Cook County Sheriff Suspends Evictions from Forclosure, page 10

privacy

Pages: << 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 80 times

reply posted on 9-10-2008 @ 02:35 PM by maybereal11

Originally posted by Constitutional Scholar
AB1-

I'll ask you the same question I asked in another thread:

If your car was stolen, but the car thief really needed your car, would you mind if the local PD didnt investigate and arrest the guy who stole you car?

[edit on 9-10-2008 by Constitutional Scholar]

What a bad analogy. Seriously. A car vs. a Home where your children sleep?

These homes weren't stolen. The landlords failed to make neccessary payments and they were foreclosed on. The renters were continuing to pay rent unaware of the potential eviction.

These renters didn't steal anything. They are paying rent to a landlord who hasn't paid his mortgage.

The banks can make the effort to notify renters of potential foreclosure.
There are laws requiring the notification of the OWNER of the property to avoid putting families on the street without warning...the laws just have not been extended to give FAIR warning to renters. Loophole, mistake whatever.

By the way - I myself own rental property and I LOVE what this sheriff is doing standing up for what is right.

reply posted on 9-10-2008 @ 02:37 PM by mopusvindictus

reply to post by alphabetaone

Those deadbeats will be sitting on your streets... they aren't deadbeats, the countrys broke.

You can be whatever kind of tough guy you like, the reality is we all bleed and...

you don't want tens or hundreds of thousands of homeless needing to commit crimes... loose on the streets, your no invinceable, hungry people are dangerous...

If the banks wont cut them a break, someone has to

reply posted on 9-10-2008 @ 02:39 PM by Constitutional Scholar

reply to post by alphabetaone

Then run for office, sponsor some bills, and get a "Prevention of Tenants from being evicted" Act.

Until then, the law stands, and the sheriff is charged with enforcing that law.

reply posted on 9-10-2008 @ 02:39 PM by sos37

reply to post by mopusvindictus

The only reason I'm against the sheriff taking the law into his own hands is he sets a dangerous precedent. If other counties start doing the same, then the banks will complain to the feds, who will draft a law giving a federal judge the power to remove the sheriff from his elected position and assign a replacement until either a re-election can be called or the next election cycle happens.

When that happens, it's not good. You've taken electoral power that you had LOCALLY, abused it (call it what you will), and given it to the federal government, even indirectly.

Remember the old saying - "The road to hell is paved with the best of intentions."

[edit on 9-10-2008 by sos37]

reply posted on 9-10-2008 @ 02:39 PM by alphabetaone

reply to post by mopusvindictus

I agree with you, but in the context of the conversation, if someone is WILLINGLY trying to defraud, then sure the Sheriff should go after them. I KNOW how broke the country is. But, again, a willingness to defraud is entirely different than being kicked out simply due to having no chance. These tenants had no chance, and were not given their due diligence.

If I willingly defraud someone I EXPECT to be punished.

AB1

reply posted on 9-10-2008 @ 02:41 PM by Constitutional Scholar

reply to post by maybereal11

The sheriff was elected to enforce the law and uphold court orders.

It isnt a bad analogy, as the sheriff wouldnt be doing his job in the case of your stolen car. Just the same as he isnt doing his job now.

think of this as motivation for renters to actually own property.

[edit on 9-10-2008 by Constitutional Scholar]

reply posted on 9-10-2008 @ 02:41 PM by SweetRevenge

reply to post by alphabetaone

Don't feed the troll, AB1. He's made it clear he's self centered and we should be reveling that he graced us with his godly presence, as we are public and he has no patience for such individuals.

I think the Sheriff is in the right. I actually sent him an Email speaking my praises. These people shouldn't have to suffer because they were put in a bad situation and have to bear it outside, when it can be lengthened to allow them to have some comfort or find new housing. I would have an issue if these people were squatters, but they aren't and they need a period of time to find a new location. Not 5 days because a bank says so.

reply posted on 9-10-2008 @ 02:43 PM by Constitutional Scholar

reply to post by SweetRevenge

So you propose renters living in bank owned homes for free because the sheriff thinks its ok?

Seriously?

reply posted on 9-10-2008 @ 02:51 PM by verylowfrequency

The sheriff is standing up for what's right and putting himself in jeopardy by standing up against the corrupt banks who he sees as abusive. The Bankers association is threatening to have the Sheriff charged with contempt. Anyone who wants to support a good sheriff - now is the time.

In the interview I saw today he claims the Banks have the wrong names often on the notices and his deputies have made mistakes on several occasions because of bad paperwork done by the banks. He's tired of taking the heat for their mistakes. He believes its unfair for people to come home from work to find all their belongings on the street - where they have no doubt been pilfered through.

I think he is a hero even though he may very well be breaking the law. Sometimes the best heroes don't follow the law to a T.

[edit on 9-10-2008 by verylowfrequency]

reply posted on 9-10-2008 @ 02:54 PM by mopusvindictus

reply to post by sos37

Well, you know this is why people are concerned about martial law and all the rest. And frankly we have to side with eachother against govt and banks...

The reality is they are throwing 700 billion to corporations and zero to the public and the public is expected to pay for it on top of being...in many cases thrown in the street

It's a recipie for complete financial breakdown

one way or another we are going to have to stand up against it sooner or later, better now before it's completely out of control

reply posted on 9-10-2008 @ 02:56 PM by alphabetaone

reply to post by SweetRevenge

You're right of course, I guess I just refuse to believe that some are just so blatantly disregarding the exact reason for the Sheriff taking this action simply to either stir up contraversy or to further their own agenda of greed.

However, you are correct.

AB1

reply posted on 9-10-2008 @ 02:59 PM by verylowfrequency

reply to post by Constitutional Scholar

I don't think anyone is proposing that. It's just the process is unfair and maybe needs to be changed. How would you like to be a renter who's made your payments and comes home from work to find all your personal property on the street without any prior warning. I think they should be given at least a 30 day notice.

reply posted on 9-10-2008 @ 03:00 PM by Constitutional Scholar

reply to post by alphabetaone

It isnt greed, its called property rights which are the very foundation of freedom.

Whether you like it or not, be it a bank or an individual, a property owners rights outweigh those of tenants.

reply posted on 9-10-2008 @ 03:02 PM by Constitutional Scholar

reply to post by verylowfrequency

I'd be pissed, but I would also be fully aware I have no legal right to stay in that house.

Sure its a crappy situation, but times are rough and people are going to suffer. It isn't the property owners job, nor is it the sheriffs job to alleviate the problem.

reply posted on 9-10-2008 @ 03:08 PM by mopusvindictus

reply to post by alphabetaone

It would be exceedingly difficult foir the sheriff to determine the handful of deadbeats from the many put into and uncomfortable and impossible set of circumstances

Willingly Defraud?

Most of these people wish to pay thier mortgages... the Banks should act to bail them out for limited durations of time...

The reality is, the system and credit as a whoile is very unfair, here in AZ I get 3 days to pay my rent before I can be evicted...

It really isn't a functional amount of time in a crisis...

In terms of a mortgage which is a 30 year affair... 30 or 60 or even 90 days is also a very small amount of time.

It amounts to a hostile set of procedures where the lenders wish and desire to see people fail, in the scheme of things people should be allowed...

Oh ... Maybe 3 - 6 month deferals over the course of every 10 years of a 30 year loan

To allow for crisis, death health issues

It really doesn't help anyone to be so harsh in regards to the human condition,

some of what is said in regards to deadbeats... in ordinary times could be true...

But the thing is over an almost 2 generation loan... there is alot of room for the extraordinary to occour

and the banks use extreme measures to collect

My student loans... a fair loan, gave me 3 years of deferals... also If I can't pay they can garnish wages and tax returns to collect

The banks aren't truely in a position to take a loss in anyway, by shoing some decency to everyday people

In ordinary times these actions work

Because there are buyers for the homes they forclose on

In this circumstance, they aren't getting buyers...any sooner than the tenant can pay

I think the sheriff as a law officer stepping in and saying "WHOH...hold on a minute this is a crisis and I am charged with maintaining the Peace" is a proper move"

something will be enacted to help the people soon enough and he is averting a man made disaster by doing this

No one is saying these people won't pay... but not doing something NOW while the govt gets it's act together (and this is slow stuff) would be like not fortifying a Levy in a Hurricane...

we just can't let this spiral over greed and right and wrong, this is extraordinary circumstances... I think the guy is just maintaining law and order in a crisis and I am sure the govt will step in sooner or later or some banks will take approproate action to save us all from going on the streets

it's in no ones intrests to have the serfs homeless and unable to work, so something will be done...

This guys just breaking the fall until it happens

reply posted on 9-10-2008 @ 03:09 PM by maybereal11

Originally posted by Constitutional Scholar
reply to post by maybereal11

The sheriff was elected to enforce the law and uphold court orders.

It isnt a bad analogy, as the sheriff wouldnt be doing his job in the case of your stolen car. Just the same as he isnt doing his job now.

[edit on 9-10-2008 by Constitutional Scholar]

THE LAW IS THE LAW and it is the Sheriffs job to enforce it!

Would you feel adamantly that any Sheriff should enforce the law in the following cases....

-Alexandria, Minnesota
No man is allowed to make love to his wife with the smell of garlic, onions, or sardines on his breath.

- In Cleveland, Ohio women are not allowed to wear patent-leather shoes.

- A state law in Illinois mandates that all bachelors should be called master, not mister, when addressed by their female counterparts.

- In Michigan, a woman isn't allowed to cut her own hair without her husband's permission.

- In Nevada sex without a condom is considered illegal.

- In Oxford, Ohio, it's illegal for a woman to strip off her clothing while standing in front of a man's picture.

Source: bertc.com...

- Places where oral s*x is illegal: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Georgia, North and South Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia and Washington D.C

- In Boulder, Colorado, it is illegal to kill a bird within the city limits and also to “own” a pet – the town’s citizens, legally speaking, are merely “pet minders”.

- In Vermont, women must obtain written permission from their husbands to wear false teeth.

- In Eureka, Nevada, USA, it is still illegal for men with moustaches to kiss women.

- In Logan County, Colorado, USA, it is still illegal to kiss a woman while she is asleep.

- In Providence, Rhode Island, USA, it is still illegal for shop owners to sell toothpaste and toothbrushes to the same customer on a Sunday.

- In St. Louis, Missouri, USA, it is still illegal for firemen to rescue women who are still in their nightdresses.

- In Ames, Iowa, USA, it is still illegal for men to have three sips of beer while they are in bed with their wives.

- In Maryland, USA, it is still illegal for radio stations to play Randy Newman's song 'Short people'.

- In Miami, Florida, USA, it is still illegal for anyone to imitate an animal.

- In Iowa, USA, it is against the law to kiss for more than five minutes.

www.news.com.au...

reply posted on 9-10-2008 @ 03:10 PM by Anonymous ATS

This guy is no hero and does not get an applause. He is merely causing ourselves to fend for ourselves. I am a property owner and I have renters. If they do not pay I need them to leave and they do not. What am I to do? Take matters into my own hands? The system has checks and balances. This guys is not following it. I say he is being anti-American. Maybe we should be a communist state and see how we all like it. Remember in a communist country all are equal. Some are more equal than others.

reply posted on 9-10-2008 @ 03:13 PM by verylowfrequency

reply to post by Constitutional Scholar

Well believe it not tenants have quite a few rights in most circumstances. My family was involved with rental properties for many years and it usually takes 3 months to throw out deadbeats after jumping through all the legal hoops - but here it seems the Banks have more power than I had when I was a landlord. As they seem to consider the mortgage holder the tenant without even considering the rights of the actual tenants.

reply posted on 9-10-2008 @ 03:14 PM by dragonridr

This just means people will be hurt thats the problem when you take the police out of the situation. Foreclosure will still go thru And the bank will get them out if need be by hiring someone to evict them. And odds are they wont be as nice as the police.

reply posted on 9-10-2008 @ 03:19 PM by mopusvindictus

reply to post by Constitutional Scholar

I'd beg to differ ... these aren't tough times, it's a national emergency, this needs to be treated as a disaster of epic propotions

There wil be Govt response to this situation, but we could be looking at Millions of homeless before this is said and done

it's up to local law enforcement to take action while things get worked out up at the top...

The numbers of people that could end up on the street will spark a crime wave and a health crisis following it

and that effects everyone... even if they declare martial law... put people in tents, your talking about the breeding of viruses and antibiotic resistant bacteria given the numbers of people and

it's liable to be the deathn of you or I, a case of Mrsa or bad flu year with a few hundred thousand extra people on the street...could kil my kids by proxy, or expose them to crime... and ditto

No

I'm not a conspiracy nut, I think the Govt will take action and... it's going to take time, these people are mostly decent people who will get to paying as soon as they can...

we don't need this to become worse for a debate on property law and right or wrong

we need to call it for what it is... a Disaster and act accordingly