Only in South Carolina…
A black civil rights activist is fighting to close a store that sells KKK robes and T-shirts emblazoned with racial slurs. David Kennedy is confident he can make it happen. After all, he says he owns the building.Since 1996, the Redneck Shop has operated in an old movie theater that, according to court records, was transferred in 1997 to Kennedy and the Baptist church he leads.
“Our ownership puts an end to that history as far as violence and hatred, racism being practiced in that place and also the recruiting of the Klan,” Kennedy said. “This is the same place that we had to go up into the balcony to go to the movies before the Klan took it. So there’s a lot of history there.”
But legal documents also indicate that the man who runs the store, 62-year-old John Howard, is entitled to operate his business in the building until he dies. Now the dispute may go to court. [Source: CNN]
So the KKK member had a legal arrangement to own the Redneck Shop for life which essentially makes him a “tenant” in the same building that the civil rights activist owns. Could there be stranger bedfellows than this?
I’m no legal scholar, so I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the activist is unfortunately S.O.L. The law is the law–even for backward racists, right? Yet there are often legal loopholes to exploit. Is this, and situations like it, deserving of going to such lengths? I’m inclined to think not and that the more effective approach might be community organization to force him out of business, but I’m open to being convinced otherwise. Thoughts?
*For the lawyers who might comment on this, keep it light on the legal lingo for the rest of us.
16 responses so far ↓
1
E
// Mar 11, 2008 at 2:10 pm
When I read this yesterday, it stirred both the passion and reason: the former being an emotion that should seldom be mixed with law.
In property law, we call what the activist retained, a tenancy pur autre vie or “Life Estate,” which in common law, describes ownership of property for the duration of someone’s life. I’m not sure as to whether this applies to possession of a property for the duration of someone’s life, but the facts seem to suggest so.
In any event, the activist and his church are in the position of what is called a remainderman, meaning that by operation of law, upon the KKK member’s death, they gain both possession and ownership of the building.
Here, the activist and his church plan to take the KKK member to court to eject him from the building. However, outside the KKK member breaching a provision in his lease, it would be tough to eject him.
One could also make the argument (and L might say I’m reaching here) that where the KKK paraphernalia are used for enacting violence, i.e. the $1.99 cross and free gasoline, then the shop could be closed and tenant evicted because his shop is essentually a conduit for violence.
2
Mike
// Mar 11, 2008 at 3:17 pm
E,
Your last point (KKK paraphernalia are used for enacting violence) crossed my mind too. But it seems like it could be difficult to make the case that what he was selling actually led to acts of violence or terrorism (i.e. burning a cross on someone’s lawn). However, with all the attention being paid to nooses and the sensitivity around it, it may be the opportune time for the activist to try to make this case.
3
L
// Mar 11, 2008 at 3:42 pm
I don’t know how the court documents referred to in the post establish KKK-cuz’s legal relationship to civil-rights-cuz. Most significantly, we don’t know how civil-rights-cuz came to own the building. However, I don’t think KKK-cuz’s tenancy for life would trump civil-rights-cuz’s ownership interest. Unless, of course, KKK-dude’s the life tenancy was a condition of transfer to the civil-rights guy.
Put it like this, if your Aunt Ruby gave you her house because she was moving to Wyoming to hunt bison, but gave it to you on the condition that your cousin Lamar could live there for the rest of his life, then you ain’t getting rid of Lamar no time soon. However, if Aunt Ruby had some separate arrangement with Lamar that you didn’t know about, and gave you the crib, and Lamar came up in your face talking about, “my momma said I could stay here long as I want until I’m dead.” You would tell Lamar: “Cuz, you need to speed on before you get peeed on.” And you’d probably be within your legal rights to do so, even if Lamar’s agreement with Aunt Ruby is written down, notarized, and signed in blood.
Without evidence that the Redneck Store directly incited violence, it would be hard to make that “conduit of violence” argument E posited. Even if the store were a conduit of violence, technically, unless that is a lease term, how would that fact lead to dispossession? I mean, you can’t even evict a murderer for committing murder if he pays his rent and does not otherwise violate the terms of his lease.
4
L
// Mar 11, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Only in South Carolina? This could totally happen in Mississippi too.
5
Mike
// Mar 11, 2008 at 3:55 pm
No doubt. You get my point. Could it happen in Jersey?
6
E
// Mar 11, 2008 at 5:23 pm
L, your Lamar hypo has me in stitches!!! But, the facts state the KKK-cuz obtained his life tenancy (possession) in 1996 and civil rights cuz obtained the deed (ownership) in 1997. Civil rights cuz had to know that ownership was encumbered when he obtained the deed. KKK cuz’s possession was open and in plain view, and as such civil rights cuz received the deed with knowledge of the life tenant’s possession.
What needs to be shown is the lease for the tenancy. A lease, at least in NJ courts, is construed in the same manner as a contract. I f the lease has some provisions for eviction should some action occuer, then KKK cuz could use that for purposes of eviction.
I know public housing tenants are immediately subject to evistion for drugs, murders, etc. Private property tenants aren’t so easily able to be evicted. However, I’m sure if state law prohibited KKK cuz’s actions, there would be grounds for eviction.
But, seriously KKK cuz might really have it here. First Amendment jurisprudence is strong and in favor of KKK cuz, so long as he doesn;t infringe the rights of others.
7
L
// Mar 11, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Yeah, the First Amendment issue can’t be ignored here; KKK cuz has strong support there. Also, (it’s coming back to me now) whoever gave civil-rights cuz the property could only give away what he owned: ownership subject to KKK-cuz’s life tenancy. So, you and Mike were right from the jump: KKK-cuz can hock his hate until he dies.
Yeah, implicit in public subsidy is no illegal behavior. But, a private tenant who breaks the law? I’m not so sure you can get his butt up out on the strength of his illegal behavior. I just don’t know. According to KKK-cuz though, there’s nothing illegal up in his store.
8
E
// Mar 12, 2008 at 3:42 pm
It just occurred to me…it might not be wise for KKK-cuz to advertise the fact that he can “hock his hate until he dies.” I’m sure there might be those crazier than him that may want to facilitate the process to provide activist cuz and his church with ownership.
9
L
// Mar 12, 2008 at 3:57 pm
It’s totally against the rules for pastors to pray for people to die, right? If it is, then I’m sure civil-rights cuz is not doing that. But if there is any wiggle room, that might be his strategy. I don’t think court is the way to go on this one.
10
E
// Mar 12, 2008 at 4:12 pm
But L…you know what? Today I spoke to a large group of high school students at school near my office. I walked into an environment that made MY high school look like a prep school and although the kids were attentive during my talk, before and after, they were out of control.
So, imagine if there was a KKK shop near the school? As I think about it…is it really wrong to have the KKK shop there in S.C.? The apathy and dearth of consciousness in our young people may be because they don’t see, kknow or are able to recall the struggles of those that came before us.
A part of me wants KKK-cuz to live long so that the parishoners that own his building can be constantly reminded (along with their kids) that, like Cunningham reminded us, The Struggle Continues. Am I wrong?
11
Mike
// Mar 13, 2008 at 1:57 pm
I don’t know about wanting him to live long, but I appreciate it when racists like Cunningham and KKK-cuz are fully out there with their thinking rather than trying to give it some PC cover.
“Speed on before you get peed on.” L, that is just hilarious. I often wonder how you come up with such things.
12
E
// Mar 13, 2008 at 2:41 pm
I feel you Mike…I like knowing who my enemies are.
I too don’t know how he comes up with them, “speed on…” cracked me up.
13
L
// Mar 13, 2008 at 4:01 pm
E, your penultimate comment opens up a new door on this conversation. I would love to give my thoughts on the matter in full, but just don’t have the time right now. I will say that leaving the Redneck Shop open—even in part—as a reminder that the Struggle Continues is a rather harsh reminder. That’s like getting your finger chopped off for picking your nose. Anyway, I think we lend credence and offer legitimacy to such institutions by standing pat in response to them. Let’s not forget that these racist movements are not just hurtful, they are morally baseless, fueled by fear and ignorance, and socially corrosive. I love the utilitarian streak in you E, always have, but sometimes you have to address a thing on the merits of the thing itself; nothing more.
The Redneck Shop is a bain. It must go, and not symbolically or historically or dramatically; it must go because it forestalls the progress of those within its ambit. It shrinks minds and shortens horizons. I mean, are you surprised by the blatant error in the marquee? “The Worlds Famous Redneck Shop” should be either (1) “The World Famous Redneck Shop” or (2) The World’s Famous Redneck Shop.” Option (2) is grammatically correct, but inane. Everything on Earth is the world’s, famous or not. Option (1) has the dual benefit of being grammatically correct and logically sound. Problem with option (2) is that it’s a lie. Maybe after this story the shop is world famous, but certainly not before. All that is to say, what so often goes hand in hand with prejudice is stupidity. This is just another case in point. Stamping out ignorance necessarily undermines prejudice. I see no valid reason to ignore either.
14
E
// Mar 13, 2008 at 5:05 pm
L, I am, and remain, cognizant of your time constraint, and as such am always grateful where time permits you to provide insight and commentary on matters such as this. While I agree that as a people “we lend credence and offer legitimacy to such institutions by standing pat in response to them,” I must respectfully disagree which your characterization of my position as one promoting action via inaction. Allowing the Redneck Shop to merely exist does not support my position. I advocate allowing it to exist and drawing attention to it. By way of an example, if a child constantly picks his nose, I would offer posting pictures of the child as he picks his nose to embarrass him. This measure, as opposed to the more draconian suggestion of cutting the finger off, shames the child and deters others. The Redneck Shop is indeed bain and morally reprehensible. But, I submit to you that I find equally as bain and reprehensible, the obviation of guidance and motivation for our youth via the immediate repudiation and removal from their sights of reasons why they should want more.
15
L
// Mar 14, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Right. I think I understood your position before, and certainly get it now. You don’t want to stand pat in the face of the Redneck Shop. You want to use it as a symbol to incite change within the black commnuty. I have a few problems with that, but won’t bore you with all the details. My principal concern with that tactic is the reality of America that is the fact that most communities, especially southern communities (shout out to Talib, b/c I got country cousins too) are deeply integrated. So, while a portion of the community is mobilized against the symbol of the Redneck Shop, there necessarily will exist a countercontingent that will revel in the attention and be mobilized to perpetuate the ideas behind all the attention and ire. To put it another way, while half the town is rallying against the burning flag T-shirts, others in the town will respond by donning those T-shirts–simply because they would draw attention. To use the example given before, it is unfortunately human nature that several children in the community will start picking their noses simply because Wesley got his picture posted and publically chastised. As modern American media demonstrates, the kind of publicity one achieves (good or bad) is a distant consideration to achieving publicity at all. If blacks rally against the Redneck Shop but do no seek to end it, latent racists and publicity seekers will come out of the woodwork to stand up for it. I think the best strategy therefore is to get rid of the damn thing; for everyone’s sake.
16
WOW!
// May 22, 2008 at 9:24 pm
But, why didn’t the dumb azz preacher hire an attorney before he bought the property.
Leave a Comment