Cook County Sheriff Suspends Evictions from Forclosure, page 11

privacy

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

reply posted on 9-10-2008 @ 04:01 PM by constantine70

reply to post by Constitutional Scholar

Now I understand where you are coming from... but given that the banks can simply 'create money out of thin air' then how hard is it for them to buy up mortgages left and right... hrm.. bankers... that movie is sure coming back to me.. "Nothing but trouble" with Chevy Chase..

reply posted on 9-10-2008 @ 04:28 PM by sos37

Another point to look at - does the Sheriff take it upon himself to decide which people he won't evict or does he decide not to evict any of them?

If he's going to separate the people who genuinely need more time to make their payments and have every intention of doing so from those who have no intention of making their payments, it means he will be spending A LOT of time on a case by case basis getting to know each family and each situation and making a decision based on those circumstances. Then you get into these questions:

1. Isn't playing the role of a judge, which he wasn't elected for? He was elected for the role of an enforcer of the law.

2. How much time is that going to take to get familiar with each and every situation and make a decision based on the circumstances? Will his other law enforcement duties suffer as a result?

You see where this is going ...

reply posted on 9-10-2008 @ 04:42 PM by craig732

This, in my opinion, is how the revolution begins.

Not with gun battles against government forces... but with everyday people refusing to be the parts of the machine that perpetuates the government agenda.

It is, in my opinion, on the government's agenda to take ownership of all private property in the USA. It was even mentioned in the presidential debates, how the government would buy the mortgages of people in trouble.

reply posted on 9-10-2008 @ 05:57 PM by Amaterasu

Originally posted 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.

I've been reading along and you know... I just couldn't take this anymore.

If it's illegal to go in a pool, and someone trips and falls in and can't swim, I suppose you would wait until the law was changed to jump in and save the person drowning?

That, I think is a good analogy of what is going on here. This sheriff is NOT waiting for the laws to change to keep people from possibly dying in the winter cold with nowhere to live.

I am sick to death of a system that absolutely insists on the LETTER of the law with ZERO regard for the SPIRIT of the law.

And the SPIRIT of the law is (or dam' well should be) to protect those who might be blindsided through no fault of their own.

Anyway, RIGHT ON, Sheriff!

[edit on 10/9/2008 by Amaterasu]

reply posted on 9-10-2008 @ 06:01 PM by Artista

This was just on the NBC Nightly News and people interviewed said it was a victory for the little guy.

Did anyone else see it?

[edit on 9-10-2008 by Artista]

reply posted on 9-10-2008 @ 06:44 PM by alphabetaone

reply to post by Artista

Didn't see it, but it clearly IS a victory for the little guy.

AB1

reply posted on 10-10-2008 @ 05:24 AM by Echtelion

Originally posted by amatrine

How can he do that if the bank owns the property?

I can see it helping people, but as to being legal I do not see it.
I think it is up to the renters to see if a property is in trouble before
you rent. If it happens you have a suit against the one who rented to you, but it would be a civil matter.

www.huffingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Well you know I wonder how much you still gonna care about the "legality" of these evictions if you and your family gets evicted by fully armed troops at 6 O'clock in the morning just because some bank has decided they could do this... but given your blind faith in the "Law", you're obviously not one of the poor labor-class people who are mostly concerned by these despotic measures. How "unpatriotic" of you... to give priority to banker's private interests rather than the well-being of Americans, in a place where they are obviously conflicting each other.

As far as I know, no matter who owns these houses, this sheriff is doing nothing else than assuming and upholding his political mandate to protect public interest and the rights of AMERICANS to keep their homes, and thus protecting their freedom and life standards.

Turns out bankers and neocons are doing a far better job at destroying the American way of life than Al Qaeda... so let's "bring the war" home then! The Weather Underground were right after all -and total patriots, as opposed to what it seems- they were a too much at the vanguard... like 40 years too early.

reply posted on 10-10-2008 @ 05:48 AM by Nineteen

reply to post by amatrine

Tom Dart is a truly courageous and decent gentleman as evidenced by his standing up for what is right. A great example to others and definitely a hero to admire.
The economic collapse has been deliberately brought upon the world by the Federal Reserve and their banks as part of an agenda to completely enslave everybody bar they and their cohorts. We need to rid the world of the terrorist banking cartel and take back what they have stolen from the innocents of this planet.

reply posted on 10-10-2008 @ 06:52 AM by irishgrl

reply to post by solomons path

so sorry Daly has been rendered moot, pls see my post earlier in the thread...
(rules against one line posts are stupid in a forum that has maximum character limits)

reply posted on 10-10-2008 @ 11:11 AM by Faerygirl1984

What a small world! I actually grew up in cook county all my life. Too bad cook county is notorious for having outrageous taxes. Borderline counties have big signs on their gas stations saying "no cook county taxes!!" to encourage people to buy from them. Because they are so outrageous. People literally buy most of their necessities outside of cook to save money. So yeah, thats the least they could do for their community.

reply posted on 10-10-2008 @ 11:16 AM by amatrine

reply to post by Echtelion

Obviousley you did not read my following posts. I did not say was against the guy. I just questioned the legality of it.

I think it is great he is helping tenants. Now if he was stopping all foreclosures I would be against it and here is why:

We take on an obligation when we buy a home.
We did not buy when the bubble was high despite all the doom and gloom that
said buy now or be priced out forever. We did not take an arm or buy in that market. When it crashed, we bought a home. We bought one we could afford, not one the bank said we could afford. It is a small home 1200 sf, but its fine for us. It is still loosing value , but so what. I plan on being here a long time.
It would cost me more to rent than my mortgage out here with all the people loosing homes, the rents have skyrocketed . Even if it did not, this is my home, and we can afford it.

I live in Arizona where the crisis hit hard. Now Bush wants to come out with a new plan to help people that bought in this bubble, on arms to get a new mortgage with a fixed rate at current values. So people who bought more than they could afford, and did the things the wrong way see no consequences. So that means if I did things the wrong way, I could have got a house in a better neighborhood, and had the government fix it for me. How nice.

A lot of the foreclosures here are investment properties. Better help them too.
All those that gambled. I did not gable, I bought a home to live in.

Now those that loose their home to jobless I understand. I am not talking about them.

You say I am not working class? How wrong you are. I am disabled from illness. My husband holds down the only job. We have a kid. I lost a house once years ago when we first got married, because we did not read the contract. We lost 20k down payment. It was a mess. But it was our own fault.
I would not have expected anyone to save us.

So in summery, yes help the tenants out. Thats what he is doing, as long as that is all he is doing. When people sign a house contract they do it knowing that the bank will take it if you do not pay. If its legal or not , they sign in knowing that.

Ama

[edit on 10-10-2008 by amatrine]

reply posted on 10-10-2008 @ 01:16 PM by sirbikesalot06

I guess something happen to this guy to make him say no to kicking people out. I believe that this guy is doing the right thing because doing the right thing isn't always following the law, its doing something that takes guts to stand up to what you know is wrong.

I wonder how many more people are just going to say 'no' to other things like this. I don't see a revolution yet, just a change.

reply posted on 10-10-2008 @ 01:36 PM by Constitutional Scholar

reply to post by Amaterasu

Can a person die within minutes after being evicted like they could after tripping into a pool? No.

Ridiculous analogy to say the least.

reply posted on 10-10-2008 @ 01:43 PM by k-string

Guys, you need to realize that foreclosures are a MATHEMATICAL CONSTANT in our monetary system! The amount owed is always GREATER than the amount of money that exists! That means that P / (P + I) is the mathematical number of foreclosures no matter how dutiful everyone is in repaying their debt!

It would by completely against my values to evict someone knowing this! I suspect that many others share those values!

reply posted on 10-10-2008 @ 02:00 PM by StellarX

Originally posted by grimreaper797
Show me where it says a sheriff is allow to interpret the law.

Show me where it says Bush or anyone in the white house should or can and how they managed to invade Iraq? Don't give this nonsense about renegade sheriff's when the president of the United states didn't win the popular or electoral votes in either of the last two elections. In American you apparently get away with what you can and it's not surprising that you would defend the rich and powerful and attack those who are standing up for common decency.

It won't come around, since this house is paid off. If it did, let them try to evict us. If they are trying to illegal boot us, not a chance. The fact is though, the bank has every right to evict a person who doesn't pay their dues.

OK? When is the last time a bank clerk showed up at your house and dragged you out? Do you think they actually have the muscle or the mandate to do that and if so why do they they use state officers to enforce what is 'legal'?

The banks didn't destroy these peoples lives, these people destroyed their own lives by over extending themselves and putting themselves in a spot they can't get out of.

There is a vast difference between overextending yourself ( you don't get something done) and having all the good work and payments you have made count for NOTHING. Will the banks give them back the money they did pay or any of the interest the banks earned by leveraging those dollars 32 to one? I am all for 'evictions' ( in theory) if the proportion that would not be considered a fair amount for rent is repaid to the evicted party along with whatever interest were earned with it above and beyond what that person could have earned with it had they invested it at regular bank interest rates.

Who's fault is it? It is their own.

It's the fault of the system where people who work 8 - 10 hour days are evicted for not being smart enough to understand that bankers have created a perfect storm by which they can reposes physical assets/labor hours after providing empty promises as inducement. Isn't there a good reason why entrapment is illegal?

Maybe this is just easier to understand for generally decent people who don't enjoy living in contrived boom and bust economic system. Maybe your just too vindictive and arrogant to have the empathy that comes as first reaction to the vast majority of the rest of humanity.

Stellar

reply posted on 10-10-2008 @ 02:17 PM by maybereal11

Originally posted by Constitutional Scholar
reply to post by Amaterasu

Can a person die within minutes after being evicted like they could after tripping into a pool? No.

Ridiculous analogy to say the least.

So you are saying the law CAN be disregarded dependent on how long it takes someone to die? And is it just death or would undue suffering of innocent children who are put on the street qualify?

Now who is playing judge and jury?

An unwarranted eviction sets off a whole cascade of events for the evictees and in the end it WILL cost some people there lives.

Also...you never responded to my last post.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Avoiding those points that you can't refute?

[edit on 10-10-2008 by maybereal11]

reply posted on 10-10-2008 @ 02:30 PM by CoffinFeeder

I kind of applaud this guy, tho I'm sure its more like 'we'll get to these warrants when we're good and ready' which might be never. im sure they have better things to do like, oh say.. fight crime?

reply posted on 10-10-2008 @ 02:32 PM by k-string

There is no crime going on more sinister than what the central banks are doing right now. The sherriff is fighting the right guys.