Yo, Paleface! You speakum Eilish?

/

An L.A. Eviction Lawyer Has a Message for Billie Eilish

Stephen Green

It's one thing to live on stolen land, constantly looking over your shoulder to see if anybody noticed and might decide to do something about it. It's quite another to insist that "No one is illegal on stolen land" in front of 14.4 million viewers on live television, and have that clip played countless times for countless millions more all over YouTube and social media — all while living in a mansion that, well, sits on "stolen land."

Billie Eilish did the latter on Sunday, and now one Los Angeles attorney plans to do something about it.

But I haven't even told you the best part: Avi Sinai specializes in difficult evictions.

"If you are facing a contested or high-risk eviction," Sinai's website boasts, "Sinai Law Firm provides strategic, trial-ready representation grounded in real courtroom experience."

Sinai also claims he runs "the premier eviction firm in the county."

One happy client named Alessandra T gushes on the website, "Avi was an absolute game-changer in our eviction case in Santa Monica... he not only secured a judgment for the amount owed, but also successfully removed the tenant." And Paula B. wrote that he "was able to turn a very difficult tenant situation that appeared very bleak into the best possible outcome."

If you've ever heard any horror stories about how difficult it can be to secure an eviction in Democrat-run locales, you get some idea of what a fierce attorney Sinai must be.

All that is why, when Avi says he'll represent the indigenous Tongva people pro bono, should they decide to try to reclaim the stolen land where Eilish's $2.3 million Glendale mansion sits, you've got to sit up and pay attention.

Or fall down laughing. Results vary by individual.

Anyway, here's his official announcement, made, of course, on X:

Barely time for the snow to melt off the roof

/

2 Forest Avenue, Old Greenwich, listed at $2.795 million two weeks ago and under contract today. Very, very nice owners, who Greenwich will miss. Rita was a classmate of mine back in Eastern and Greenwich High — she survived the rather dreadful Herr Rudolph Oblum’s German classes and went on to become a beloved (there’s that overworked term again but apt in this case) German teacher at the high school; I pursued other endeavors.

(Barely) Related: How dry, humorless, and truly awful was Herr Oblum to study under? I came across this partial article written by him in 1960, and it captures the man perfectly, instantly transporting me back to Greenwich High School, 1970 and dreading another agonizing hour in his classroom:

And way up on Lake

/

979 Lake Avenue has sold for $2.570 million; started off two years ago in February 2024 at $2.9. That’s slow, but at least the final result was closer to the hopes of the owners than those who came before: they tried selling the pre-renovated version of this house for $1.995 million in 2017 and held that price almost to the end before giving up and selling to these people for $910,000 in 2021.

No law that I'm familiar with grants this right, and certainly not any U.S. statute, but hey — she’s a Harvard Law graduate, so she must know better

/

Does her constituency and she realize that some of those 8 billion new arrivals may end up in Chestnut Hill or even god forbid, Martha’s Vineyard?

Better I have no cow than my neighbor have two

/

greetings from the Holodomor

Gavin Newsom vs California's Progressive Idiots

David Strom:

…. A story published yesterday by the NY Post reports that 60% of Californians support the wealth tax proposal which has already driven some of California's wealthiest people out of the state.

A staggering 60% of California voters back the billionaire wealth tax proposal, even though they admit it will spark businesses to flee the state and kill jobs, a new poll found.

Even when presented with a “full battery of economic and political arguments” against the wealth tax, Californians still back it by 54%, according to the poll of likely voters by public affairs firm Nestpoint.

“The voters who support this tax believe it will push wealth people and the jobs they create out of the state, and yet they don't seem to think this will matter long term.”

A firm 52% of likely voters admitted that the tax will push entrepreneurs and jobs out of the Golden State, but only 48% agree that there are concerns with long-term revenue from a wealth tax, while 42% had concerns about Silicon Valley getting damaged, the poll found.

“Sure, money and new industry will flee the state but it'll be fine. That seems to be the thinking of a bare majority of Californians at this point. Meanwhile, Gov. Newsom, despite being a progressive, knows how addition and subtraction work. He is once again warning that there will be consequences if this thing passes.”

“The fact is it actually will reduce investments in education,” he said. “It will reduce investments in teachers and librarians, childcare. It will reduce investments in firefighting and police.” 

The wealth tax will eventually lead to a decline in the state’s tax base, which would in turn reduce revenue meant for social services, Newsom explained.

The Wall Street Journal frames this as Newsom basically begging voters not to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs for the golden state.

 “The impact of a one-time tax does not solve an ongoing structural challenge,” the Governor said Thursday. “You would have a windfall one time, and then over the years, you would see a significant reduction in taxes because taxpayers will move.”

By “structural challenge,” he means recurring budget gaps caused by excessive spending. The state Legislative Analyst’s Office in November forecast a $18 billion deficit in the coming fiscal year with shortfalls growing to $35 billion in future years. And this assumes there’s no economic downturn—or a flight of high earners who pay the state’s bills.

Mr. Newsom said he is very “mindful” that “we rely on a very small number of people that allows us to do historic things”—i.e., spend at historic levels. His recently proposed budget includes $539 billion in spending, up 68% from 2019.

Strom:

You really have to step back and appreciate the beauty of what is happening here. The progressive governor of the state (who was formerly the progressive mayor of San Francisco), finds himself fighting a ballot initiative designed by progressive academics and supported by a progressive union and a majority of progressive voters with the goal of progressively taxing the crap out of a couple hundred progressive billionaires.

…. Good luck with that, Gavin. You might as well be talking to a brick wall except the bricks are probably smarter than many California voters.