It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Cook County Sheriff Suspends Evictions from Forclosure

page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 02:44 PM
I applaud this sheriff!!!!

He sees what these banks are like and he is refusing to be their pawn and enforce their self serving screw america and the common man rules.

Good to see law enforcement waking up to the fact that they have been used all these years by evil people to do their bidding.

So banks, how you going to evict these people when no sheriff is going to enforce your stupid rules.

Now if we could only get meter maids to develop a conscious.

posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 02:53 PM

Originally posted by fleabit
Who is to blame? Well, the tenants are of course.

Off course. I mean the criminals who create these scams aren't the problem.... Lets rather make cynics of everyone and attempt to make paranoia passe.

There is nothing hidden to them. The interest rates, the second mortage if there is one, the adjustment, the taxes, the upkeep... none of these are a mystery to someone who reads everything, and does their research to know what they are in for.

There is nothing hidden beside the fact that people who steal bread/radio's for various reasons get 5-10 while those predators who walk on two legs and steal entire countries make billions. Sure it makes sense to blame the victims for having succumbed to conspiracies beyond their wildest dreams...
How has it become so normal that we should expect others to want to steal our homes?

As was the case in all the witnesses we listened to, ALL of them could have avoided their fate, had they actually read the agreement, or got further advice before signing the first thing shoved in front of their faces.

Right and having been duped is probably something they would learn from hence resulting in a society filled with people looking over their shoulders... Any chance we can put the financial criminals in blue overalls and have them build bridges and roads and send the drug users, petty thieves to university with their ill gotten goods? Why does our current economic systems keep rewarding major criminals while it destroys the very lives of the gullible/decent, and sometimes corrupt in the basic self interested ways, who could very well be helped? It's a predators paradise i tell you.

And I feel bad for them.. I really do. I felt fairly miserable for all those that came in as witnesses, knowing every one of them were in a very bad spot. But every single one of them did it to themselves. Many didn't read the agreement at all! They just signed where they were told to sign.

So your human and their human. Are you happy to be a cynic who expects the worse and checks the fine print often enough to discover that your right?

I am reminded of a quote ( yes, i had to look it up );

" You may be deceived if you trust too much, but you will live in torment if you do not trust enough. "

Dr Frank Crane

Human beings are not naturally cynics but i suppose the aim of the current economic system is obviously to turn neighbours into strangers, children into suspected criminals and to generally propagate the worse types of thoughts about your fellow citizens. Obviously that can't work very well without state protection for the predators so the state obliges despite the protest of the majority who doesn't see the logic i having to become cynics just to survive.

And even those that do do their research, don't really take into account how much it costs. You should figure half again the mortage, when deciding if you can afford it. And people don't do this.

Not surprising considering the brilliant advice they get from well paid 'experts'. How many people are locked up for giving bad financial advice?

This is not the fault of an institution that loans them money. There is plenty of blame to go around.

This is very much the responsibility and the fault of the party that creates the conditions by which labor and time can be repossed at some future date despite the best efforts of the 'owner' to pay up. IF banks could not reposes i can assure you that there would be no such thing as a 'bad/toxic' loan and you would jump trough flaming hoops to establish your credibility. I mean this is how it used to be when people were still held to their word and it meant something to be a home owner but everything becomes devalued when banks and other financial institutions are allowed to speculate on the backs of hard working citizens who aimed exactly where the government/corporate propaganda set their sights/standards for them.

I'm just saying, those who lose their homes should shoulder their share of the blame as well.

Like the little guy is ever the last to suffer the consequences of his lack of cynicism and or knowledge. Thanks for the advice......

I don't sit well with the entire "all banks are evil and all people are innocent" mantra.

And how could you if your a capitalist? I mean how could a typical capitalist thinker ( especially the twisted modern incarnations of the notion) ever allow himself to consider the possibility that the system is unfair and doesn't reward it's 'competitors' ( like most people think life is a game) fairly? I mean isn't that a good summary of a oxymoron?

Those banks were not very evil to those people when they wanted the loans, where they.

Sure they were? Would you like me to sell you a slow acting poison as 'cure' for cancer problem while having the backing of a legal system that will allow me to on your death to take possession of your house? I mean it's pretty obvious that bankers don't really work hence they have time to cook up all these schemes but for the rest of us who do the work of civilization when are we supposed to get the time to arrive at the conclusion that there are a 'they' that are actually doing all these things?

Aren't we blaming the cows in the pasture for not realising that they are meant to be slaughtered? So what if a few cows figured out the scam ; who would believe them any ways?

In fact, I bet those people would have done or said about anything to get a home.

I am sure some lied ( hel, the bankers get rich that way) but again they actually intended to pay the bills. Isn't it a sad commentary on this economic system that one of the few paths open to 'riches' for the middle class is to invest in real estate? I mean why can't we just get paid decent enough salaries never thus being forced into such long term commitments with institutions that are always looking for a way to exploit us?

In conclusion messengers frequently get shot and while i have sympathy with your empathy for the victims in that case i still wonder why anyone feels compelled to explain why the obvious victims 'deserves' 'hard knocks' for not being more cynical and less trusting. Maybe this is indeed good advice for the world TPTB want to create for us all but frankly i don't think we should help them. We should be trusting and we should be absolutely outraged and vindictive when cheated so as to best ensure that trust is not abused. This is how we initially gained or freedom from oppression and it's very likely the only way we are going to maintain it.


posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 03:01 PM

Originally posted by Constitutional Scholar

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

That really is an assinine statement. There are plenty of people that would love nothing more than to own property, but will never be able to do so, some people just don't make enough money.

posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 03:25 PM
reply to post by Constitutional Scholar

No a property owners rights do not outwiegh the rights of a tenant.

If a tenant's rent is paid up to date the property owner can not just drop by and say i want you to move next week and have them evicted. When a property owner rents out his property he is giving the renter possession of that property, which is why he can not evict them without a court order.

If a property owner desides to sell his property he must notify his renters that the building is up for sale so they have ample time to move. If the property owner knows that he can not pay his mortgage and is about to be foreclosed upon, he is obligated to inform his tenants so they have time to move. If the building is sold even the new owners must give the tenants time to move, they can not just toss them out into the streets.

If the bank forecloses and takes ownership of the building they also should be obligated to abide by these rules. If they do not want to, then they should have the laws changed to say that no home owner is allowed to rent property that they do not own outright, problem solved.

I hope any renter that has paid their rent every month and has not been givin ninety days notice that the property was going to be foreclosed and is subsequently evicted sues the property owner for breach of contract.

posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 04:11 PM

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.

Oh, right. My apologies. Let's fix the analogy. Say it's illegal to get into a pool, and you see someone pushed into the pool by a bully, and that person cannot swim. Would you wait until you got the law changed to jump in and save the drowning person?

Uh...oh. Heh. You are trying to make literal sense out of the analogy. That's what's going on here.

Lessee. Pool law = eviction of tenants on foreclosed property without notice.
Bully pushing = enforcement of law
Victim = Victim
You = Sheriff

And, ya know... It could very well be that the eviction causes death. What if a tenant needs to plug in a medical device daily? What if there's a blizzard? What if all kinds of issues? Point is, it COULD be deadly. I mean, why is "shelter" one of the basic needs?

posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 09:24 AM
reply to post by chise61

Perhaps you and I have different definitions of the word owner.

Unless the mortgage was completely paid in full, the bank is the owner, not the person supposed to be paying the mortgage. If you actually own something, it cannot be taken away from you.

The bank owned the property, if they wanted it back the renters recourse is with their landlord, not the bank.

posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 11:25 AM

Originally posted by Constitutional Scholar

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

I am not certain how you are coming to that conclusion.

Rights under the law, are rights under the law. Property owners do have rights to their property, but tenants have rights as well, and the rights of the property owner were taken into consideration when tenants rights were written. The simple fact of property ownership does not give one the right to trample on the rights of tenants.

Perhaps you could provide some support for your idea that property owners have the right to ignore laws written to protect tenants.

In the case of this sheriff, it does not appear that his refusal to evict tenants is in violation of the law, but rather an attempt to uphold the law.

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan says the Cook County Sheriff is upholding state law with his moratorium on evictions.

Sheriff Tom Dart made national news this week when he announced his deputies would stop evicting people from their homes. The sheriff says many of the people were renters who had no idea their buildings were in foreclosure. Attorney General Madigan says Illinois law requires a tenant get 120 days notice of eviction. She says the sheriff is helping enforce that. Madigan also says Dart is working with the county courts to insure the process takes place.

MADIGAN: People will be required to get the legal notice that they should've gotten before they were thrown out of their homes. It's a good thing that the sheriff is going to work to follow the law.

The only legal challenge so far against Sheriff Dart now has been withdrawn by the lending company. The sheriff's office did not immediately return a call for comment.

Which law is that? Well, it is this one. Outlined here;

On August 26, 2008, Senate Bill 2721 was passed by the Illinois legislature and signed into law by the governor revising provisions of Section 1701 of the Illinois Mortgage Foreclosure Law regarding the eviction of occupants and tenants from the property after completion of the foreclosure. Said revisions became effective immediately.

In a case of foreclosure where the tenant is current on his or her rent, or where timely written notice of to whom and where the rent is to be paid has not been provided to the tenant, or where the tenant has made good-faith efforts to make rental payments in order to keep current, any order of possession must allow the tenant to retain possession of the property covered in his or her rental agreement (i) for 120 days following the notice of the hearing on the supplemental petition that has been properly served upon the tenant, or (ii) through the duration of his or her lease, whichever is shorter. If the tenant has been given timely written notice of to whom and where the rent is to be paid, this item (4) shall only apply if the tenant continues to pay his or her rent in full during the 120-day period or has made good-faith efforts to pay the rent in full during that period. No mortgagee-in possession, receiver or holder of a certificate of sale or deed, or purchaser who fails to file a supplemental petition under this subsection during the pendency of a mortgage foreclosure shall file a forcible entry and detainer action against a tenant of the mortgaged real estate until 90 days after a notice of intent to file such action has been properly served upon the tenant.

So, the sheriff appears to be acting within the law, with the support of his superiors, and for the benefit of his community.

posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 01:47 PM
reply to post by Constitutional Scholar

If that's the way you're looking at it, then like i said before no one should be allowed to legally rent out any property that they do not own outright. Since they are allowed to rent the property then it is assumed that it is theirs to do with as they wish, and in that case the bank is negligent in the fact that they allowed their property to be rented out. If the bank takes possesion of the property they are obligated to inform the tenants of the foreclosure and follow the proper eviction procedure, at least in this state.

As far as nothing can be taken away from you if you actually own it , you are wrong. If you own your home outright, mortgage paid in full, deed in your name and you don't pay your property taxes the government can take your house away from you. I own my vehicle outright, however in Chicago if i have three outstanding parking tickets the city can take my vehicle away from me. There are many instances where your property can be taken from you regardless of whether or not you own it.

posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 02:21 PM
reply to post by chise61

You are correct, which is why I tend to get into arguments when people say they "own their home". Lets be real here, if the government can take your property away by the stroke of a pen, you do not in fact own it. You are merely renting it from the government.

Allodial title is something that needs to be implemented in the U.S.

posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 02:30 PM
Thats why there are problems with imminent domain. If they want it, they will find a way to take it.

posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 06:05 PM
Blackwater Evictions

CHICAGO (AP) – Sources have just confirmed that mortgage loan companies are contracting with Blackwater Worldwide to assist in the eviction of people still living in foreclosed homes.

Okay, so it's satire...for now. How long until it's for real!? Or at least until it's reported as "fact" on GLP. Just asking. Worth the read though.

[edit on 11/10/2008 by kosmicjack]

posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 09:14 PM
Wow, Ok that is going too far. What is next? The government owns the mortgages and sends in the swat teams?


[edit on 11-10-2008 by amatrine]

posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 09:26 PM
reply to post by kosmicjack

I must say it WAS funny satire

God forbid it ever comes to fruition though...


posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 09:47 PM
Oh wow, I did not catch that that was fake! LOL


posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 04:08 PM

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.
(visit the link for the full news article)

It's NOT legal. The local law does not have the power to do this. You can expect this to be overturned and the sherrif to be fired.

posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 12:19 AM
reply to post by norman619

What he's doing is legal, as a matter of fact he is upholding the law here in Illinois. Illinois law says that tenants must be given 120 days notice of eviction.

I seriously doubt that he will be fired, especially since our attorney general is standing behind his decision.

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 11:23 PM
Well, there's really not much to talk about if he's just upholding the law. I think we aren't getting the whole story here. I'm sure he wasn't evicting people early before this suspension.

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 12:36 AM
reply to post by bruxfain

Are you sure you don't mean Magistrates?

posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 10:42 PM
While I applaud the Sheriff for trying to be a human being instead of a barking dog for his masters, I see several problems with this.

1) Banks loaned money for someone to buy a house. What that person did with the house is not a concern to the bank as long as the mortgage payments continue to be made. If the house gets rented out and the landlord does not comply with the law (notify renters of defaulted payments, etc.), then it falls to the renter to pursue action against the landlord, not the bank. The banks may not even know the place is being rented and they don't care, either way.

2) Foreclosed properties are a huge drain on banks and, they may just start hiring arsonists to burn them down and collect the insurance money rather than have squatters living for free in their investment.

3) If the Sheriff remains adamant in his refusal to evict renters from foreclosed homes, he may get the boot and it may be lead-lined while he tries to swim in it. It's not a far-fetched scenario.

4) If the banks can't get law enforcement to enforce their evictions, they will get someone else to do it instead. People who probably aren't as concerned with renters rights.

5) The house could be resold and the new "owners" could legally break down the door and physically toss out anyone they find living there. It could get that ugly.

We cheer now but I foresee a very bad outcome to this "civil disobedience". Still, small victories give us the illusion of hope.

posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 11:13 AM
I got a response to the email I sent Sheriff Dart; here's the reply:

Dear Friend,

I would like to thank you for your email concerning the moratorium on evictions I instituted last week in Cook County, IL. The attention our office received helped to spark awareness of a matter affecting families across America. Here in Cook County, we have been overwhelmed by the effects of predatory mortgages and the resulting economic crisis, and already, the number of foreclosures has hit a record high.

As Cook County Sheriff, I am responsible for running a 10,000-inmate jail, providing patrols to unincorporated areas and securing the courts.

But perhaps no part of our job is as difficult as the work done by our eviction units. On any given day, our deputies could be asked to throw a family out of their home, with all of their possessions left on a curb -- sometimes pilfered through by those living nearby.

On October 8th, I imposed a moratorium on evictions until the banks and mortgage firms agreed to document the residents of a building and to give them proper notification in the incident of foreclosure. This was a drastic move, but I deemed this decision necessary after spending the last year, to no avail, working with the banking industry on other issues concerning foreclosures. At the end of the day, banks see a piece of paper, not a person.

Last week, discussions began between Sheriff’s Office officials and members of the Cook County Circuit Court’s Chancery Division to develop a list of safeguards that would provide tenants with proper notification. I applaud the court’s chancery Division Supervisor, the Honorable Dorothy Kirie Kinnaird, for ordering that necessary steps be taken to safeguard renter’s rights. In Cook County, banks are now required to give the proper 120-day notice before an eviction order will be enforced. For more information of the agreement, please see

Should our deputies again identify patterns of abuse, we will bring it to the attention of the judiciary and I will not hesitate to halt evictions again if necessary. Thank you for your support.


Thomas J. Dart

Cook County Sheriff

Just thought I would pass that along for those interested.


new topics

top topics

<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in