MHWFS…LEGAL SHENANIGANS IN THE 91401 (22VEUD00854)

Good evening, Dr. T.A. Wanebo:

When I read your abstract [ Remote Killing and the Fourth Amendment: Updating Constitutional Law to Address Expanded Police Lethality in the Robotic Age] By Thomas Wanebo, and its’ Table of Contents, it presented an orderly way for me to make the following theoretical “connections”, to wit:

Since remote law enforcement has arrived, so has remote criminal behavior (actions) and the potential for needing to consider the same factors your paper addressees in lots of adversarial situations. For example, when a landlord chooses to escalate harrassment to get a tenant out of a rental space “by every means necessary” at a significant profit that allowing extant law would not supply. If a property management corporate capitalist entity could make a 100% or better profit by blowing up a property and or poisoning to death one occupant to ignite a mass exodus from a property they could “flip” from [RSO] to [market rate] and multiply an additional 100% profit by doubling or tripling 23 rental rates, why would they not take the risk of failure? Further, why wouldn’t they publicly seek to punish/humiliate/sanction a lone tenant whose presence they believed would not ever be recognized due to deeply and privately held prejudices, at least one or more prejudices of BIBLICAL proportions? What would happen if Managing Partners at two storied California law firms advised the bad faith actors that their intentions would best be served by exploiting extant jurisprudence to “publicly seek…