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Declaration of Horizontal Property Ownership, Briarwood Estates Condominiums Horizontal Property Regime dated April 16, 2002, and recorded on April 16, 2002, as Instrument No. 200203664, in the Office of the Recorder of Marshall County, Indiana, as thereafter amended. First Amendment to Declaration of Horizontal Property Ownership Briarwood Estates Condominiums Horizontal Property Regime, dated July 24, 2002, recorded August 7, 2002, as Instrument No. 200207091. Second Amendment to Declaration of Horizontal Property Ownership Briarwood Estates Condominiums Horizontal Property Regime, dated January 8, 2003, recorded January 28, 2003 as Instrument No. 200301050. Third Amendment to Declaration of Horizontal Property Ownership Briarwood Estates Condominiums Horizontal Property Regime, dated March 28, 2003, recorded April 3, 2003, in Document No. 200303423. Fourth Amendment to Declaration of Horizontal Property Ownership Briarwood Estates Condominiums Horizontal Property Regime, dated August 27, 2003, recorded November 13, 2003, in Document No. 200312687, Recorder's Office, Marshall County, Indiana. Fifth Amendment to Declaration of Horizontal Property Ownership Briarwood Estates Condominiums Horizontal Property Regime, dated December 4, 2003, recorded December 23, 2003, in Document No. 200314029 recorder's Office, Marshall County, Indiana. Sixth Amendment to Declaration of Horizontal Property Ownership Briarwood Estates Condominiums Horizontal Property Regime, dated May 11, 2004, recorded May 27, 2004, in Document No. 200404217, Recorder's Office, Marshall County, Indiana. Seventh Amendment to Declaration of Horizontal Property Ownership Briarwood Estates Condominiums Horizontal Property Regime, dated December 22, 2004, recorded December 29, 2004, in Document No. 200410063, Recorder's Office, Marshall County, Indiana. Eighth Amendment to Declaration of Horizontal Property Ownership Briarwood Estates Condominiums Horizontal Property Regime, dated August 9, 2005, recorded August 18, 2005, in Document No. 200506023, Recorder's Office, Marshall County, Indiana. Ninth Amendment to Declaration of Horizontal Property Ownership Briarwood Estates Condominiums Horizontal Property Regime, dated November 3, 2005 recorded November 16, 2005, in Document No. 200508682, Recorder's Office, Marshall County, Indiana. More commonly known as: 929 Cherrywood Avenue, Plymouth, IN 46563-6715 State Parcel No.: 50-42-29-302-031.069-019 Together with rents, issues, income, and profits thereof, said sale will be made without relief from valuation or appraisement laws. Plaintiff Attorney ATTORNEY NO. 15-21-02297 Codilis Law, LLC 8050 Cleveland Place Merrillville, IN 46410 (219) 736-5579 15-21-02297 Matthew Hassel Sherrif of Marshall County CENTER TOWNSHIP 929 Cherrywood Avenue, Plymouth, IN 46563-6715 Street Address SHERIFF FILE NO: The Sheriff's Department does not warrant the accuracy of the street address published herein. SERVICE DIRECTED TO: Tanya M. Mata A/K/A Tonya M. Mata 929 Cherrywood Avenue Plymouth, IN 46563-6715 Type of Service: Sheriff NOTICE NOTE: This law firm is a debt collector. February 5, 12, 19, 2022 PN332097 hspaxlp

Originally posted here:
TO THE OWNERS OF THE WITHIN DESCRIBED REAL ESTATE AND ALL INTERESTED PARTIES NOTICE OF SHERIFF'S SALE - Pilot News

The issue seems rather simple: If you use a service that typically comes at a price and you do not pay, that is theft.

That basic of rule of law and order is up for debate sort of in front of the Washington Supreme Court. The court will consider whether fare enforcement on public transit represents an unconstitutional violation of a passengers right to privacy.

Lower courts have rejected the case brought by a man who was asked in 2018 by Snohomish County sheriffs deputies to prove that he had paid for his ride on a bus in Everett. That seems to be a reasonable request, but Zachery Merediths lawyer is arguing that fare enforcement violated his clients civil rights under the state constitution.

According to the Associated Press, the case is similar to one last year in Maryland. There, the states highest court sided with a train passenger, concluding that Fourth Amendment rights against search and seizure had been violated when the transit agency conducted a fare sweep.

Indeed, there might be a constitutional difference between the cases. A fare sweep involving a multitude of passengers could be deemed a suspicionless search, which might or might not be different from asking a single passenger for proof of payment. But when the law is so thinly sliced, it can become untenable and unenforceable.

Such enforcement is increasingly becoming an issue for transit agencies.

TriMet, the Portland areas transit agency, announced last week that it will prohibit police from checking passengers fares. According to OregonLive.com, police may still be present when transit staff check fares, and police may help TriMet employees identify someone who refuses to give their name.

Agency officials noted that if a person who has not paid their fare becomes violent with the fare inspector, police may still intervene. Well, were glad they cleared that up.

Meanwhile, it seems that fare-jumping is something transit agencies would be interested in preventing. So would the public, considering that taxpayers foot most of the bill for transit.

C-Tran policy says: All passengers must pay the appropriate full fare for the service theyre riding. Failure to pay may lead to arrest or exclusion. On TriMet, those cited for failure to pay face a fine or community service.

At the same time, it is reasonable to ask whether transit agencies should charge fares that fully pay for the service or, to the other extreme, whether fares should be free. For C-Tran, fares typically account for roughly 15 percent of the annual budget a number in line with most transit agencies. C-Trans budget for 2021 was $68.3 million, with 85 percent of that coming from sales tax revenue throughout Clark County.

In recent years, dozens of American cities have adopted free public transit or have experimented with fareless pilot programs. In 2020, a bill was introduced in Congress to create grants allowing for fare-free transit throughout the country, but it never came up for a vote.

Like many aspects of American society, public transit warrants a rethinking in the wake of COVID-19. Perhaps transit will become more essential to urban economies or perhaps a desire for social distancing and remote work will permanently reduce demand for mass transit.

But regardless of what the future holds for buses, trains, ferries, streetcars and other modes of transportation, in a nation of laws people should be expected to pay the designated fare.

The rest is here:
In Our View: Public transit warrants rethinking in wake of virus - The Columbian

Abortion and reproductive rights are essential healthcare for all people. No state or court should restrict womens freedom to choose what to do with their own bodies.

Jan. 22 was the 49th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, a landmark court case in which the Supreme Court determined that states restrictions on abortions were unconstitutional and that it is protected by the Fourth Amendment.

That precedent changed in September 2021 with the Texas abortion law, SB-8.

The law was signed by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott in May 2019 and is in complete opposition to Roe vs. Wade. It was officially put into effect on Sept. 1, 2021 and, among other things, bannedabortions after six weeks of pregnancy.

There are no exceptions for victims of rape or incest.

The law also says that anyone who intends to aid in or perform an abortion after the six-week period will be penalized.

The legislation allows anyone, anywhere, to sue people involved in providing abortion care or practical support to patients in Texas, and win judgments of $10,000 or more, Paul Dillon,vice president of public affairs for Planned Parenthood of Greater Washington and North Idaho, wrote in an email.

According to Dillon, this would create a large number of unnecessary lawsuits and ultimately hurtabortion clinics.

This decision is in an effort to bypass court challenges on the constitutionality of anti-abortion legislation by putting (undue) power into the hands of civilians.

As for the Supreme Court, putting hope into the system appears to be unreliable. After being challenged by the Justice Court, the law was deemed constitutional with an 8-1 vote.

A slew of demonstrations from both sides erupted immediately after SB-8 was put into place. Even today,abortion clinics continue to be targeted by anti-abortion extremists, and the unrest between both sides is at a peak.

The debate reaches all the way to WSU. Last semester an altercation between pro-life and pro-choice protestors arose outside the Compton Union Building. WSU alum Hannah Lindenau was at the scene fighting for the pro-choice argument, waving a sign that read Mind your own uterus.

The Texas abortion ban wont stop abortions; it will only stop safe abortions, she said.

Restrictive abortion laws force women to turn to potentially harmful alternatives that can leave them dead or wanting to be.

An estimated 68,000 women die every yeardue to unsafe abortions, according to the World Health Organization. Access to care is limited in restrictive states, leading many to travel up to 100 miles out of state to receive an abortion.

If the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade, we anticipate the number of out-of-state patients to dramatically increase, Dillon wrote. The potential increase in patients could also put a strain on our clinics. The Guttmacher Institute estimates that if Roe is overturned, demand for abortion in Washington will increase by 385 %.

Pro-life advocates demonstrated once again in front of the CUB last Monday, Jan. 24. When Kylie Lockington, junior wildlife ecology and conservation science major, and junior marketing major Megan Sweeney saw what was happening, they immediately ran to protest it.

Both said they wish that there had been some warning about the demonstration beforehand for the sake of those who may be triggered or traumatized by the protestors imagery.

I think WSU should at least send out an alert that there are people out here showing these extremely disturbing images, Sweeney said.

Lockington also expressed concern regarding the scientific legitimacy of the protest.

Its literally false medical information. I dont know how thats not fucking illegal, like what is that? Lockington said.

Dillon wrote that extremists opposed to abortion often promote harmful misinformation about abortion practices.

Luckily, protests are not just happening within college communities. There are also figures at the national level who are outspoken about the laws lack of a realistic timeline for women.

New York Rep.Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has publicly pointed out the scientific fault in the law, as well as reproductive restrictions in general.

6 weeks pregnant = 2 weeks late on your period, Ocasio-Cortez wrote in a tweet.

She also said that multiple factors can play into a late menstrual cycle other than pregnancy, such as a change in diet or stress level.

How is this two-week period enough time for a woman to decide if carrying a child is a feasible option for her?

What if she does not even realize she has missed her period?

How aretwo weeks enough for women to figure out the financial aspects of abortion care while juggling everyday expenses?

There are too many questions in this six-week gap that give power to lawmakers and take it away from individuals who would be the ones actually to carry and care for these children.

This mere two-week window is also extremely damaging to victims of rape or incest who may need to seek an abortion, as the trauma of their assault compounds the trauma of making such a decision in this short time. In a press conference in September 2021, Abbott failed to acknowledge these victims by only focusing on the offenders.

Abbott said he plans to work tirelessly to make sure we eliminate all rapists from the streets of Texas by aggressively going out and arresting them.

This logic is flawed in two ways: It fails to acknowledge a society that is still struggling to penalize sexual assault perpetrators while also continuing to perpetuate a culture of victim-blaming if the victim reports their assault at all.

Only about 310 sexual assault cases out of 1,000 are reported to the police, according to the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network. Of those who do get reported, only 25 out of 1,000 are incarcerated.

These numbers do not give me hope that a governors plan to eliminate rapists will be enough to change a societal norm of victim-blaming and fear-based silence.

If the assault has created a pregnancy for the victim, how is simply arresting their rapist fixing the issue? Abbotts plan of arresting them will do no more than inconvenience the offender with jail time.

If other states implement abortion restrictions, how will they handle this same issue?

It sets a precedent, its just testing the limits and seeing how far they can get, and once they see that they can just manipulate the system and get what they want, they are going to keep doing that, Lockington said.

There are 26 other conservative states predicted to follow in Texas footsteps.

If other states did the same, the consequences would be enormous, Dillon wrote. One of the biggest impacts would be that any patient unable to get an abortion in the state they live would have to travel considerably farther for services.

The Texas law seems to be a catalyst for Republican states to feel free to make laws that control womens bodies, as they now know how to get around the law being unconstitutional in court.

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem announced two new billslast week that is said to be a direct takeaway from the Texas abortion law.

Now that other states are willing to follow in Texas footsteps, digging into Abbotts original reasoning for the bill is important to see how laws stemming from his thinking are deadly.

Its crazy to see how far we were able to come, and it just takes one thing, and we are right back to the beginning, Sweeney said. Whats all the work we did for? I dont understand how that could have happened.

This law does not just affect individuals our governments impediment to personal choice is influencing the success of our society.

Having the freedom to choose if and when to have a baby is closely connected to the overall economic success of women, according to a report by the Center of American Progress.

Women are an irreplaceablepart of the American workforce, and the impact of restricting their bodily autonomy could be catastrophic to our economy.

The threat to abortion access has never been more urgent: with patients across the country poised to lose access to abortion in the coming months, our top priority this year will be to solidify abortion access and funding in our state, Dillon wrote.

One way WSU students specifically can get involved and help protect access to safe abortion is by joining the upcoming campus chapter of Generation Action, a club affiliated with Planned Parenthood.

When will we stop letting authoritarian politicians control our futures and take back power over our own bodies?

Now is the time.

Read the original here:
OPINION: Protect our right to abortion The Daily Evergreen - The Daily Evergreen

When President Bill Clinton tapped Stephen Breyer to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court in 1994, he told the country that Breyer would be a justice who would "strike the right balance between the need for discipline and order, being firm on law enforcement issues but really sticking in there for the Bill of Rights."

The news of Breyer's impending retirement at the close of the Supreme Court's current term gives us an opportunity to weigh Clinton's words against Breyer's record. Alas, the former president proved to be only half right. Breyer was certainly "firm" in his deference toward law enforcement. But that same judicial deference often led Breyer to do the opposite of "sticking in there for the Bill of Rights" when major Fourth Amendment cases arrived at SCOTUS.

Take Navarette v. California (2014). At issue was an anonymous and uncorroborated 911 phone call about an allegedly dangerous driver which led the police to make a traffic stop that led to a drug bust. According to the 54 majority opinion of Justice Clarence Thomas, "the stop complied with the Fourth Amendment because, under the totality of the circumstances, the officer had reasonable suspicion that the driver was intoxicated." Law enforcement won big and Breyer signed on.

The deficiencies of that judgment were spelled out in a forceful dissent by Justice Antonin Scalia. "The Court's opinion serves up a freedom-destroying cocktail," wrote Scalia, who was joined in dissent by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. "All the malevolent 911 caller need do is assert a traffic violation, and the targeted car will be stopped, forcibly if necessary, by the police." That disturbing scenario, Scalia wrote, "is not my concept, and I am sure it would not be the Framers', of a people secure from unreasonable searches and seizures." Breyer was apparently untroubled by that Fourth Amendmentshredding scenario.

Notably, this was not the first time that Scalia was more "liberal" than Breyer in a 54 Fourth Amendment case. One year earlier, in Maryland v. King (2013), Breyer joined Justice Anthony Kennedy's controversial majority opinion allowing police to conduct warrantless DNA swab tests incident to arrest.

"Make no mistake about it," Scalia protested in dissent, joined (again) by Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. "As an entirely predictable consequence of today's decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national DNA database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason." Breyer was apparently untroubled by that disturbing scenario too.

Breyer's retirement will be good news for the Fourth Amendment as long as President Joe Biden picks a replacement who resembles Scalia more than Breyer in these sorts of cases.

See more here:
Stephen Breyer's Retirement Is Good News for the Fourth Amendment - Reason

Imagine youre driving a car, and a police officer spots you and pulls you over for speeding. He orders you out of the car. Maybe he wants to place you under arrest. Or maybe he wants to search your car for evidence of a crime. Can the officer do that?

The Fourth Amendment is the part of the Constitution that gives the answer. According to the Fourth Amendment, the people have a right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. This right limits the power of the police to seize and search people, their property, and their homes.

The Fourth Amendment has been debated frequently during the last several years, as police and intelligence agencies in the United States have engaged in a number of controversial activities. The federal government has conducted bulk collection of Americans telephone and Internet connections as part of the War on Terror. Many municipal police forces have engaged in aggressive use of stop and frisk. There have been a number of highly-publicized police-citizen encounters in which the police ended up shooting a civilian. There is also concern about the use of aerial surveillance, whether by piloted aircraft or drones.

The application of the Fourth Amendment to all these activities would have surprised those who drafted it, and not only because they could not imagine the modern technologies like the Internet and drones. They also were not familiar with organized police forces like we have today. Policing in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries was a responsibility of the citizenry, which participated in night watches. Other than that, there was only a loose collection of sheriffs and constables, who lacked the tools to maintain order as the police do today.

The primary concerns of the generation that ratified the Fourth Amendment were general warrants and writs of assistance. Famous incidents on both sides of the Atlantic gave rise to placing the Fourth Amendment in the Constitution. In Britain, the Crown employed general warrants to go after political enemies, leading to the famous decisions in Wilkes v. Wood (1763) and Entick v. Carrington (1765). General warrants allowed the Crowns messengers to search without any cause to believe someone had committed an offense. In those cases the judges decided that such warrants violated English common law. In the colonies the Crown used the writs of assistancelike general warrants, but often unbounded by time restraintsto search for goods on which taxes had not been paid. James Otis challenged the writs in a Boston court; though he lost, some such as John Adams attribute this legal battle as the spark that led to the Revolution. Both controversies led to the famous notion that a persons home is their castle, not easily invaded by the government.

Today the Fourth Amendment is understood as placing restraints on the government any time it detains (seizes) or searches a person or property. The Fourth Amendment also provides that no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. The idea is that to avoid the evils of general warrants, each search or seizure should be cleared in advance by a judge, and that to get a warrant the government must show probable causea certain level of suspicion of criminal activityto justify the search or seizure.

To the extent that a warrant is required in theory before police can search, there are so many exceptions that in practice warrants rarely are obtained. Police can search automobiles without warrants, they can detain people on the street without them, and they can always search or seize in an emergency without going to a judge.

The way that the Fourth Amendment most commonly is put into practice is in criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court decided in the mid-twentieth century that if the police seize evidence as part of an illegal search, the evidence cannot be admitted into court. This is called the exclusionary rule. It is controversial because in most cases evidence is being tossed out even though it shows the person is guilty and, as a result of the police conduct, they might avoid conviction. The criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered, declared Benjamin Cardozo (a famous judge and ultimately Supreme Court justice). But, responded another Supreme Court justice, Louis Brandeis, If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law.

One of the difficult questions today is what constitutes a search? If the police standing in Times Square in New York watched a person planting a bomb in plain daylight, we would not think they needed a warrant or any cause. But what about installing closed circuit TV cameras on poles, or flying drones over backyards, or gathering evidence that you have given to a third party such as an Internet provider or a banker?

Another hard question is when a search is acceptable when the government has no suspicion that a person has done something wrong. Lest the answer seem to be never, think of airport security. Surely it is okay for the government to screen people getting on airplanes, yet the idea is as much to deter people from bringing weapons as it is to catch themthere is no cause, probable or otherwise, to think anyone has done anything wrong. This is the same sort of issue with bulk data collection, and possibly with gathering biometric information.

What should be clear by now is that advancing technology and the many threats that face society add up to a brew in which the Fourth Amendment will continue to play a central role.

More:
Interpretation: The Fourth Amendment | The National ...