4 ms·

I'm reading through that filing, and it's not clear to me why the guy stopped paying rent, or why Macy didn't personally contact him after that. The whole stor

by jibiki 18y ago

I'm reading through that filing, and it's not clear to me why the guy stopped paying rent, or why Macy didn't personally contact him after that. The whole story is bizarre. If Macy wanted to do things by the book, then he should have drafted a written lease, and if he wanted a handshake agreement then he should have talked with Morrow about the eviction, repairs, etc. On the other hand, Morrow is pretty obviously paranoid, and it's hard to see how the DA could have missed that.

cperciva 18y ago
My understanding from reading the filing is that the Macys wanted to get rid of Morrow, were told that Morrow had a year to move out because he was "disabled", and paid Morrow $7500 to move. Then Morrow just, err, didn't move. I'm sure that the Macys didn't want any sort of handshake agreement with Morrow at all.
- tptacek 18y ago
  You don't need to believe Morrow is a good guy to believe that the state has good cause to put Macy on trial.
  - jonmatherson 18y ago
    Actually you do. If you establish a pattern of perjury as well as the prosecutor coaching witness to hide exculpatory evidence then you have some fundamental problems with your case. The Durham NC case was not as clear cut as it was made out to be in the press either.
    - tptacek 18y ago
      What you're saying is a non sequitor. I'm saying Morrow can be an abusive tenant, and the Macy's can still have committed a crime in their efforts to get rid of him as fast as they can. It is, after all, absurdly hard to shake an abusive renter in San Francisco. You're talking about prosecutorial misconduct, and in effect saying "the whole damn system's out of order". Maybe you're right, but that has nothing to do with what I just said.
      - jonmatherson 18y ago
        The question is the veracity of those involved. Given that Morrow's complaints are financially motivated, he has admitted that he had no right to be in the room, he never left (i.e. he did not fear for his safety), and he has perjured himself in a number of cases - it is entirely unclear if a crime actually took place.
        tptacek 18y ago
        If it was entirely clear a crime had taken place, we'd be discussing Macy's conviction, not his indictment. More importantly, there are more people who's veracity you're questioning than just Morrow: the city attorney, two city inspectors, and a police officer.
        jonmatherson 18y ago
        Your questioning is quite justified. Unfortunately, San Francisco is on par with Chicago in terms of corruption and the way to win votes and keep your job is by siding with tenants.
        tptacek 18y ago
        The evident difference between you and and me is that I won't take a generality like "San Francisco is corrupt" and use it to attempt to win any argument about crime in the state of California.
        jonmatherson 18y ago
        Well that kind of ends the discussion doesn't it? If a group of employees of the State says it is true it must be true... The disconnect stems from the fact that in Ann Arbor there is little shared ground to communicate the actual milieu in place. Michael Nifong had a lot of people supporting his charges, unfortunately that didn't mean that they were actually true.

by jibiki 18y ago

cperciva 18y ago

My understanding from reading the filing is that the Macys wanted to get rid of Morrow, were told that Morrow had a year to move out because he was "disabled", and paid Morrow $7500 to move. Then Morrow just, err, didn't move. I'm sure that the Macys didn't want any sort of handshake agreement with Morrow at all.

tptacek 18y ago
You don't need to believe Morrow is a good guy to believe that the state has good cause to put Macy on trial.
- jonmatherson 18y ago
  Actually you do. If you establish a pattern of perjury as well as the prosecutor coaching witness to hide exculpatory evidence then you have some fundamental problems with your case. The Durham NC case was not as clear cut as it was made out to be in the press either.
  - tptacek 18y ago
    What you're saying is a non sequitor. I'm saying Morrow can be an abusive tenant, and the Macy's can still have committed a crime in their efforts to get rid of him as fast as they can. It is, after all, absurdly hard to shake an abusive renter in San Francisco. You're talking about prosecutorial misconduct, and in effect saying "the whole damn system's out of order". Maybe you're right, but that has nothing to do with what I just said.
    - jonmatherson 18y ago
      The question is the veracity of those involved. Given that Morrow's complaints are financially motivated, he has admitted that he had no right to be in the room, he never left (i.e. he did not fear for his safety), and he has perjured himself in a number of cases - it is entirely unclear if a crime actually took place.
      - tptacek 18y ago
        If it was entirely clear a crime had taken place, we'd be discussing Macy's conviction, not his indictment. More importantly, there are more people who's veracity you're questioning than just Morrow: the city attorney, two city inspectors, and a police officer.
        jonmatherson 18y ago
        Your questioning is quite justified. Unfortunately, San Francisco is on par with Chicago in terms of corruption and the way to win votes and keep your job is by siding with tenants.
        tptacek 18y ago
        The evident difference between you and and me is that I won't take a generality like "San Francisco is corrupt" and use it to attempt to win any argument about crime in the state of California.
        jonmatherson 18y ago
        Well that kind of ends the discussion doesn't it? If a group of employees of the State says it is true it must be true... The disconnect stems from the fact that in Ann Arbor there is little shared ground to communicate the actual milieu in place. Michael Nifong had a lot of people supporting his charges, unfortunately that didn't mean that they were actually true.