legal address there is only one. the owner builder mr. grady comes in and pulls a permit for two units legal, two units existing, only one address and calls it a dry rot permit. and let's repair front. and it is a dry rot on the front steps and the city signs off, comes out, and basically says, nice try. it is not a world war ii grandpa fathered unit based in on a address it is a single family dwelling and it says 5 r residential run story plus basement one family dwelling. i went in there again today to double check with patty who is in charge of microfilm to go over this process. this cfc is the birth certificate of the building. it is everything. it is everything that i deal with the building department, cfcs control unless there is a subsequent cfc. so, and there were other ways that you could have fixed this. it could have come in later, there was rap, urban renewal and these are problems that i deal with every day that legalize units and nobody did it n1980 comes along and the owner comes in and pulls a bunch of dirty permits. he pulls a permit, there is great drawings on file wh

everyone refers to it as units that does not legalize it. >> i got a question, at the same time, i mean, we look at it and it is a single family dwelling. such as a lot of units from san francisco when the rich men in sunset that we know have non-warranted. so more of a question or a statement is that when you purchased the full five on 26th avenue with the non-warranted rooms down, and you rented and you rent them as rooms, the whole time, now it is convenient for it not to be a rentable unit when you want it to be. i mean, so, i don't know, i am trying to get a question. >> take us through the process to change it from a single family to two units. you would have to go through the planning and the parking is an issue, just because someone puts a kitchen in there it does not make a legal unit. unless you have the building permit to do so. i really what probably annoys me and everybody is that the unit changes on building permits and someone puts in three we give them a permit for three, i wish that it was better or it should be clear are and this is going back 70 or 80 years ago, it is

the attorney general is the chief legal officer of the united states. and i will note that i observed it was more tha a little astonishing that the chief legal officer of the united states could not give a simple one-word, one-syllable, two-letter answer to the question does the constitution allow the federal government to kill with a drone strike a u.s. citizen on u.s. soil who is not posing an immediate threat. the proper answer, i suggested at that hearing, should be no, and that should be a very easy answer for the attorney general to give. finally, the fourth time around, attorney general holder stated -- quote -- "let me be clear. translate my approiate to no. i thought i was saying no. all right? no." so finally after three times refusing to answer the question whether it would be constitutional to do so, the fourth time, the attorney general asked that. so the question that i want to ask is your reaction tohis exchange and in particular when attorney general holder on the fourth time finally stated his opinion and i assume the opinion of the depa

it is a four-unit building legally by the records. this is a, probably a [speaker not understood] thing and, you know, the cfc for this building is as a four-unit are two occupancy which is more than two dwelling units. the code requirements for an r-2 occupancy in terms of exiting are more restrictive for a -- than they are 3 occupancy. [speaker not understood]. a two-unit building is similar to a single-family residence and it's less restrictive. this is a front view of the three parcels. 1240 is the adjacent neighbor to the north who is appealing regarding the foundation, and 1248 is the adjacent neighbor to the south. we are 1244. two-story over basement. the proposal is to develop space at the ground or at the basement floor. this will require replacement of the foundations as part of the overall building upgrade. currently we have a one bedroom lower level unit. ms. man got wishes to make it more habitable in term of expanding it for additional bedrooms and additional bathrooms. so, regarding the issue of the elimination of the s

as attorney general, you're the chief legal officer of the united states. do you have a legal judgment on whether it would be constitutional to kill a u.s. citizen on u.s. soil in those circumstances? >> a person who is not engaged as you described. this is the problem with hypotheticals. the way you described this person sitting at the cafe, not doing anything imminently, the use of lethal force would not be appropriate, would not be something -- >> i find it remarkable you still will not give an opinion on the constitutionality. let me move to the next topic. we have round and round. >> let me be clear. translate my appropriate to no. i thought i was saying no. no. >> then i am glad, after much gymnastics, i am glad to hear that it is the opinion of the department of justice that it would be unconstitutional to kill a u.s. citizen on u.s. soil if that individual did not pose an imminent threat. that statement has not been easily forthcoming. i wish you had given that in response to senator paul's letter asking you it, and i will point out this week i will

united states, that's all he had to say. instead it's imminent threats, hypotheticals. this is the most legally muddled, confused administration i have ever seen and juan, it all gets back to the fact that he's constantly apologizing for the projection of u.s. power and prosecution of war. >> i think that was a really smart analysis, but the thing is that's not what they're discussing. what they're doing is discussing whether you can use an armed drone to go after someone you've identified as a potential terrorist threat on u.s. soil. >> sean: wait, wait. >> we're the not talking about what you just described. >> sean: they get to decide well, we think he's a terrorist. >> no. >> sean: hang on, he's not an imminent threat to anybody, he's in a cafe having a little bit of coffee, we're going to drop a bomb on him? they did not draw out the circumstances, and ralph looked at where it would be legal and-- why didn't they say that. >> the reason-- >> juan, this is the attorney general of the united states and he couldn't articulate in sworn testimony what i just said on a tv show. >> ralph, what yo

unite america. after all, 68% of voters nationwide believe that immigration when done legally is good for the unitedsupport cuts across all party lines -- republicans, democrats unaffiliated voters all share the same belief but the devil is in the details. when you begin to look at different immigration proposals, you see why it's such a tough issue. comprehensive reform -- border security plus a path to citizenship, is supported by 59% of voters. if you add a requirement to make english the official language of the united states, support goes up a couple of points but always change underneath. liberals like the plan without english as the official language conservatives like the other plan. underlying all of this there's not a lot of trust in the federal government. only 38% of voters believe that no matter what legislation is passed, the government will be likely to try to enforce the border. only 9% believe it's very likely to do so. on another topic, maryland recently became the latest state to ban the death penalty. nationally 59% of voters favor the death

they are legally three separate properties. but if you replace one unit -- if you make one unit stronger, then you still have weakness. in this case the foundation is unbalanced as don had mentioned because it's a retaining wall. it's only favoring the center building. it is not favoring -- it is not balancing the other loads. >> okay. and then from the initial plan and the revised plan, what do you feel is the more solid of a -- >>> it is a matter of standard of practice. it is not one factor safety more than the other. what you look for is consistency. if you're designing a structure, if you're designing the same retaining wall and the same soil conditions, you need consistencies. you need the same level of factor safety. and you're out by a factor of six. so, there's inconsistencies in the calculations. >> i said from the revised -- i believe the initial permit was to put all brand-new foundation for the center building. would that be better or would that be stronger or less strong than the revised second? >>> it actually would be worse for the three s

you are the chief legal adviser for the united states of america.e department of justice have an opinion on whether the department of justice can kill u.s. citizens on u.s. soil. three times he responded, it would not be appropriate. did notlmost as if he understand the question. maybe that says something about how the left sees constitutionality. in their minds, appropriately and constitutional are one in the same. he really expressed frustration. i told you we are not going to do it. don't you trust me? and the answer is exactly that. no, we do not trust you. and we do not trust the next guy or the next guy or the next guy whether he is a democrat or republican. [applause] james madison observed in the federalist papers that if men were angels, no government would be necessary. there are not a whole lot of angels in washington. thomas jefferson explains, the entire purpose of the constitution is to bind the mischief of government. when rand stood there alone, something incredible began to happen. mike lee and i came early on to support him. then a

type of project they are, rental versus ownership situation, sometimes they can't provide units on-site legallyso, that city-wide standard applies throughout eastern neighborhoods as much as it applies anywhere else except within the umu. one exception does it differently as we were kind of discussed where the residential impact fee remains at tier 1, even if it was -- even if it went from a 40 foot to an 80-foot height district, the residential impact fee stays at tier 1 and instead of indexing the impact fee to the up zoning, the affordable housing requirement is indexed to the up zoning. this gives you an idea of the tiers within umu. it's also worth noting that within umu beyond the on-site, off-site and in lieu options, the affordable housing requirement can also be met through a middle income alternative which is providing a higher percentage of units. but at a higher income level. you can also do land dedication. most recently this was done also -- it's also available in mission nct, new mission theater project did this. i think the concourse development also recent deli that. i should p

it's become obvious that her actions have strongly divided the same community she was supposed to unite. legal say social media makes cases like this new territory. >> if the courts find that she went over the line and was not reasonable in her reporting, where you put it out to the whole world that this is happening, with pictures no less, and now she can't do her job properly, you know, there is a viable defense there. >> reporter: richards could not be reached for comment, but recently e-mailed a blogger that she's, quote, staying safe. >> it did exactly what it was supposed to do. it helped her get heard. >> reporter: a point that started a debate and came with consequences. for "today," amna navaz, nbc news. >>> up next, a man's act of kindness makes a big difference in his life. we'll talk about the generosity he's received. ♪ na na na na na ♪ i woke up to a new day ♪ every little thing gonna go my way ♪ ♪ i woke up to a light bulb on ♪ every little thing is possible now ♪ [ female announcer ] kraft added a touch of philadelphia cream cheese to our natural shredded cheese so you can brin

and they could issue a sweeping decision legalizing gay marriage throughout the united states. now, most constitutional scholars don't think they'll go that far, but you know something, they could if they wanted to. >> but right now, you know, these cases are diametrically opposed. you have one talking about state law and the other talking about the federal reach. will one supersede the other? meaning, you know, if the federal law is reversed and there is a recognition of marriages of same-sex couples, then no matter what, states would have to recognize that, right? >> not necessarily. the federal law, and that's the second case that going to be argued on wednesday, is the doma law, defense of marriage act. that act says that no state can be forced, essentially, to adopt gay marriage. the federal law defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. now, if the court throws that out and says that is unconstitutional, that just means the states can do what they want. some states will adopt gay marriage. as a matter of fact, i think nine states right now have already legaliz

you are the chief legal adviser for the united states of america.oes the department of justice have an opinion on whether the department of justice can kill u.s. citizens on u.s. soil. three times he responded, it would not be appropriate. it was almost as if he did not understand the question. maybe that says something about how the left sees constitutionality. in their minds, appropriately and constitutional are one in the same. he really expressed frustration. i told you we are not going to do it. don't you trust me? and the answer is exactly that. no, we do not trust you. and we do not trust the next guy or the next guy or the next or whether he is a democrat republican. [applause] james madison observed in the federalist papers that if men were angels, no government would be necessary. there are not a whole lot of angels in washington. thomas jefferson explains, the entire purpose of the constitution is to bind the mischief of government. when rand stood there alone, something incredible began to happen. mike lee and i came early on to support

[cheers and applause] if gay marriage stays legal in california that's a fifth of united states population right there. >>s if a lot of people. >> stephen: those people, the gay people can get get married and move to other states, right? >> they would still be married although the other states would be able to decide for themselves whether to recognize. >> stephen: but the federal government would recognize them as being married because they got married in california. >> not necessarily because the challenge to doma applies to the states that recognize gay marriage as legal. >> stephen: if i get gay married in california and the federal government said yes, you are married and we recognize. that here is your tax, whatever. then i move to georgia, the federal government says you can't file together on a federal level? >> that's right. >> stephen: i'm not a fan and i think that's (bleep). >> well -- >> stephen: that means, and we'll get back to you talking, too, but so literally i would -- if i were gay i would get stripped of my gay marriage rights federally if i walked across the border. >

are typically light duty so what we're talking about is getting somebody up in legal just to help liaison between these units -- between occ, internal affairs and homicide. that's what i alluded to earlier, that's where most of the delay is. we're also talking with the three investigators at internal affairs that handle the officer involved shootings -- three of our sergeants -- to help stress the importance of getting these documents in a timely fashion. >> i recall hearing this problem in the past and so i'm /wopbldzering rather than just waiting for each quarter and seeing this problem again, if we could in the interim before the next quarter report, if there is a problem that we hear from the department or the occ and we address that. if we /kwould -- any interim status reports, please feel free to come in front of us. >> i understand this is a priority to occ and it's important to me that we get this done in a timely fashion for them so i'm gonna make it a priority to make this happen. >> thank you. >> okay. >> thank you both of you. >> line item 3b. >> 3b occ monthly comprehensive statistical report [i

i am sure that many of you know of various business forms in which they are legally structured, but the united states has been particularly structured by this one form i and -- for a long time and we may be seeing a move away from that. >> just on that, i want to follow up on that, i think we have seen, with the decrease in public companies and the growth of private companies, when you think about what people know, companies that choose to remain private for a lot longer -- for a lot of reasons. the ipo market is not as solid, capital markets are not as solid, they can get the capital from other investors without going public. part of its is they want to have -- you have these founders who are passionate and have a vision and are interested in long-term value creation in a way that being a publicly held company is at odds with their objective. i am hopeful that in the coming years we will see more of these companies at a hearing to those values of long-term valuation. especially companies out of silicon valley, where there is this the coast where the investors behind them also share those valu

keep families together to get congress to legalize millions of undocumented immigrants in the united states. this family is worried dad, jose will be deported. his wife and kids are american born but with a previous deportation citizenship is virtually unattainable. even through marriage. >> my husband is undocumented. for me... and for my kids will be devastated if he gets taken aby. >> some believe this may be the year immigration reform will happen. republicans suffered huge losses during the november election partly because they alienated so many latino was harsh rhetoric on immigration. >> there are two ways to handle a loss, deny it or learn from it. >> at last weekend's state gop conviction, republicans elect aid new leader, one former minute men backed off a hard stance against illegal immigrants insists on talk about republican principles of free market and less government. >> go into communities and listen, then vrx a conversation. instead of making aassumptions if you pander on this one issue somehow you're going wind up with votes. >> participants boarded buses hoping tha

after many years of living in the regime torn country of haiti, a parents emigrated legally to the united states with $10 in their pockets and hopes of achieving the american dream. the story reaffirms she not only understands the importance of family sacrifice but also assures voters she knows the value of preserving the american dream and knows what it is like to overcome adversity. tong one's family origin connect to people increased in 2012. in 2008, cathy rogers wrote she was born and raised on a farm. in 2012 her biography says she's proved that what we are taught as children is true today. in america with a positive attitude, hard work and dedication, we can rise from humble beginnings to recorded positions of leadership. her family origin did not change but she went into further detail to get across to the american people that she came from humble beginnings. she understands the new-found vigor of restoring the american dream. mother hood. women expressed an economic penalty. the same holds true among politicians as well. given the time and travel demands, women with young childre

deserve a clear, concise and unequivocal public statement from the president of the united states that contains detailed legal reasoning, including but not limited to the balance between national security and due process, limits of executive power, and distinction between the treatment of citizens and noncitizens within and outside the borders of the united stat states. the use of lethal force against american citizens and the use of drones in the application of the lethal force within the united states territory." at this time, i would ask unanimous consent -- mr. paul: there's another article that i think is of interest and this is another article by spencer akerman in "wired." this talks about once again the signature strikes and the idea that basically we're killing people whose names we don't kn know. the title of this was "c.i.a. drones kill large groups without knowing who they are." the expansion of the sigh's undeclared drone war into the tribal areas of pakistan required a big expansion of who can be marked for death. once the standard for targeted killings was top-level leaders in al qaeda or one o

time article about people, their spouse, the person they wanted to marry would not be a legal citizen of the unitedded to couple right now who are in quote/unquote traditional marriages. so there are implications beyond a label of calling someone your spouse. i want to play another excerpt. juts kagan on age and get your thoughts on the other side. >> i can just assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage. >> you know, it is interesting to hear laughter in the court but especially on this. even on "meet the press" this sunday, one of the guests talked about the issue of procreation. and being able to have children. and the issue was brought up, what if a couple is unable to conceive. are they not then married or eligible to be married? in this case, kagan brought up age. >> this was such a fascinating thing. strom thurmond who was in his '80s wasn't in congress when he was confirm. the central argument made by the supporters of proposition 8 is that it is necessary to ban gay marriage to promote responsible procreatio

building all of the permits together, looking at them all show that there is legally one there. >> and apartment or whatever, a unit. >> right. >> and does not matter whether there has to be change from one unit or two to one, they look at the original permit and what permits have been submitted and approved since, when we look at those permits before the one before them or before they issue the three-hour report. they look at the existing use box in the proposed use box and each one of those alteration permits and they have to find that a story

are typically light duty so what we're talking about is getting somebody up in legal just to help liaison between these units -- between occ, internal affairs and homicide. that's what i alluded to earlier, that's where most of the delay is. we're also talking with the three

you are the chief legal officer of the united states. do you have a legal judgment on whether it would be constitutional to kill a u.s. citizen on u.s. soil in those circumstances? >> a person that was not engaged. this is a hypothetical. the way you have described this person sitting at the cafe not doing anything imminently, the use of lethal force -- legal force would not be appropriate, would not be about -- would not be something -- >> i find it remarkable you will not -- >> i thought i was saying no. >> while, then, i am glad. after much gymnastics, i am glad to hear is the opinion of the department of justice that it would be unconstitutional to kill a u.s. citizen on u.s. soil if he did not pose an immediate threat. i wish you had given that statement in response to the letter asking you it. i will be introducing legislation in the senate to make clear the u.s. government cannot kill a u.s. citizen on u.s. soil absence of an imminent threat. based on that representation, i hope the department will support that legislation. >> that

lou: the first major legal battle -- in an arizona federal court attorneys for five illegal immigrants argue they are eligible to remain in the united states than they are challenging the legality of the state government. as jim never were denies licenses the state says deportation does not confer the lawful status if it does not entitle them to public benefits the judge said he will issue a ruling over the next few weeks. my next guest am are with us. good to have you. there are only three states in the union in mexico, washington, utah that permit licenses for illegal immigrants. what could be wrong with the executive order in arizona? >> let me ask you. >> the issue boils down to executive order as the supreme law of the land and will this be allowed? is said police power? is it a privilege and what entitles tte immigrant to th status they are able to be the rights of a citizen? the u.s. district court judge has to make the determination what exactly is the status for those states privileges. lou: what is your sense? an executive order of deportation? is that the supreme law of the land? >> in the case of deferment that the feder

the biggest one right now is what would the flow be of legal immigrants to the united states in what the h1b program. that for skilled workers. so because there is a lot of unhappiness among american workers. the labor movement and elsewhere. >> and businesses are involved in this discussion. >> so this is a very delicate negotiation. that's why i'm cautious in saying there is a deal. there are still a lot of sticking points. the great news is they're on track to a deal. >> it is interesting you point out the sticking points. the "l.a. times" notes those things unresolve. how long they would need to wait before applying for citizenship. how visas to guest workers and how to pay for more border patrol officers. a big sticking point. and facing fencing and other security measures in a shrinking budget. how do you pay for whatever is determined as adequate border patrol, adequate security. in these budgetary times we're in, which are crisis mode, how do you pay for all that? >> right. that's been a stumbling block for years. the conservatives have said first you have to secure the borde